Aussie Pro Rugby
-
A nice bit of background on him from back in the days of good journalism on stuff.
This part in particular was interesting for perspective
In a footballing milieu where bad behaviour is commonplace, Folau remains resolutely uncontroversial. He is as shy as a child, sincere, uncomplicated and deeply religious: he doesn't drink, smoke or swear, and he doesn't have a girlfriend. He is the anti-matter equivalent of NRL bad boy Todd Carney, who was sacked last season after being photographed urinating in his own mouth, following a string of other offences.
-
Billy, for God's sakes just shut up.
-
@Catogrande said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Billy, for God's sakes just shut up.
No keep talking mate , its rwc year .
Has Itoje said anything yet ?
-
@jegga said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Catogrande said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Billy, for God's sakes just shut up.
No keep talking mate , its rwc year .
Has Itoje said anything yet ?
What with you and then @MiketheSnow ”liking” a post about Eddie fucking us up at scrum half, I’m beginning to think you guys are getting wary about England again. That’s quite comforting. Thank you.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
You cut my post in half and took it out of context. I specifically talked about the contract, and how none of us actually know what was written into it.
I suspect the contract thing is the key, but there could be an interesting legal battle about what you can and cannot be contracted to be outside of 'work'. I'm no lawyer, but the tension between freedom of association and religion and how an employer can control this could be an interesting courtroom discussion. I mean, what about joining unions, or joining a white supremacist group, or a gang, or ... well whatever really.
In the end, it wouldn't surprise me if the technical reason for the termination was due to not answering phonecalls (ie not being available), rather than for expressing the beliefs. Either way, due process seems to have been avoided and it may come back to bite the ARU.
we'll see I suppose. Weird to think I may have seen the last game Folau played in Union at Eden Park!
Precisely. Just because both parties agree to a clause doesn't mean it has any force. Just like non-compete clauses; courts have determined those in the narrowest fashion.
Non competes are a bit different as they attempt to make a direction when the employee is no longer employed.
As long as the clause doesn’t contradict Fair Work then it should be fine. I’ve worked for organisations in Oz that have punted staff for code of conduct reasons.
Were any of them expressing their religious beliefs on social media?
The 'how' is not the point, the point was they breached the agreed upon code of conduct. Religion shouldn't be used as a get out of jail free card when a code of conduct or contract is breached.
@rotated said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
You cut my post in half and took it out of context. I specifically talked about the contract, and how none of us actually know what was written into it.
I suspect the contract thing is the key, but there could be an interesting legal battle about what you can and cannot be contracted to be outside of 'work'. I'm no lawyer, but the tension between freedom of association and religion and how an employer can control this could be an interesting courtroom discussion. I mean, what about joining unions, or joining a white supremacist group, or a gang, or ... well whatever really.
In the end, it wouldn't surprise me if the technical reason for the termination was due to not answering phonecalls (ie not being available), rather than for expressing the beliefs. Either way, due process seems to have been avoided and it may come back to bite the ARU.
we'll see I suppose. Weird to think I may have seen the last game Folau played in Union at Eden Park!
Precisely. Just because both parties agree to a clause doesn't mean it has any force. Just like non-compete clauses; courts have determined those in the narrowest fashion.
Non competes are a bit different as they attempt to make a direction when the employee is no longer employed.
As long as the clause doesn’t contradict Fair Work then it should be fine. I’ve worked for organisations in Oz that have punted staff for code of conduct reasons.
Were any of them expressing their religious beliefs on social media?
Did any of them have the financial means and incentive to contest them?
You don't really need financial means to contest unfair dismissal in Oz and I'd assume a payout would be incentive enough for anyone.
-
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Religion shouldn't be used as a get out of jail free card when a code of conduct or contract is breached.
Not too sure it's as simple as that if Folau hasn't broken any law with his comments.
What if a code of conduct or contract prevents someone from expressing his or her religious beliefs? Aren't you discriminating on religious grounds or free speech grounds if you then punish the player for expressing his/her beliefs?
Or does the ARU (for example) refuse contracts to players with certain religious or political views?
-
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
You cut my post in half and took it out of context. I specifically talked about the contract, and how none of us actually know what was written into it.
I suspect the contract thing is the key, but there could be an interesting legal battle about what you can and cannot be contracted to be outside of 'work'. I'm no lawyer, but the tension between freedom of association and religion and how an employer can control this could be an interesting courtroom discussion. I mean, what about joining unions, or joining a white supremacist group, or a gang, or ... well whatever really.
