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

[sptrawler]

How Folau must be laughing now

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...rugby-pay-war-turns-ugly-20200401-p54g4n.html
'They're being treated with contempt': Rugby pay war turns ugly
By Georgina Robinson and Tom Decent - April 2, 2020

"Past players union bosses have accused Rugby Australia of treating its athletes with "contempt" and chief executive Raelene Castle came in for vicious criticism from a former Wallaby as the coronavirus pay stalemate continued on Wednesday..."

They deserve the problems after the Folau incident IMO, What cost virtue signalling? well some are finding out. Maybe Allan Joyce can bail them out.
Just my opinion.

 

[Logique]

Rugby Australia could become insolvent. Basket case. Reported cash reserves of just $11 million

New Zealand Herald
news.com.au, APRIL 6, 2020: https://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby...f/news-story/f5d6c91e063ce7c8244ea45d31633399
Israel Folau Rugby Australia pay out twist as game heads over the cliff
Israel Folau’s multi-million dollar settlement goldmine is reportedly set to turn to dust as Rugby Australia braces to head over a cliff.
...The report claims the governing body has cash reserves of just $11 million — which would only allow the game to cover the wages of players through to the end of June...

 

[sptrawler]

Rugby Australia could become insolvent. Basket case. Reported cash reserves of just $11 million

Well IMO you are playing a dangerous game, when you are using a sporting code for social and moral engineering, firstly you need a water tight case and secondly you are going to split your player base and also your fan base.
Then on top of that, they capitulate and pay Folau out. I'm guessing a lot of paying fans would see the whole incident as an example of poor management, poor discipline and an absolute waste of money. It will take a lot of work to rebuild the brand IMO.

 

[Logique]

Well IMO you are playing a dangerous game, when you are using a sporting code for social and moral engineering, firstly you need a water tight case and secondly you are going to split your player base and also your fan base.
Then on top of that, they capitulate and pay Folau out. I'm guessing a lot of paying fans would see the whole incident as an example of poor management, poor discipline and an absolute waste of money. It will take a lot of work to rebuild the brand IMO.

Spot on Spt. Judging by the media reports, I think the past players have had enough, and want change at RA

 

[sptrawler]

I 'm from W.A and know nothing about rugby, but I do read the media, how can this bloke be allowed to keep writing stuff?
He wrote during the Folau incident that RA had a lay down misere, when blind Freddy could see they had blown their feet off OMG.
Now he tries to backfill the hole the boss of RA has dug, he is saying the RA boss is in the $hit because of sexism, I guess you have to pull some thing out, if you keep digging up there.
Australian media really is in trouble IMO.
Just my humble opinion, from the other side of the Country.
https://au.sports.yahoo.com/rugby-a...s-claims-raelene-castle-sexism-225156721.html

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/ne...gby-rebuild-link-to-fans-20200415-p54k5c.html
Untill RA gets over themselves and admit a huge error, they will continue having problems, to F$%k up is one thing to keep denying it just wears thin IMO.
By the way, I do hope they get over it, because IMO any sport is a good sport, way too much sitting around these days.
Just my opinion.

 

[sptrawler]

Well the virus is about to take another casualty by the looks of it, the chickens come home roost.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04...y-australia-leadership/12122714?section=sport
From the article:
Rugby Australia is headed for insolvency, with serious questions raised over the management of the game by the board and its chief executive, Raelene Castle, according to one of the sport's most revered elders.

Former World Cup-winning captain, Nick Farr-Jones, has told The Ticket that with "ongoing concerns", the board must be wary of being "in breach of the Corporations Act".

"I wouldn't be surprised if an administrator was appointed in the next fortnight," he said.

While several former Wallabies captains were approached by The Ticket, only Farr-Jones agreed to speak publicly about the current state of the game.

"I understand reserves are minimal … there're no games happening, we have no broadcasting deal and I think sponsors would see rugby as very much on the nose at the moment — so they're the three areas where you get your income," he said.

