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

[moXJO]

Yes, because in Folau's case, he signed a contract which included those conditions, and they were lawful.
Again, why repeat your points without understanding the context?

This isn't true to this moment and will be decided in court.

 

[rederob]

Well that is what the courts are there for, obviously someone was worried, to force the withdrawl of funding.

He is going the the Fair Work Commission, not the courts.
As to GoFundMe, I previously quoted why they had the discretion to withdraw their site from use.

 

[wayneL]

He is going the the Fair Work Commission, not the courts.
As to GoFundMe, I previously quoted why they had the discretion to withdraw their site from use.

*wonders why Sarah Hansen Young's Gofundalefty wasn't taken down... Hmmmm

 

[rederob]

This isn't true to this moment and will be decided in court.

If it were not true, then it would be an open and shut case and Folau would still be playing. That is, he would immediately have taken his case to court, and not the FWC.
We are going over the same ground.
If you believe I am wrong, state the applicable law and show why RA's actions were unlawful.
All this thread has done is dig over well trodden ground, and keep digging.

 

[moXJO]

I previously quoted why they had the discretion to withdraw their site from use.

Only that he was not defending himself. RA was defending against an unlawful dismissal case. So he didn't break site rules by quoting the bible.

But 'go fund me' can choose who they do business with.

 

[sptrawler]

He is going the the Fair Work Commission, not the courts.
As to GoFundMe, I previously quoted why they had the discretion to withdraw their site from use.

Well I suppose if the parties aren't happy with the outcome, it will end up in the courts anyway, which is probably where it should be dealt with.IMO

With regard Go Fund Me, if it can be proven they worked in a prejudicial way, or it could be considered a restrictive trade practice, that could be tested also. All really interesting, you might get called up to give evidence.

 

[moXJO]

If it were not true, then it would be an open and shut case and Folau would still be playing. That is, he would immediately have taken his case to court, and not the FWC.
We are going over the same ground.
If you believe I am wrong, state the applicable law and show why RA's actions were unlawful.
All this thread has done is dig over well trodden ground, and keep digging.

I already linked articles and section 772. And that he is fighting it on those grounds. You were the one who thought it was already in court now you're trying to backtrack.

My thoughts are that this is a test case and I don't know who will win. They will clarify definitions and meanings behind.

 

[Smurf1976]

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.

Read the actual policy of most large businesses or government departments.

In short - me posting on ASF is exactly the same as me being interviewed on ABC radio or contacting a journalist at the Australian so far as they're concerned and the same or very similar rules apply. No commending about the business, its activities or other staff including management or major shareholders.

What you're reading right now constitutes me engaging with the media so far as rather a lot of employers are concerned. Note that it's being posted on a privately owned device in my time.

To the extent that there is a difference, well one would rationally expect less rules about social media than traditional media due to the smaller audience. However many people read this, it's going to be considerably fewer than the number who'd read it if it were published in the Age or was covered by any major TV network.

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.

The issue is about the employer exercising control over an employee in regard to matters having nothing to do with with the employer's business, its activities, management and so on and whether or not that is reasonable.

The precedent is where the danger lies. There's no shortage of businesses who'd be more than happy to make sure their staff don't in any way promote all sorts of things, unions and the "Left" side of politics in general being the obvious example.

Now, is it reasonable that employers effectively gag their employees outside of working hours from expressing a view that, for example, Labor has good policies, that climate change is a serious threat or that governments should increase funding to public hospitals?

Should you only be allowed to express your employer's view which is the opposite of your own?

My view is that a business has perfectly reasonable grounds for requiring that its employees don't publicly discuss the business, its products, management and so on but it's very different when it comes to completely unrelated matters having nothing to do with the business and expressed as a private view outside of working hours.

 

[rederob]

In short - me posting on ASF is exactly the same as me being interviewed on ABC radio or contacting a journalist at the Australian so far as they're concerned and the same or very similar rules apply.

Not true - and I explained why.
You would be contractually forbidden to engage the media, whereas no specific restraint is placed on what you post at ASF.

 

[rederob]

The issue is about the employer exercising control over an employee in regard to matters having nothing to do with with the employer's business, its activities, management and so on and whether or not that is reasonable.

Why is everyone repeating old ground.
So you are saying that an employer has no right to protect their brand. In this case, specifically from a person who reflects the brand more than any other, and who also has entered into a contractual undertaking to not damage the brand.
I think that is naive.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

They should just give him his job back and tell him to stop being a cockhead. A common sense ruling.