In the end, it wouldn't surprise me if the technical reason for the termination was due to not answering phonecalls (ie not being available), rather than for expressing the beliefs. Either way, due process seems to have been avoided and it may come back to bite the ARU.
we'll see I suppose. Weird to think I may have seen the last game Folau played in Union at Eden Park!
Precisely. Just because both parties agree to a clause doesn't mean it has any force. Just like non-compete clauses; courts have determined those in the narrowest fashion.
Non competes are a bit different as they attempt to make a direction when the employee is no longer employed.
As long as the clause doesn’t contradict Fair Work then it should be fine. I’ve worked for organisations in Oz that have punted staff for code of conduct reasons.
Were any of them expressing their religious beliefs on social media?
The 'how' is not the point, the point was they breached the agreed upon code of conduct.
My point was it doesn't necessarily matter if both parties agreed to that code of conduct.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Religion shouldn't be used as a get out of jail free card when a code of conduct or contract is breached.
Not too sure it's as simple as that if Folau hasn't broken any law with his comments.
What if a code of conduct or contract prevents someone from expressing his or her religious beliefs? Aren't you discriminating on religious grounds or free speech grounds if you then punish the player for expressing his/her beliefs?
Or does the ARU (for example) refuse contracts to players with certain religious or political views?
For that he would have to prove that his religion espouses what he posted and that opens a huge can of worms what with translations/versions etc
-
The fact that RA and the Waratahs went ahead and made a public announcement of their intention to fire him without going through a Code of Conduct hearing could potentially leave the two rugby bodies legally exposed. Indeed, in their seven-paragraph statement RA chief executive Raelene Castle and her NSW counterpart Andrew Hore did not once mention a Code of Conduct hearing and it could be argued that he was being denied due process.
That’s one option. The second option — that RA inserted a social media clause in the $4 million four-year clause it signed with Folau last October that enabled it to sack him when he posted offensive material on Wednesday night — is fraught with even trickier obstacles.
Under the General Contracting section of the CBA, the only additional clauses that can be inserted into a standard player contract are those that are beneficial or potentially beneficial to the player. Certainly any clause that permitted Rugby Australia to sack Folau if he posted comments on social media that were deemed to be divisive or discriminatory would hardly be viewed as being “beneficial”.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter true.
However, while I don't back RA to be overly professional, they wouldn't be moving to terminate unless they had grounds to do so
It's rugby in Sydney. They'll be overloaded with lawyers
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
The fact that RA and the Waratahs went ahead and made a public announcement of their intention to fire him without going through a Code of Conduct hearing could potentially leave the two rugby bodies legally exposed.
maybe that was deliberate...lets show us making a stand against his dumbarsedness, but legally it wont stand up, but we at least took a stance, most people will see this as a positive over the inept decision to make a statement on an employment related issue prior to speaking to the employee.
-
@taniwharugby You certainly have more faith than most people in their ability to construct a good Machiavellian outcome.
-
@antipodean Jamie Pandaram article last night stated no specific clause for social media.
However it is going to be done under the code of conduct / formal warning from last year.
-
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
You cut my post in half and took it out of context. I specifically talked about the contract, and how none of us actually know what was written into it.
I suspect the contract thing is the key, but there could be an interesting legal battle about what you can and cannot be contracted to be outside of 'work'. I'm no lawyer, but the tension between freedom of association and religion and how an employer can control this could be an interesting courtroom discussion. I mean, what about joining unions, or joining a white supremacist group, or a gang, or ... well whatever really.
In the end, it wouldn't surprise me if the technical reason for the termination was due to not answering phonecalls (ie not being available), rather than for expressing the beliefs. Either way, due process seems to have been avoided and it may come back to bite the ARU.
we'll see I suppose. Weird to think I may have seen the last game Folau played in Union at Eden Park!
Precisely. Just because both parties agree to a clause doesn't mean it has any force. Just like non-compete clauses; courts have determined those in the narrowest fashion.
Non competes are a bit different as they attempt to make a direction when the employee is no longer employed.
As long as the clause doesn’t contradict Fair Work then it should be fine. I’ve worked for organisations in Oz that have punted staff for code of conduct reasons.
Were any of them expressing their religious beliefs on social media?
The 'how' is not the point, the point was they breached the agreed upon code of conduct.
My point was it doesn't necessarily matter if both parties agreed to that code of conduct.
That’s a debate about contract enforcement - not religious beliefs.
