Israel Folau - Breach of contract or right to free speech?

[moXJO]

I will agree with VC to a degree .His opinion is a finger on the pulse reflection of where society is at to the minute. Similarly "go woke go broke" may be AR undoing.

 

[rederob]

An unlawful termination claim attracts a reverse onus of proof.
This means that once an employee (or an industrial association entitled to represent the employee) makes a claim that the employee was terminated for one or more unlawful reasons, the employer will have to show that the termination was not for one of these reasons.

Folau is seeking funding to fight his case in a higher court as the process with the FWC is not expensive.
RA will show that Folau was terminated for a breach of the Players" Code of Conduct, and this does not involve knowledge or otherwise of Folau's religion. Effectively, at the FWC stage, RA has no real case to answer but, yes, it is required by law to respond.
To be clear at this point, here is what Folau is suggesting as the relevant part of the Act relating to his unlawful termination:

• race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer’s responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin

Effectively the FWC process is a "no contest" as it does not provide scope to draw in Folau's contention that he has a right to express his religious views in any manner he chooses, and without consequences.

 

[wayneL]

Can somebody please cite the *full code of conduct? It would be interesting if CoC is being selectively enforced, or not.

 

[Dark Knight 2.0]

Effectively the FWC process is a "no contest" as it does not provide scope to draw in Folau's contention that he has a right to express his religious views in any manner he chooses, and without consequences.

Wow - a "no contest" you reckon. Don't think anyone (RA or Folau) believes that. If that's true, a no contest, it won't get to the Federal Court even.

Back to you Mo

 

[rederob]

Wow - a "no contest" you reckon. Don't think anyone (RA or Folau) believes that.

RA would not have terminated Folau's employment without being on solid grounds, knowing full well the prospect of any counterclaim and costs.

 

[Dark Knight 2.0]

RA would not have terminated Folau's employment without being on solid grounds, knowing full well the prospect of any counterclaim and costs.

RA offered Folau $1,000,000 to settle. If they were that sure of winning they wouldn't have done that considering RA poor financial position apparently.

 

[IFocus]

Isn't Qantas a major sponsor?

Agree with VC to me its about money little to do about the other issues raised.

 

[IFocus]

RA offered Folau $1,000,000 to settle. If they were that sure of winning they wouldn't have done that considering RA poor financial position apparently.

Could be to limit the fall out, clearly Folau has a big following RA will get hammered now no matter which way this goes.

 

[moXJO]

Folau is seeking funding to fight his case in a higher court as the process with the FWC is not expensive.
RA will show that Folau was terminated for a breach of the Players" Code of Conduct, and this does not involve knowledge or otherwise of Folau's religion. Effectively, at the FWC stage, RA has no real case to answer but, yes, it is required by law to respond.
To be clear at this point, here is what Folau is suggesting as the relevant part of the Act relating to his unlawful termination:

• race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer’s responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin

Effectively the FWC process is a "no contest" as it does not provide scope to draw in Folau's contention that he has a right to express his religious views in any manner he chooses, and without consequences.

The laws were changed
Fair work applies this law to my knowledge in the Federal Circuit Court with reverse onus of proof. And it was created to stop employers using loopholes with evidence. Its not just for fwa hearings. Section 772 is different from a section 351 and the most likely route he is going.

As for the court case, they will argue for years over definitions. Even seasoned lawyers are not sure how its going to play out.

His father is a pastor who now wants to make a statement. Might go some way to explain Folau's position. His brother also quit over it all. This is personal it ain't about the money.

 

[wayneL]

Could be to limit the fall out, clearly Folau has a big following RA will get hammered now no matter which way this goes.

My earlier point exactly. If the premise is that Izzy damaged RA name, they've magnified that tenfold by being pious gender warrior twats.

 

[Value Hunter]

I honestly think Rugby Australia legally speaking does not have a leg to stand on. Hopefully Israel Folau bankrupts them. The workplace laws are very clear that an employee cannot be dismissed due to expressing their religious beliefs. It is very clear he expressed his religious beliefs and then was sacked for the statement he made (which is a religious belief). It is irrelevant what is contained in the contract he signed, because any part of a contract that does not conform to the law is invalid.

 

[Smurf1976]

Using social media is completely different to engaging with the media.

For pretty much any substantial employer they'll have a policy which states that for the purposes of their media policy this includes social and all other media or alternatively they'll have a separate social media policy which says much the same thing anyway.

Very often that's the media policy they've had for years and someone simply added the words "(including social media)" in the appropriate place. Can't post anything about the business or its activities on social media.

What I find most intriguing about all this is that, and I'm referring more to society overall here than to this thread, it's those to the political "Left" defending RA and yet they're the ones with the most to lose from the broader concept.

I wonder what the view of these people would be if employers started cracking down on employees making political comment that isn't in the interests of the business?

So no posting on social media about anything that's sympathetic toward unions or which portrays Labor or Greens positively but if you want to hand out "How to vote Liberal" instructions then sure, go for it. There would be no shortage of business owners with that view politically but, thankfully, thus far at least they don't interfere with what employees do in their own time and which has nothing to do with the business.

I expect the same people happy to see Folau silenced would suddenly become outraged at the denial of free speech.

