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

[rederob]

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

It most definitely can be.
Since the introduction of provisions dealing with racial hatred in 1995, the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to insult, humiliate, offend or intimidate another person or group in public on the basis of their race.
Some States have laws that cover communications made in public that incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of people on the ground of their sexual orientation or sex and/or gender identity. This can include comments made in the media or in web pages with public access.

 

[SirRumpole]

It most definitely can be.
Since the introduction of provisions dealing with racial hatred in 1995, the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to insult, humiliate, offend or intimidate another person or group in public on the basis of their race.
Some States have laws that cover communications made in public that incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of people on the ground of their sexual orientation or sex and/or gender identity. This can include comments made in the media or in web pages with public access.

But he hasn't been charged with any offence has he ?

 

[PZ.]

But he hasn't been charged with any offence has he ?

He doesn't have to be. There are many workplace violations that wouldn't attract a charge but they're still a sackable offence. A fair analogy is if I repeatedly swore at a god botherer at work or told the boss to go to hell I would be warned and eventually sacked.

 

[SirRumpole]

A fair analogy is if I repeatedly swore at a god botherer at work or told the boss to go to hell I would be warned and eventually sacked.

No they are not fair analogies because they happened in the workplace and were directed against specific individuals.

Folau expressed his opinions in his own time.

I'll give you another analogy. Suppose there was a clause in the contract that all employees must support the employer's sponsors. Suppose one of those sponsors was the Meat and Livestock corporation and an employee was an animal rights supporter, which (s)he has a complete right to be.

If that employee refused to publicly support the MLC should that be a sackable offence ?

Once you allow not employment related clauses into employment contracts then that is a slippery slope downwards, like putting backdoor access into mobile phones.

The point being that employment contracts must not infringe on employees civil rights and one of those rights is Freedom of Speech.

 

[PZ.]

No they are not fair analogies because they happened in the workplace and were directed against specific individuals.

Folau expressed his opinions in his own time.

I'll give you another analogy. Suppose there was a clause in the contract that all employees must support the employer's sponsors. Suppose one of those sponsors was the Meat and Livestock corporation and an employee was an animal rights supporter, which (s)he has a complete right to be.

If that employee refused to publicly support the MLC should that be a sackable offence ?

Once you allow not employment related clauses into employment contracts then that is a slippery slope downwards, like putting backdoor access into mobile phones.

The point being that employment contracts must not infringe on employees civil rights and one of those rights is Freedom of Speech.

Well that's not a fair analogy either. No one is asking Folau to publicly support gays or atheism either.

And Australia doesn't have freedom of speech in its constitution does it?
We have 28c laws or whatever they are... overturn those and your point becomes valid.

 

[rederob]

Once you allow not employment related clauses into employment contracts then that is a slippery slope downwards, like putting backdoor access into mobile phones.
The point being that employment contracts must not infringe on employees civil rights and one of those rights is Freedom of Speech.

You wrongly assume that Folau's employment is only about what he does on the field; he and every player are bound by a Code of Conduct that conditions their actions beyond the playing field.
Folau's had a detailed employment contract which had been clearly explained to him in relation to using social media, as well as including prescribed duties regarding a wide range of representational activities flowing on from being paid additional monies as a brand ambassador.
Your unusual insistence that he can say what he wants "off the field" is not enshrined in any applicable laws - the "freedom of speech" you keep throwing up has no legal basis. For that matter, people who are not even in employment can be prosecuted for expressing opinions which are contrary to laws.
Remember that the Tribunal found that Mr Folau, by making his posts had breached rules 2.1(b)(i) (conduct detrimental to best interests), 2.1(b)(ii) (conduct likely to bring Game etc. into disrepute), 2.2(a) (duty to promote reputation of the Game and prevent disrepute), 3.5(a)(i) (public comment detrimental to best interests), 3.5(a)(ii) (public comment likely to bring Game etc. into disrepute), 3.6(a)(i) (social media content detrimental to best interests) and 3.6(a)(ii) (social media content likely to bring Game etc. into disrepute) of the Code of Conduct, and that these breaches were high level in severity.
It beggars belief that you consider Folau's breaches as "not employment related."

 

[SirRumpole]

It beggars belief that you consider Folau's breaches as "not employment related."

They occurred when he was "off the job".

If it's ok with you that an employer can control every aspect of an employees life, then I'm afraid you have little concept of what the word "democracy" means.

