Aussie Pro Rugby
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'll also point out religion is a protected attribute.
But they wouldn't be firing him because he is a Christian. They'd be firing him because he breached their policy and ignored warnings not to do what he did.
The fact that it was his religion that compelled him to act in that way is irrelevant, under my very limited understanding of contract law.
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'll also point out religion is a protected attribute.
But they wouldn't be firing him because he is a Christian. They'd be firing him because he breached their policy and ignored warnings not to do what he did.
The fact that it was his religion that compelled him to act in that way is irrelevant, under my very limited understanding of contract law.
It's pointless having religion as a protected attribute if you can't exercise it. I'd also say that quoting biblical passages would reasonably come under such a position. I'm also not convinced it discriminates, harasses or bullies.
So we have two competing protected attributes (because RA doesn't give a flying fuck about atheists). I'm more interested in the legal outcome than I am about someone's hurty feelings or Izzy's career.
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'll also point out religion is a protected attribute.
But they wouldn't be firing him because he is a Christian. They'd be firing him because he breached their policy and ignored warnings not to do what he did.
The fact that it was his religion that compelled him to act in that way is irrelevant, under my very limited understanding of contract law.
We're not firing you because you're gay. We're just firing you because you're hanging out with flamboyantly gay people, and our sponsor's don't like it.
We're not firing you because you're in a union. Just because you ignored our reasonable requests not to protest in your own time. Sorry, our sponsor's are capitalists and don't like it. We don't tolerate communists here.
There are real limitations to what you can do to your employees outside work time. Courts may take a dim view of trying to limit religious (or political) speech, even if it is offensive.
-
that he would refrain from posting in a disrespectful way after a similar incident almost a year ago.
If there is no written clause and the gist of the 'agreement' is this then he should be in the clear. It's only peoples interpretation of intention that is causing outrage. His intent could very well be that he loves gays (and everyone else he mentioned) so much that he wants to help them avoid hell, in his mind not warning people would be what is disrespectful.
-
@Rembrandt Cheika coming out and saying he won't pick him is massive. Lawyers will ahve a field day with a lack of due process in that one
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'll also point out religion is a protected attribute.
But they wouldn't be firing him because he is a Christian. They'd be firing him because he breached their policy and ignored warnings not to do what he did.
The fact that it was his religion that compelled him to act in that way is irrelevant, under my very limited understanding of contract law.
It's pointless having religion as a protected attribute if you can't exercise it. I'd also say that quoting biblical passages would reasonably come under such a position. I'm also not convinced it discriminates, harasses or bullies.
So we have two competing protected attributes (because RA doesn't give a flying fuck about atheists). I'm more interested in the legal outcome than I am about someone's hurty feelings or Izzy's career.
He can excercise it, just not in the way he did, while contracted to RA/Waratahs. He can still go to church, baptise people in his backyard, say whatever he likes in a private setting etc etc
Atheism is covered by the freedom of religion. The freedom includes the right not to have a religion.
-
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'll also point out religion is a protected attribute.
But they wouldn't be firing him because he is a Christian. They'd be firing him because he breached their policy and ignored warnings not to do what he did.
The fact that it was his religion that compelled him to act in that way is irrelevant, under my very limited understanding of contract law.
It's pointless having religion as a protected attribute if you can't exercise it. I'd also say that quoting biblical passages would reasonably come under such a position. I'm also not convinced it discriminates, harasses or bullies.
So we have two competing protected attributes (because RA doesn't give a flying fuck about atheists). I'm more interested in the legal outcome than I am about someone's hurty feelings or Izzy's career.
He can excercise it, just not in the way he did, while contracted to RA/Waratahs. He can still go to church, baptise people in his backyard, say whatever he likes in a private setting etc etc
So your position is people can have free exercise of religion as long as they do it the way you tell them they can? So I guess homosexuals can be secretly gay in their own time..?
Atheism is covered by the freedom of religion. The freedom includes the right not to have a religion.
I think you're missing my point.
-
@nzzp said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Rembrandt Cheika coming out and saying he won't pick him is massive. Lawyers will ahve a field day with a lack of due process in that one
Agreed. It presupposes the outcome of the process they're yet to have. For an organisation swimming with lawyers, they seem bereft of good counsel.
-
@nzzp A coach doesn't have to pick a player. All RA have to do is pay his wages if he still has a contract.
If Cheika's reason for not picking Folau is that he is divisive, or his behaviour otherwise negatively impacts the team, that is totally valid. -
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp A coach doesn't have to pick a player. All RA have to do is pay his wages if he still has a contract.
If Cheika's reason for not picking Folau is that he is divisive, or his behaviour otherwise negatively impacts the team, that is totally valid.Agreed. But given the context and timing, you're not going to be able to make the argument that that is your reasoning.
All Chieka had to do was say he can't comment while it's going through the RA process. Don't these clowns get media training?
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I'll also point out religion is a protected attribute.
But they wouldn't be firing him because he is a Christian. They'd be firing him because he breached their policy and ignored warnings not to do what he did.
The fact that it was his religion that compelled him to act in that way is irrelevant, under my very limited understanding of contract law.
It's pointless having religion as a protected attribute if you can't exercise it. I'd also say that quoting biblical passages would reasonably come under such a position. I'm also not convinced it discriminates, harasses or bullies.
So we have two competing protected attributes (because RA doesn't give a flying fuck about atheists). I'm more interested in the legal outcome than I am about someone's hurty feelings or Izzy's career.
He can excercise it, just not in the way he did, while contracted to RA/Waratahs. He can still go to church, baptise people in his backyard, say whatever he likes in a private setting etc etc
So your position is people can have free exercise of religion as long as they do it the way you tell them they can? So I guess homosexuals can be secretly gay in their own time..?