-
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
You cut my post in half and took it out of context. I specifically talked about the contract, and how none of us actually know what was written into it.
I suspect the contract thing is the key, but there could be an interesting legal battle about what you can and cannot be contracted to be outside of 'work'. I'm no lawyer, but the tension between freedom of association and religion and how an employer can control this could be an interesting courtroom discussion. I mean, what about joining unions, or joining a white supremacist group, or a gang, or ... well whatever really.
In the end, it wouldn't surprise me if the technical reason for the termination was due to not answering phonecalls (ie not being available), rather than for expressing the beliefs. Either way, due process seems to have been avoided and it may come back to bite the ARU.
we'll see I suppose. Weird to think I may have seen the last game Folau played in Union at Eden Park!
Precisely. Just because both parties agree to a clause doesn't mean it has any force. Just like non-compete clauses; courts have determined those in the narrowest fashion.
Non competes are a bit different as they attempt to make a direction when the employee is no longer employed.
As long as the clause doesn’t contradict Fair Work then it should be fine. I’ve worked for organisations in Oz that have punted staff for code of conduct reasons.
Were any of them expressing their religious beliefs on social media?
The 'how' is not the point, the point was they breached the agreed upon code of conduct.
My point was it doesn't necessarily matter if both parties agreed to that code of conduct.
That’s a debate about contract enforcement - not religious beliefs.
I don't see how you're separating them in this instance.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Religion shouldn't be used as a get out of jail free card when a code of conduct or contract is breached.
Not too sure it's as simple as that if Folau hasn't broken any law with his comments.
What if a code of conduct or contract prevents someone from expressing his or her religious beliefs? Aren't you discriminating on religious grounds or free speech grounds if you then punish the player for expressing his/her beliefs?
Or does the ARU (for example) refuse contracts to players with certain religious or political views?
The code of conduct at my work stops me from expressing my beliefs about certain subjects in a public forum. When I signed my contract and the code of conduct I was aware of it and agreed to it.
I think the religious beliefs don’t matter (freedom of speech is an irrelevant red herring in this case) - it’s whether the contract and code are enforceable.
I think one of the issues mudding the waters is any players agreements that exist in Oz rugby.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
You cut my post in half and took it out of context. I specifically talked about the contract, and how none of us actually know what was written into it.
I suspect the contract thing is the key, but there could be an interesting legal battle about what you can and cannot be contracted to be outside of 'work'. I'm no lawyer, but the tension between freedom of association and religion and how an employer can control this could be an interesting courtroom discussion. I mean, what about joining unions, or joining a white supremacist group, or a gang, or ... well whatever really.
In the end, it wouldn't surprise me if the technical reason for the termination was due to not answering phonecalls (ie not being available), rather than for expressing the beliefs. Either way, due process seems to have been avoided and it may come back to bite the ARU.
we'll see I suppose. Weird to think I may have seen the last game Folau played in Union at Eden Park!
Precisely. Just because both parties agree to a clause doesn't mean it has any force. Just like non-compete clauses; courts have determined those in the narrowest fashion.
Non competes are a bit different as they attempt to make a direction when the employee is no longer employed.
As long as the clause doesn’t contradict Fair Work then it should be fine. I’ve worked for organisations in Oz that have punted staff for code of conduct reasons.
Were any of them expressing their religious beliefs on social media?
The 'how' is not the point, the point was they breached the agreed upon code of conduct.
My point was it doesn't necessarily matter if both parties agreed to that code of conduct.
That’s a debate about contract enforcement - not religious beliefs.
I don't see how you're separating them in this instance.
They’re two separate issues. Did Folau break the code of conduct/contract or not. If you feel that he should be allowed break it for religious reasons that’s one thing, however if he does get his contract cut it won’t be because he’s Christian.
-
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
They’re two separate issues. Did Folau break the code of conduct/contract or not.
Ahh, you've linked them there yourself.
As far as I can ascertain the contract between himself and RA is subject to the player agreement. RA inserted a clause about social media and he accepted it. That's the first issue that requires resolution. My point has always been just because two parties agree to a clause doesn't mean it gets to be enforced.
The second is if they're saying they'll progress this as a code of conduct issue, expressing religious beliefs on social media purportedly isn't expressly verboten.
So what do we have? Reports termination of a contract where the specific clause can't exist which makes termination by breach some what contentious. Folau isn't accepting he's out of a job, so termination by agreement is off the table. So repudiation will undoubtedly lead to remedies.
Either way it looks like RA is between a rock and a hard place.
