Aussie Pro Rugby

@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.**

@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.**

View embedded content

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.

@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:

@antipodean Yeah, you conveniently only copied and pasted part of the sentence.

The bit that points out the logic flaw.

@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:

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.

Specific performance won't be argued. What will be is damages.

@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:

@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:

@antipodean Yeah, you conveniently only copied and pasted part of the sentence.

The bit that points out the logic flaw.

@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:

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.

Specific performance won't be argued. What will be is damages.

I think the issue was whether Cheika can decide not to pick him. I can't see how that can be challenged in court.

@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:

@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:

@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:

@antipodean Yeah, you conveniently only copied and pasted part of the sentence.

The bit that points out the logic flaw.

@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:

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.

Specific performance won't be argued. What will be is damages.

I think the issue was whether Cheika can decide not to pick him. I can't see how that can be challenged in court.

Let's say he gets reinstated and elects for some odd reason to remain an employee of RA and the Tahs. Cheika can decide not to select him and give all sorts of reasons when asked. Or not give a reason. But a first year moot could easily argue that Cheika's utterances over this issue was the reason. And a court would definitely give leave to argue if Folau's remuneration was dependent on Test selection.

@antipodean I think there is a clear argument in Chiekas favour that having FOlau in his squad would be bad for the team culture, despite the fact he would be one of the first names written down if fit.

Interesting that the much talked about clauses in Folau's contract about social media don't even exist. So they've just got him on a breach of the code of conduct, which people like Cheika breach after basically every game.

It's an interesting legal discussion. The courts generally tend to come down on the side of free speech, so there's every chance they won't accept RA's reasoning for termination. And then there's the complete lack of due process which highlighted the amateur side of RA.

In NZ an example of a contract that is not enforceable is with renting - often property managers like to put a line in the contract that requires the tenant to pay for the carpets to be professionally cleaned when they vacate. They can't actually enforce that even if you signed it because it is not fair and reasonable - a good thing to know if you're renting!

I'll be very interested if Folau contests this in court. I think there's a decent chance RA will just settle to get rid of him to try and appease their hypocritical main sponsor.

@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:

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.

This sums it up for me.

The ARU will lose this (if they are foolish enough not to settle). I thought Folaou was a bit of a goose for posting something which was all downside and no reward - but now he looks awfully smart after the ARU failed to give him due process.

If Izzy was directing his comments at someone specifically or going out of his was to harass an individual he would have a case to answer. But he is voicing his own opinion on his own twitter feed.

If the ARU had a well established and well policed policy of preventing players from commenting on political/social issues they might have a point but as NZZP nailed it the policy is "you can say what you like, as long as you agree with us" and that is dangerous, dangerous territory.