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

[SirRumpole]

You have never yet shown a grasp of what is at play here.
What I posted would be quite acceptable as it would be based on a person's religious beliefs no matter how vile.
That appears to be what you think "snowflakes" might be concerned about. Yet when I put the shoe on the foot, you don't want to wear it. No hypocrisy eh?

I've no idea what you are talking about, and I don't think you do either.

Extreme religious views would not be tolerated by a persons workmates and the word would go out that they were unacceptable.

It's society in general that provides judgement on people's opinions but as long as a person does his job to the required standard, it's not a matter for the employer to sack them.

 

[Dark Knight 2.0]

They'll re-write the Legislation to get rid of absurdities, they always do.

Some Law expert claims Folau only needs $300,000 for legal fees. Over $1,500,000 already raised. Spoken for donations webpage says they'll give left over money to charity, "and it'll be charity promoting religous freedoms".
That's not a charity is it.

 

[rederob]

They'll re-write the Legislation to get rid of absurdities, they always do.

It will be impossible to exclude what is written in religious works - without proscribing them - and that is all that Folau is claiming, as I understand it.

 

[rederob]

Extreme religious views would not be tolerated by a persons workmates and the word would go out that they were unacceptable.

You are forgetting that religious freedoms will allow them.
You also seem to overlook the fact that Folau's post has been regarded by many as offensive.
You appear to be happy to wave away what you don't find to be a problem.

... as long as a person does his job to the required standard, it's not a matter for the employer to sack them.

That required standard in Folau's case included abiding by a very clear written code of conduct ON AND OFF THE FIELD.
But you just will not accept that, will you?

 

[SirRumpole]

That required standard in Folau's case included abiding by a very clear written code of conduct ON AND OFF THE FIELD.
But you just will not accept that, will you?

No I won't because that code of conduct diminishes the right of an individual to free speech, a right we should all fight our hardest to protect instead of knocking it down like you are intent on doing.

Once again, employee conduct that does not interfere with an employee's ability to do their job is no business of an employer.

Employers have no right to control their employees private lives.

Unless you can understand that then I'm afraid we will never agree on this issue.

And former Human Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs agrees with me.

https://www.abc.net.au/radionationa...folau-should-have-freedom-to-express/11246058

 

[IFocus]

Haha good to see you boys still slogging it out.......


A balanced piece from the ABC as you would expect

Interesting religious organisations can deny employment based on religious belief where as anyone else cannot.


The Israel Folau crowdfunding saga is not about freedom of religion"


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06...free-speech-simon-longstaff-analysis/11245082

 

[SirRumpole]

Haha good to see you boys still slogging it out.......

Yes, thanks to Joe for building us a nice little sand box.

 

[rederob]

No I won't because that code of conduct diminishes the right of an individual to free speech, a right we should all fight our hardest to protect instead of knocking it down like you are intent on doing.

Yet you say exactly this: "Extreme religious views would not be tolerated by a persons workmates and the word would go out that they were unacceptable."
Which is it?

Once again, employee conduct that does not interfere with an employee's ability to do their job is no business of an employer.

You are correct. Except you have ignored the employer's rights, and you cannot see that you have despite pages of posts.

 

[moXJO]

I do not consider it relevant.
But here's the thing:
Imagine this idea of Folau's were found to be lawful.
You go to work and the walls are plastered with religious commentary of the worst kind, from any and every religion. The new "freedoms" allow this to be so. Workers are offended but employers can do nothing.
That's not a world I find acceptable.

My thoughts of how it could be used are:

that it shows his post was not negative in the sense of "homosexuals are going to hell", but was a message of concern to get people into heaven.

He has previously taken action against discrimination. Specifically supporting homosexuals.

It would have to give his post some weight.


It's possible someone may "plaster the walls". But I don't think it would pass the 'workplace laws' sniff test even if Folau wins.
Folau still has to show his message was not used to discriminate against. There are a few overlapping laws here.

I'm wondering if it will go to settlement instead.

 

[SirRumpole]

You are correct. Except you have ignored the employer's rights, and you cannot see that you have despite pages of posts.

Employers rights are concerned with an employee's behaviour ON THE JOB, not in their private lives.

 

[IFocus]

Employers rights are concerned with an employee's behaviour ON THE JOB, not in their private lives.

On the job wont apply here as Folau was part of the brand which is social media driven and written into his contract. Basically any time Folau used social media he was on the job.

