This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

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

Jump to new
Macquack said:
Just so I have your position clear, SirRumpole. If Rugby Australia did not sack Folau, let his contract expire and then said will we never employ Folau ever again. Would you think that is fair enough, or would you still be crying "free speech"?
Click to expand...

If RA was a listed company and I was a shareholder, I'd be questioning their disposal of a major asset as long as he was still performing his job.

If RA could justify their stand on the basis that he just wasn't performing on the field anymore, I would say "fair enough", if his non retention was on the basis of his views then the principle still applies. He should be retained or not purely on the basis of how well he performs his job.
 
SirRumpole said:
If RA was a listed company and I was a shareholder, I'd be questioning their disposal of a major asset as long as he was still performing his job.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, the chairman of RA thinks Folau is a liability, not an asset.

Rugby Australia’s chairman Cameron Clyne has slammed Israel Folau and claimed the game would have no sponsors — and more litigation — if it failed to act.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/sport...u/news-story/7166dd22ec79856921b2e3d5d004ea30
 
SirRumpole said:
In that case, his remarks are nonsense, have no effect on anyone, can't offend anyone and can be laughed off, so why all the fuss ?
Click to expand...

the only fuss is coming from him having a cry about it, if he wasn’t having a cry about it, there would be no fuss.

Everyone would just be like “oh, i didn’t realize Israel was such a dick, oh well, bye bye”
 
Last edited:
Value Collector said:
There the only fuss is coming from him having a cry about it, if he wasn’t having a cry about it, there would be no fuss.

Everyone would just be like “oh, i didn’t realize Israel was such a dick, oh well, bye bye”
Click to expand...

He stood to lose a large amount of money.

Wouldn't you complain if it happened to you ?
 
Smurf1976 said:
It’s not impossible but I have serious doubts that everyone who goes to church later this morning thinks that it’s all a load of nonsense.
Click to expand...

It’s a simple fact that if they believe their religion is true, then they must believe the other 99.99% of religions are nonsense.

That’s my point, everyone out there either thinks that 100% of religions are nonsense or 99.99% of religions are nonsense.

Either way, the belief that most religions in general are nonsense is a very common belief.
 
SirRumpole said:
He stood to lose a large amount of money.

Wouldn't you complain if it happened to you ?
Click to expand...

So it’s about money, and not free speech or religion?

I would avoid action that threatened my gravy train, and if I did anything that rocked the boat, I would apologize, and do my best to reverse it.

However, if I felt that strongly about something, and my employer was hard core against it, I would not want to work for them anymore.
 
Value Collector said:
So it’s about money, and not free speech or religion?
Click to expand...

If Folau was not employed by RA , RA could complain all they liked about what he said and it would not affect him, the point is that RA can take action which damaged him financially.
 
SirRumpole said:
the point is that RA can take action which damaged him financially.
Click to expand...

So what? His actions can also damage them.

But we can all take actions that damage people financially when we realize they are dicks.

If you own a restaurant, and one day decide to put up a sign that says the things Israel said, you will probably find you will suddenly lose a lot of business, customers that used to be willing to do business with you will abandon you.
 
Dark Knight 2.0 said:
If he didn't state it how can you say he believes it.

The Pope regularly comes out and calls for peace and unity on "all people of all faiths and religions etc etc".
Click to expand...

Because religions all believe different things, and they can’t all be right.

So he either thinks that his own religion is true and correct, which would make the rest of the religions nonsense, or that some other religion is the correct one which makes his one nonsense.

You can still call for peace and unity while believing the other side believes nonsense.

I want peace and unity between all religions, but that doesn’t mean I think they are true.
 
Its all irrelevant.
All that matters is the law. Was it or wasn't it unlawful termination.
 

So religions(employers) should be allowed to write into an employment contract that "ye shall not use social media to say that gays will not got to hell", and be able to sack them if they find out that the employee does that ?
 
The employment contracts that should be under review are:

- the Rugby Australia CEO - whether it's $ 6 figures or 7 that RA spends in the courts - that would buy a lot of footballs, boots and jerseys for young kids

- the Qantas CEO - there are other airlines we can use (with the $ saved from not going to rugby matches)

- the ANZ Bank CEO - there are other banks to host our savings (from not going to rugby matches)
 
Qantas sacked about 5000 people. I thought this was funny given the current circumstances:

SACKED QANTAS EMPLOYEE WINS $33K DESPITE STEALING FROM EMPLOYER


In yet another unfair dismissal decision that has left employers scratching their heads, the Fair Work Commission has awarded a former Qantas flight attendant $33,000 in unfair dismissal remedy, despite finding he stole alcohol from his employer and broke their trust.

Background:

The Applicant had been a Qantas Flight Attendant for 28 years when he was dismissed from his role after a small amount of alcohol, the property of his employer, was found on him during a random search of the crew.

After being terminated for breaching Qantas’ company policy, the flight attendant brought an unfair dismissal application against his former employer arguing that the dismissal was disproportionate to the offence and in the circumstances was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

Qantas argued that the relationship of trust had been broken and could not be repaired. It also alleged that the Applicant did not make ‘full disclosure’ during the investigation process.