Atheism is covered by the freedom of religion. The freedom includes the right not to have a religion.
I think you're missing my point.
No, the other way around. You can have free exercise of religion, as long as you don't do it in a way that you can't (by law or by agreement - it doesn't have to be a written contract. Verbal agreements are usually legally binding as well).
-
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Verbal agreements are usually legally binding as well).
The quote is 'verbal agreements aren't worth the paper they are written on'.
And again - contract clauses that are manifestly unfair or breach human rights may be unenforceable. Also, there may not even be a contact clause ... which would be an interesting omission on the part of RA
-
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
You can have free exercise of religion, as long as you don't do it in a way that you can't
I just want you to read that to yourself, slowly.
-
@antipodean you not seen Chieka front media before?
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp A coach doesn't have to pick a player. All RA have to do is pay his wages if he still has a contract.
If Cheika's reason for not picking Folau is that he is divisive, or his behaviour otherwise negatively impacts the team, that is totally valid.Agreed. But given the context and timing, you're not going to be able to make the argument that that is your reasoning.
All Chieka had to do was say he can't comment while it's going through the RA process. Don't these clowns get media training?
Wouldn't make much difference to Krusty if he did. Wouldn't want to be a door in his house at the moment.
-
@antipodean Yeah, you conveniently only copied and pasted part of the sentence.
-
@nzzp said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Rembrandt Cheika coming out and saying he won't pick him is massive. Lawyers will ahve a field day with a lack of due process in that one
Why? Surely the same as Cheika saying he won't pick a player because he isn't a great defender. The coach can do whatever he wants, and it has nothing to do with Israel's contractual status.
Plus RA have already said point blank they intend to tear up his contract. It's not like Cheika's comments aren't in line with that stated intention.
Having Cheika and Hooper front the media was a savvy move on RA's part, to dispel any story about a split between RA and the players or coaches. Now they look united and strong, in the eyes of the public at very least.
-
Has there been any talk about how other PI players are reacting to this? I wouldn't imagine they would want to risk their livelihoods (and they probably rank rugby over religion anyway) but if enough of them got together to support Folua that could cause more than a few problems.
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Rembrandt Cheika coming out and saying he won't pick him is massive. Lawyers will ahve a field day with a lack of due process in that one
Why? Surely the same as Cheika saying he won't pick a player because he isn't a great defender. The coach can do whatever he wants, and it has nothing to do with Israel's contractual status.
Plus RA have already said point blank they intend to tear up his contract. It's not like Cheika's comments aren't in line with that stated intention.
Having Cheika and Hooper front the media was a savvy move on RA's part, to dispel any story about a split between RA and the players or coaches. Now they look united and strong, in the eyes of the public at very least.
I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is due process is critical. Basically you have a right to a fair hearing, without a predetermined outcome. RA saying they intend to terminate unless they hear from Folau was one thing, but Cheika has doubled down on that.
SO I went to Google as I don't know Aussie law at all, and found the article below. The third paragraph is the key. As I understand it, having yoru employer come out and say they're going to sack you before they have the disciplinary hearing is a license to print money. But then, I guess we'll find out soon ...
This occurred recently in F v Bunnings Group Ltd, t/a Bunnings [2014], (Bunnings) where the employer had a valid reason for dismissing an employee after a brawling incident, however the dismissal was considered to be harsh, unjust and unreasonable because the investigation and disciplinary procedure was not appropriately conducted.
In cases like this, terminations are found to be unfair on the basis that the employee has not been given procedural fairness. There may have been no paper trial or documentation or the employee was not notified of the reason why their employment may be terminated or not provided with an opportunity to respond to their actions or to rectify their behaviour.
Employers have learnt, often at great cost to their business, that procedural fairness, also known as natural justice or due process, is generally just as important as having a valid reason for termination.**
https://www.dundaslawyers.com.au/why-employers-must-follow-process/
-
@nzzp said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Rembrandt Cheika coming out and saying he won't pick him is massive. Lawyers will ahve a field day with a lack of due process in that one
Why? Surely the same as Cheika saying he won't pick a player because he isn't a great defender. The coach can do whatever he wants, and it has nothing to do with Israel's contractual status.
Plus RA have already said point blank they intend to tear up his contract. It's not like Cheika's comments aren't in line with that stated intention.
Having Cheika and Hooper front the media was a savvy move on RA's part, to dispel any story about a split between RA and the players or coaches. Now they look united and strong, in the eyes of the public at very least.
I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is due process is critical. Basically you have a right to a fair hearing, without a predetermined outcome. RA saying they intend to terminate unless they hear from Folau was one thing, but Cheika has doubled down on that.
SO I went to Google as I don't know Aussie law at all, and found the article below. The third paragraph is the key. As I understand it, having yoru employer come out and say they're going to sack you before they have the disciplinary hearing is a license to print money. But then, I guess we'll find out soon ...
This occurred recently in F v Bunnings Group Ltd, t/a Bunnings [2014], (Bunnings) where the employer had a valid reason for dismissing an employee after a brawling incident, however the dismissal was considered to be harsh, unjust and unreasonable because the investigation and disciplinary procedure was not appropriately conducted.
In cases like this, terminations are found to be unfair on the basis that the employee has not been given procedural fairness. There may have been no paper trial or documentation or the employee was not notified of the reason why their employment may be terminated or not provided with an opportunity to respond to their actions or to rectify their behaviour.
Employers have learnt, often at great cost to their business, that procedural fairness, also known as natural justice or due process, is generally just as important as having a valid reason for termination.**
https://www.dundaslawyers.com.au/why-employers-must-follow-process/
I recall during the Super League war that the ARL refused to select SL aligned players even though a court ruled they had to be taken into consideration. There were no consequences then and I very much doubt that Folau can expect selection in any side or use the law to get selected.