 

[wayneL]

Why is everyone repeating old ground.
So you are saying that an employer has no right to protect their brand. In this case, specifically from a person who reflects the brand more than any other, and who also has entered into a contractual undertaking to not damage the brand.
I think that is naive.

How many ways does it have to shown that Issy in no way damaged their "brand"?

How many ways does it have to be pointed out that RA is shooting themselves in the foot and damaging their own brand in ways more profound than Issy ever could?

 

[sptrawler]

Why is everyone repeating old ground.
So you are saying that an employer has no right to protect their brand. In this case, specifically from a person who reflects the brand more than any other, and who also has entered into a contractual undertaking to not damage the brand.
I think that is naive.

I think what is naive, is terminating someones highly paid job, over the issue.
A fine, a suspension, maybe, to sack someone is taking it to a whole new level. IMO
That is of course, unless he was representing something like the Sydney mardi gras, then you could understand he may be sacked for what he said.lol

A lot of the general public, could have thought people brought the media into disripute, over the Margaret Court debacle. But the signalers can say what they like, god help anyone in their way. IMO

But it may well be the silent section, that said nothing, and now are prepared to back Folau who knows.
But the election certainly showed, a lot of people aren't in step with the media, when it comes to taking sides on the morality of issues.

 

[moXJO]

Why is everyone repeating old ground.
So you are saying that an employer has no right to protect their brand. In this case, specifically from a person who reflects the brand more than any other, and who also has entered into a contractual undertaking to not damage the brand.
I think that is naive.

He quoted a bible passage. He did not solely target homosexuals. They fired him because of what the passage from the bible said. They also did not understand the passage or Folau's intent. Other people interpreted to be "I hate gays".

RA damaged its brand amongst every Christian by firing him. They then tried to misinterpret what he said in the press releases.

 

[Smurf1976]

Why is everyone repeating old ground.
So you are saying that an employer has no right to protect their brand. In this case, specifically from a person who reflects the brand more than any other, and who also has entered into a contractual undertaking to not damage the brand.
I think that is naive.

Of course an employer has a right to protect their brand.

Whether or not they have the right to sack someone for making comments as a private individual, comments which were simply a direct quote from a very widely known and readily available book, which have nothing to do with the business is the question.

If the answer is "yes" well then that would seem to shut down rather a lot of public debate.

Assuming you're an employee of somewhere, what if your employer supports Folau either on principle (freedom of expression basis) or because they actually agree with his religious views? Should they be entitled to sack you for expressing a different opinion online?

 

[rederob]

He quoted a bible passage. He did not solely target homosexuals. They fired him because of what the passage from the bible said. They also did not understand the passage or Folau's intent. Other people interpreted to be "I hate gays".

I could post the very same Bible passage, and I am not religious.
If I were the same poster boy, but without religion, then RA could take the very same action.
So for the umpteenth time, it's his inappropriate use of social media that got him into trouble.

 

[rederob]

Of course an employer has a right to protect their brand.
Whether or not they have the right to sack someone for making comments as a private individual, comments which were simply a direct quote from a very widely known and readily available book, which have nothing to do with the business is the question.

This is getting tedious - RA places specific contractual obligations on players - clearly stated as applying on and off the field - and these were breached.
Breach a contract and suffer the consequences.
Disagree with the consequences by showing they were unlawful.

 

[moXJO]

I could post the very same Bible passage, and I am not religious.
If I were the same poster boy, but without religion, then RA could take the very same action.
So for the umpteenth time, it's his inappropriate use of social media that got him into trouble.

Religion is protected for the umpteenth +1 time. His social media feeds are testimony to the fact that he is deeply religious, his father has a church and he has form. If you posted it as a one off then you would get the ar$e because there isnt any evidence.

 

[rederob]

Religion is protected for the umpteenth +1 time. His social media feeds are testimony to the fact that he is deeply religious, his father has a church and he has form.

His religion is not in question - RA has made that point - groundhog day all over again.

 

[sptrawler]

This is getting tedious - RA places specific contractual obligations on players - clearly stated as applying on and off the field - and these were breached.
Breach a contract and suffer the consequences.
Disagree with the consequences by showing they were unlawful.

I think R.A will be rueing the day, they had this rush of blood to the head, I would guess there has been some sleepless nights in H.Q.