 

[sptrawler]

I find it strange that RA gets support, for not only sacking Folau but also saying he cannot be employed in Australia in his trade, by the very same people who bemoan 'workchoices' and the loss of weekend penalties.
I find it absolutely stunning, I in my whole working life have never heard of a more ridiculous and shallow reason for sacking someone, let alone making it so the person can never be re employed.
It is just astounding that people who appear to care about workers rights can agree with it, as Rumpy has said if an employer is allowed to do that, it is 10 times worse than work choices.
Rugby Australia has slapped wrists, for players bringing the game into disrepute, just about every end of year windup parties.
Then when a player as part of a religious post, including references to several biblical moral sins upsets a certain person, then that player is not only sacked but is told he will never play again.
That is just outrageous, at any level, those who dreamed up that punishment have serious issues.IMO
Suspend him for half a season with loss of wages, suspend him for a season maybe,
Sack him never to play again, that is bloody stupid and shows a personal vendetta, not a rational managerial decission IMO.
Those idiots said, they sacked him and banned him for life because it went against their inclusive agenda, if they were inclusive they wouldn't hand out a penalty like that.
Just a dumb, nasty, malicious move, that deserved the treatment it got IMO.
By the way I am an atheist and am open minded with someone sexual preferences, it is their business just for the record.

 

[rederob]

They occurred when he was "off the job".

If it's ok with you that an employer can control every aspect of an employees life, then I'm afraid you have little concept of what the word "democracy" means.

As a paid "brand ambassador" you don't have the option of being "off the job."
Democracy is founded on laws - none of which you are able to offer in support of your ideas.

 

[rederob]

I find it strange that RA gets support, for not only sacking Folau but also saying he cannot be employed in Australia in his trade, by the very same people who bemoan 'workchoices' and the loss of weekend penalties.
I find it absolutely stunning, I in my whole working life have never heard of a more ridiculous and shallow reason for sacking someone, let alone making it so the person can never be re employed.
It is just astounding that people who appear to care about workers rights can agree with it, as Rumpy has said if an employer is allowed to do that, it is 10 times worse than work choices.
Rugby Australia has slapped wrists, for players bringing the game into disrepute, just about every end of year windup parties.
Then when a player as part of a religious post, including references to several biblical moral sins upsets a certain person, then that player is not only sacked but is told he will never play again.
That is just outrageous, at any level, those who dreamed up that punishment have serious issues.IMO
Suspend him for half a season with loss of wages, suspend him for a season maybe,
Sack him never to play again, that is bloody stupid and shows a personal vendetta, not a rational managerial decission IMO.
Those idiots said, they sacked him and banned him for life because it went against their inclusive agenda, if they were inclusive they wouldn't hand out a penalty like that.
Just a dumb, nasty, malicious move, that deserved the treatment it got IMO.
By the way I am an atheist and am open minded with someone sexual preferences, it is their business just for the record.

I read a lot of rubbish at this site, but why do you keep regurgitating factless claims!

 

[SirRumpole]

As a paid "brand ambassador" you don't have the option of being "off the job."
Democracy is founded on laws - none of which you are able to offer in support of your ideas.

Everyone has the right to a private life, otherwise we live in slavery.

Maybe that's the way you prefer it, I don't know.

Democracy is also founded on rights, if we don't have the right to disagree with others without penalty, then we don't have any rights at all.

 

[PZ.]

Sadly, it's not private in the modern world of employment SR. Just ask Andrew Peacock. LOL - I remember even as far back as the early 90's as a salaried dept head our directors could order us back to work even when we were on holiday. We had to keep our phone on all the time, every night. weekends, the lot.

I think the "private life" vapourised when companies that survived the '90 recession became ultra greedy and would scab every dollar and/or labour they could get away with. And with 10% unemployment, they got away with a truckload

And then over the years, employers were given more and more ground that culminated to the laws we have today where your employer can dictate what you can and can't post on social media and whether it complies with THEIR best interests.

Today I work 2 jobs and social media rules are made very clear in both agreements. Their intents are exactly the same as what Folau signed in his contract. So there's nothing unique about this case.

It was a massive beat up by the angry-right media fuelled by a religious rage against unbelievers.

 

[rederob]

Democracy is also founded on rights, if we don't have the right to disagree with others without penalty, then we don't have any rights at all.

You are raising issues having nothing to do with Folau's case.
Even though I am retired, my prior employment in different organisations forever bind me through non disclosure clauses and the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914. As a result I do not have the democratic right to provide knowledge of events and activities that might prove actionable.