BTW Folau was fully aware of this.

 

[Logique]

ACL has so far raised $1.7Mill.

Raelene Castle - CEO of Rugby Australia - needs to resign. This matter has been abominably handled. What would have been wrong with Issie's social media post just going through to the keeper. Nobody would have noticed! Ms Castle has damaged the reputation of Australia rugby.

Qantas - needs to withdraw it's sponsorship of Rugby Australia. This would allow Mr Joyce to focus on running the airline, as opposed to self-appointed arbiter of social mores.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...ss-backs-action-on-folau-20190509-p51lnv.html SMH, 9 May 2019:
.. Joyce, the head of RA’s major sponsor Qantas, weighed into the scandal for the first time, telling the Australian Financial Review he was "quite happy" with the action against the 73-Test fullback...

 

[SirRumpole]

On the job wont apply here as Folau was part of the brand which is social media driven and written into his contract. Basically any time Folau used social media he was on the job.

BTW Folau was fully aware of this.

Doesn't matter to me, there has to be a demarcation between employer time and employee time that a contract can't override.

We'll see what the courts say.

 

[rederob]

that it shows his post was not negative in the sense of "homosexuals are going to hell", but was a message of concern to get people into heaven.

My view is that Folau's case falls down on how he went about his post, rather than the religiosity. The very nature of the construction of his post as a warning immediately put those affected by its content into disrepute.

It's possible someone may "plaster the walls". But I don't think it would pass the 'workplace laws' sniff test even if Folau wins.

This is the slippery slope that would be opened. There's some pretty nasty stuff in religious texts and if workers post it verbatim then they would be protected. The crazy thing here is that workers who felt consistently disrespected by the material would have to appeal to the courts for a remedy as their employers would rightfully claim their hands were tied.
Separately, Gillian Trigg's argument is about "proportionality," and this is one I fully agree with as I do not believe termination was the smartest first choice. There are, however, several legal flies in her ointment. The first is that to post what Folau did had no religious prerequisite. The second is that it is necessary to consider the manner in which information is presented. "Please hand me your money" looks and feels very different when you are staring into the barrel of a gun.

 

[IFocus]

Doesn't matter to me, there has to be a demarcation between employer time and employee time that a contract can't override.

We'll see what the courts say.

Totally agree re demarcation between employer time and employee time, however that applies to mere mortals, in the age of superstar athletes being paid ridiculous amounts of money their private lives become part of their earnings stream.

 

[sptrawler]

My view is that Folau's case falls down on how he went about his post, rather than the religiosity. The very nature of the construction of his post as a warning immediately put those affected by its content into disrepute.
.

If he had named names, I would agree with you, what he did was make a generalisation and included a religious chant.

 

[sptrawler]

The CEO of the Australian Christian Lobby said this morning that there were approximately 15,000 donors at a average donation of roughly $100. 15,000 cashed up christians supporting Folau is hardly the opening of the floodgates of support.

Definitely not, when you compare it to the donations R.A will use from its members and kids clubs etc.
All that has been achieved is R.A, has made an absolute balls up, from which there will be no winners.

 

[moXJO]

My view is that Folau's case falls down on how he went about his post, rather than the religiosity. The very nature of the construction of his post as a warning immediately put those affected by its content into disrepute.

Yeah, I'm unsure how it will go.

 

[moXJO]

Totally agree re demarcation between employer time and employee time, however that applies to mere mortals, in the age of superstar athletes being paid ridiculous amounts of money their private lives become part of their earnings stream.

Given Christians make up a large portion of the world and the subsequent backlash. I'm not sure RA really made best use of the situation.

Raelene Castle has damaged the brand possibly to the point of bankruptcy. The damage RA has done in handling the situation far outweighs what Folau posted.

 

[Smurf1976]

That's not a good example for a lot of reasons.
But mostly because it completely lacks relevance.

If it’s not relevant then RA doesn’t have a leg to stand on surely ?

1. He hasn’t commented on his employer or it’s business etc so no argument there.

2. Employers can’t discriminate on the basis of practicing any religion so no argument on the basis that he shouldn’t be quoting passages from the Bible etc and reminding others of what it says.

3. Which leaves misuse of paid time, that he was working whilst he made the comments, as their only real argument surely? To argue that does of course require that he was deemed to be working at the time.

What else could they argue on the basis of?