Not that they'd be denied free speech of course. Being unemployed will give them plenty of time to say all they like. That's their own argument after all.

It's a slippery slope and much as I dislike Folau's comments I'm far more alarmed at the notion that someone is able to attempt to silence others' political or religious views via termination of employment in a situation where their employment is in no way related to the view being expressed.

If he'd commented about the game, his employer, other players or suggested that people would be better off watching some other sport then sure, that would clearly be out of line and reasonable grounds for termination. His employer isn't in the business of religion however and he's simply quoted verbatim a section of a very widely available religious text.

That's a text so widely available it's used in parliament, in court and is commonly the only book supplied in a hotel room. It would be one of, perhaps the, best selling books of all time.

If the content of the Bible is evil and not acceptable well then that's an argument for banning the Bible not for sacking a rugby player for quoting it online surely.

 

[Macquack]

There is plenty of other places for him to be employed, where he could use his football skills, he could coach teams after school.

Hell heaps of guys switch between union and league even.

Folau started off as a rugby league player for the Melbourne Storm. He code switched to the AFL to collect more cash, and then code switched again to rugby union to collect even more cash. The guy can sniff out a dollar as proven by his disgraceful GoFundMe enterprise.

 

[StockyGuy]

Folau started off as a rugby league player for the Melbourne Storm. He code switched to the AFL to collect more cash, and then code switched again to rugby union to collect even more cash. The guy can sniff out a dollar as proven by his disgraceful GoFundMe enterprise.

Yes, it's a timely reminder that he's been more mercenary than the average. I know it's not "relevant" but it again makes ya wonder why so many average punters are forking out for his crusade. Presumably if he was so sincere he would've been sacked a lot earlier - but he apparently held off until he had made pretty good bank. https://7news.com.au/sport/rugby-un...donations-despite-7m-property-empire-c-179229

However it draws attention to another issue - it just isn't fair and reasonable that it costs SO much for legal representation (although he does mention that he's got an elite team on standby, he's not going to be skimping on costs in that regard - no Lionel Hutzs (for those who grew up with Simpsons)). So many issues in this one! I wonder how he'd be going if he'd gone full Westboro Baptist Church-style in his social media...

 

[rederob]

The workplace laws are very clear that an employee cannot be dismissed due to expressing their religious beliefs

There are anti-discrimination laws which protect workplace colleagues from homophobia, and other protections from bullying and harassment, so it is fundamentally incorrect to say it's always ok to express religious views without consequences.

It is very clear he expressed his religious beliefs and then was sacked for the statement he made (which is a religious belief).

This point has been raised here many times and is a FALSE claim. Had Folau been an atheist and made similarly disrespectful claims using social media then RA could have taken the same action. If Folau had posted in inappropriate photo using social media, the outcome would be the same.
RA has a right and obligation to enforce its code of conduct and it did that.

It is irrelevant what is contained in the contract he signed, because any part of a contract that does not conform to the law is invalid.

Then see my points about the code of conduct and explain what is unlawful.

 

[rederob]

For pretty much any substantial employer they'll have a policy which states that for the purposes of their media policy this includes social and all other media or alternatively they'll have a separate social media policy which says much the same thing anyway.

Except that is not the distinction required.
To "engage" with the media is, definitionally, a deliberate interaction which has a potential outcome of having your words and information used by that media outlet to amplify your "story" - or, in the vernacular, "give it legs." You have no control of the process after engagement.
"Using" social media requires only the use of a carrier service to spread your message, story, or information. To the extent your use of a carrier service is lawful, you are in control.

His employer isn't in the business of religion however and he's simply quoted verbatim a section of a very widely available religious text.

So what?
His employer has a social media policy. Folau undertook to use social media in an appropriate manner, if he were to use it at all. Folua had been advised previously about what was not appropriate in terms of that policy and seems to have deliberately ignored it.

 

[SirRumpole]

It's a slippery slope and much as I dislike Folau's comments I'm far more alarmed at the notion that someone is able to attempt to silence others' political or religious views via termination of employment in a situation where their employment is in no way related to the view being expressed.

In a nutshell.

 

[PZ.]

Folau started off as a rugby league player for the Melbourne Storm. He code switched to the AFL to collect more cash, and then code switched again to rugby union to collect even more cash. The guy can sniff out a dollar as proven by his disgraceful GoFundMe enterprise.

Good call. Maybe he should donate that money to the Mascot Tower victims.

Wouldn't want his religious supporters falling through the cracks

 

[SirRumpole]

Had Folau been an atheist and made similarly disrespectful claims using social media then RA could have taken the same action.

Could have yes, but there is no obligation on them to do so.

In fact they would not take action against a player whose view agreed with their own group think.

 

[Dark Knight 2.0]

Folau started off as a rugby league player for the Melbourne Storm. He code switched to the AFL to collect more cash, and then code switched again to rugby union to collect even more cash. The guy can sniff out a dollar as proven by his disgraceful GoFundMe enterprise.

No no no. Moving from a game Rugby League he grew up with and to a game he was never going to reach an elite level at meant he wouldn't reach elite pay levels in Aussie Rules.



Imagine if BP, Caltex etc sponsored R.A. No posting about Global warming if you played for R.A. @rederob