"As soon as they [Rugby Australia] cut a deal with the players, one would expect there'd be a liability that will crystallise and if I was sitting on the board … I would really be looking at the going concern issues.

"If you have going concern issues, and you don't want to breach the Corporations Act, well then you go into what's known as VA, or voluntary administration."
He said the game had been in demise for several years with responsibility for poor judgment to be shared by the board and the chief executive.

"Absolutely I think there has been some very poor board decisions, I think that executively the game has been very poorly managed," Farr-Jones said.

"You look at the sponsorship situation, you look at bums on seats and the declining viewership on TV which of course leads to issues in relation to how you can sell your broadcasting rights.
"You look at the judgment of the chief executive and the board in not accepting the Fox broadcasting deal and whether that's left us in this very precarious situation — of course there's responsibility.

"And you look at the abysmal way that Rugby Australia handled the [Israel] Folau case and got bullied by senior sponsors into making a very stupid decision and then you later — a long time later — read the lack of communication between teammates and coaches."

 

[PZ.]

If they go into VA is just means Israel Folau won't get his money.

I Understand Ocasio-Cortez won't be getting hers either

 

[sptrawler]

If they go into VA is just means Israel Folau won't get his money.

I Understand Ocasio-Cortez won't be getting hers either

I think that is the least of the problems RA has, and from what I read about Folau he was prepared to drop all action, for an appology.
Which he ended up getting anyway, when the boards ego is bigger than the obligation to those it represents, it is time to toss them.

 

[sptrawler]

I see the CEO has fallen on the sword, all it needs now is the rest of the board to follow suite. IMO
They were there to represent the players and the members, not to pedal personal agendas.
Just my opinion.

 

[PZ.]

So they'll replace their CEO with another one. But their rules regarding players using social media to pedal personal agendas will stay the same. Just as it will stay the same with any other employer. As I said at the start, these laws have been in place for more than a decade.
Ironically, they started appearing in employee contracts when the Coalition's Workchoice IR laws stated you could sack anyone for nearly nothing - a policy the current Govt is revisiting

Yep, Folau gets his payout meanwhile his fellow (or is that ex-fellow) players cop a pay cut.

He got his apology whilst having to issue his own apology "for any hurt or harm caused."

That's a win for atheists like me. Except I don't get a payout LOL
I wouldn't want his tainted money anyway...

I just hope he continues his E-rampage against people who don't conform with his BS beliefs so that he can continue apologising for being divorced from reality afterwards. (Yep, that's IMO)

As for Raelene Castle - see ya - wouldn't wanna be ya.

 

[sptrawler]

I agree with you PZ88, it is a win for personal rights, the company pays you, it doesn't own you.
When you can be sacked for an opinion, that had nothing to do with your employer, it needs chucking out same as work choices.
If the social media rule is applied the same way again, I hope it is tested again.
I would like to see Folau re employed, as no employer should have the right to ban you from being re employed, that is just bizarre.
Anyway the whole sorry saga is coming to an end fortunately.

 

[Humid]

I agree with you PZ88, it is a win for personal rights, the company pays you, it doesn't own you.
When you can be sacked for an opinion, that had nothing to do with your employer, it needs chucking out same as work choices.
If the social media rule is applied the same way again, I hope it is tested again.
I would like to see Folau re employed, as no employer should have the right to ban you from being re employed, that is just bizarre.
Anyway the whole sorry saga is coming to an end fortunately.

Sponsorship Homer Sponsorship

 

[rederob]

When you can be sacked for an opinion, that had nothing to do with your employer, it needs chucking out same as work choices.

Absolute and utter nonsense.
Our laws are very clear on what constitutes a sacking offence. In Folau's case the point has been made dozens of times that he breached a written condition in his employment contract which he had been warned about prior to entering into it.
At no time have you grasped what was at issue.