 

[sptrawler]

Sadly, it's not private in the modern world of employment SR. I remember even as far back as the early 90's as a salaried dept head our directors could order us back to work even when we were on holiday. We were required to keep our phone on all the time, every night. weekends, the lot.

I think the "private life" vapourised when companies that survived the '90 recession became ultra greedy and would scab every dollar and/or labour they could get away with. And with 10% unemployment, they got away with a truckload

And then over the years, employers were given more and more ground that culminated to the laws we have today where your employer can dictate what you can and can't post on social media and whether it complies with THEIR best interests.

Today I work 2 jobs and social media rules are made very clear in both agreements. Their intents are exactly the same as what Folau signed in his contract. So there's nothing unique about this case.

It was a massive beat up by the angry-right media fuelled by a religious rage against unbelievers.

Well it should have gone to court and been tested, it is in the best interest of workers that it should have gone to court, by management capitulating to Folau just showed establishment didnt want it tested.
Management wont try that again IMO.
Folau did the workers a great service by not capitulating, I would rather he had my back, than a certain CEO.

 

[SirRumpole]

You are raising issues having nothing to do with Folau's case.
Even though I am retired, my prior employment in different organisations forever bind me through non disclosure clauses and the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914. As a result I do not have the democratic right to provide knowledge of events and activities that might prove actionable.

Yeah I share your concern about Folau divulging National secrets.

 

[SirRumpole]

Sadly, it's not private in the modern world of employment SR. Just ask Andrew Peacock. LOL - I remember even as far back as the early 90's as a salaried dept head our directors could order us back to work even when we were on holiday. We had to keep our phone on all the time, every night. weekends, the lot.

I think the "private life" vapourised when companies that survived the '90 recession became ultra greedy and would scab every dollar and/or labour they could get away with. And with 10% unemployment, they got away with a truckload

And then over the years, employers were given more and more ground that culminated to the laws we have today where your employer can dictate what you can and can't post on social media and whether it complies with THEIR best interests.

Today I work 2 jobs and social media rules are made very clear in both agreements. Their intents are exactly the same as what Folau signed in his contract. So there's nothing unique about this case.

It was a massive beat up by the angry-right media fuelled by a religious rage against unbelievers.

Well, this is just another example of restriction by stealth.

You may say that these restrictions apply to you, and I take your word for it, the question is "should they" ?

Do you enjoy the fact that your private life is the business of your employer ? Do you AGREE that it SHOULD be so ? Or do you just accept it because otherwise you wouldn't have a job ? I think your second paragraph basically admits that it was overreach by employers who had governments on their side at the time and no other government bothered to retract these employer "rights".

 

[sptrawler]

I just hope this virus clears and Folau applies to play back in Australia, before he is too old, this garbage needs to be challenged and I hope it is.
When you have workers worried about what they say when out with the boys and have everyone cowtowing to a snotty nosed $hitbag, there is something seriously wrong, I really hope Folau pushes the boundries in Australia.
Just my opinion.

 

[SirRumpole]

I just hope this virus clears and Folau applies to play back in Australia, before he is too old, this garbage needs to be challenged and I hope it is.
When you have workers worried about what they say when out with the boys and have everyone cowtowing to a snotty nosed $hitbag, there is something seriously wrong, I really hope Folau pushes the boundries in Australia.
Just my opinion.

I thought it was all over, the case has been settled hasn't it ?

 

[moXJO]

This was already argued and Rob you were and are wrong.
After RA ate a spoonful of sht, it ended in the blowing up of management. They were adamant that they wouldn't settle and look where we are.
Qantas is getting a royal shafting too, so maybe there is a God

Already pulled out the laws throughout the thread. And it needed to be tested in court. You saying it was a "sure thing" is far from the facts.

Given we have God bothers in control of parliament and many of the judges in the courts. I didn't see it ending well for RA.

 

[sptrawler]

I thought it was all over, the case has been settled hasn't it ?

Obviously Rob is still dribbling $hit, I can't see it because with the ignore function you don't have to, which is interesting because the thread still flows so his input must be absolutely worthless as usual. lol
Anyway getting back to Folau, I'm sure I read that some clubs were thinking about employing him in breach of RA ruling, now the management has been given the ar$e I'm sure that avenue will be re opened.
It is amasing how you can have a free Australia, until some dick decides your not dancing to my song, well you can only eat so many $hit sandwiches before people say enough is enough.