 

[SirRumpole]

Absolute and utter nonsense.
Our laws are very clear on what constitutes a sacking offence. In Folau's case the point has been made dozens of times that he breached a written condition in his employment contract which he had been warned about prior to entering into it.
At no time have you grasped what was at issue.

So you uphold the right of employers to write anything they want into a contract ?

Clauses which involve an employees private life should not be allowed to be written into an employment contract.

You agree with Folau's sacking because you disagree with what he said.

Suppose he was sacked for saying something you agreed with, I bet you would be screaming about freedom of speech then.

 

[Humid]

Even FIFO workers are told you're representing the company on their time off when going to town.
They might not sack you but they withdraw your accommodation.
Which is the same I know guys who have been sacked for indiscretions at home.I think you old blokes have been out of the workforce too long
Don't get me wrong I don't agree with it

 

[sptrawler]

Even FIFO workers are told you're representing the company on their time off when going to town.
They might not sack you but they withdraw your accommodation.
Which is the same I know guys who have been sacked for indiscretions at home.I think you old blokes have been out of the workforce too long
Don't get me wrong I don't agree with it

They still have to justify the action, or it is unfair dismissal, what happened to Folau is like the mining company saying you can't work in mining for anyone.
The punishment has to befit the crime.
Jeez at meetings with management, I have told them exactly what I thought of them and I mean exactly.
You do represent your company, but what you say outside of work as long as it has nothing to do with the company and isn't illegal. Isn't a stackable offence, disciplinary maybe? Banned from working in Australia I don't think so.
When I was a young bloke, a whole family was thrown out of Dampier, the kids stole and scuttled a service tug, it didn't mean the father couldn't get a job for Goldsworthy.

 

[Humid]

Mate they withdraw your accommodation

 

[rederob]

So you uphold the right of employers to write anything they want into a contract ?

Clauses which involve an employees private life should not be allowed to be written into an employment contract.

You agree with Folau's sacking because you disagree with what he said.

Suppose he was sacked for saying something you agreed with, I bet you would be screaming about freedom of speech then.

We covered these points many times and you have not got a lot right.
I never would have sacked Folau as I reckoned there were smarter ways to deal with him.
However, an independent panel determined his fate.
Had Folau's case proceeded to the High Court he would have been well and truly exposed for his hypocrisy. Folau conceded his twitter posts - more than one - had offended elements of the community and had breached the Code of Conduct. He did offer an apology but refused to take down his posts. Moreover, Folau indicated to RA that he would continue to post as he saw fit, which included repeating similar posts that could be offensive.
The decision to settle the matter was smart at the time in that RA hoped to put an end to the brand damage that had already been done. Unfortunately there remains a group who consider it is their god given right to offend whomever as they fit.

 

[rederob]

They still have to justify the action, or it is unfair dismissal, what happened to Folau is like the mining company saying you can't work in mining for anyone.

Again, more unmitigated rubbish. Folau was playing rugby in France after his settlement from RA.

 

[SirRumpole]

We covered these points many times and you have not got a lot right.
I never would have sacked Folau as I reckoned there were smarter ways to deal with him.
However, an independent panel determined his fate.
Had Folau's case proceeded to the High Court he would have been well and truly exposed for his hypocrisy. Folau conceded his twitter posts - more than one - had offended elements of the community and had breached the Code of Conduct. He did offer an apology but refused to take down his posts. Moreover, Folau indicated to RA that he would continue to post as he saw fit, which included repeating similar posts that could be offensive.
The decision to settle the matter was smart at the time in that RA hoped to put an end to the brand damage that had already been done. Unfortunately there remains a group who consider it is their god given right to offend whomever as they fit.

Oh dear causing "offence" it now a crime apparently.

Anyone but a total snowflake would realise that the opinions of one employee don't matter a damn, he had no power to enforce any of his opinions on anyone in the game.

Now, if a member of the Rugby Australia management said the same thing it would cause concern that that individuals private opinions could influence the policy of the organisation and could influence the employment opportunities of others.

Folau had no such influence, he was simply an employee paid to play a game, nothing else.