The Applicant had received five weeks’ pay in lieu of notice of termination, and was seeking reinstatement and/or compensation. The fact that alcohol was found on the Applicant was not being contested.

Was the dismissal harsh?

In ruling on whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable (s.387 of the FW Act) Deputy President Lawrence took into account the following evidence and arguments provided by the Applicant:

  • That the process of the crew search may have been unfair to him in allowing other crew members time to dispose of any property they might have stolen;
  • That he responded in good faith through the investigation process, despite Qantas’ claims that he was not being truthful;
  • That he admitted to removing a can of beer from the flight, but that other alcohol found on him, including a bottle of vodka and a bottle of gin, were in his pocket inadvertently; and
  • That he was being treated differently to other flight attendants who were found to have also stolen property but were not dismissed.
Lawrence DP also considered personal circumstances of the former employee including his 28 years of ‘unblemished’ service to Qantas, his age of 50, a recent car accident involving him and his daughter, and recent surgery that necessitated four months off work.

Qantas’ case for dismissal:

Lawrence DP noted the following facts relating to Qantas’ case for dismissing the employee:

  • The employer carried out an extensive investigation process and allowed the Applicant ample time to respond;
  • He was dismissed due to a clear breach of Qantas’s Standards of Conduct Policy;
  • That it took into consideration his age and length of service, but that ultimately the dismissal was warranted due to it being essential that Qantas’s policies for conduct are upheld.
Decision of Lawrence DP:

In making his decision, Deputy President Lawrence first reviewed a number of recent case law where it was established that “the consideration of whether there was a valid reason for termination is a separation issue from the determination of whether a termination was harsh, unjust of unreasonable.”

He ‘respectfully adopted’ this position and concluded that:

“The Applicant was dismissed because he stole Qantas property and because he gave a false explanation, which he subsequently changed during the investigation. It was a small quantity of alcohol but Qantas has strict policies about theft of such company property. This is entirely understandable.”

Lawrence DP was also satisfied that the Applicant was notified of the reason for his dismissal well before the decision was made, and that he had an opportunity to respond.

However, despite the above, after considering the personal circumstances of the Applicant Lawrence DP ultimately came to the view that the dismissal was harsh.

The Deputy President said it would have been appropriate for Qantas to implement a lesser penalty than dismissal.

He then turned to the appropriate remedy, and said that he did not think reinstatement is appropriate in this case.

“I accept Qantas’s argument that the relationship of trust has broken down and cannot be repaired. It is important that flight attendants are able to be trusted with Qantas property. The fact that the Applicant changed his story is a crucial factor here. Reinstatement may be seen to condone theft in some way.”

After taking into account the Applicant’s earning capacity, Lawrence DP ordered Qantas to pay the former flight attendant $33,731, the equivalent of 26 weeks’ pay.

Implications for employers

This case is unfortunately yet another unfair dismissal decision from the Fair Work Commission that demonstrates the tribunal will award compensation to sacked employees, even where it finds there was a valid reason for termination and that the employee conducted a thorough and ‘fair’ investigation process.

On the specific details on this case, AMMA fundamentally disagrees with the notion that an employer could be penalised for dismissing an employee where it is established by the Commission that:

  • The employee did in fact steal property from his employer;
  • That this behaviour was a clear breach of company policies and that this provides a clear and valid reason for termination;
  • That reinstating the employee may be seen as condoning theft in the workplace; and
  • That the relationship of trust was clearly broken between the employer and the employee.
AMMA’s position is also that personal circumstances of the employee, such as his age, a recent car crash or surgery, should not be considered relevant factors when there was found to be a valid reason for termination.

These are the types of decisions that are driving AMMA’s advocacy for a separate appeals jurisdiction to be established within Australia’s workplace relations system.

With many of these extraordinary unfair dismissal rulings being appealed, AMMA’s position is that a separate appeals tribunal would send clearer signals about the law to both employers and employees; ensure greater consistency in decisions such as unfair dismissal remedies; and ultimately result in fewer matters being appealed to the courts.

For more information about AMMA’s workplace relations reforms, click here.

To read this case in full, click here: David Dawson v Qantas Airways Limited.

This was eventually overturned.
 
SirRumpole said:
So religions(employers) should be allowed to write into an employment contract that "ye shall not use social media to say that gays will not got to hell", and be able to sack them if they find out that the employee does that ?
Click to expand...

I think you should be able to put almost anything into the contract, and then it’s up to the person to decide whether the millions offered are worth it or not.
 
Value Collector said:
I think you should be able to put almost anything into the contract, and then it’s up to the person to decide whether the millions offered are worth it or not.
Click to expand...

Well, it may not be millions.

If an employer is the only one in town people may have no choice but to sign.

As with Folau, RA is a monopoly employer, he has no choice.

What about the case of religious organisations, I bet if they sacked someone for saying that they were an atheist you would saying the church had no right to sack them, even if it was in the contract that employees should not "damage the image" of the church.
 
Value Collector said:
If you own a restaurant, and one day decide to put up a sign that says the things Israel said, you will probably find you will suddenly lose a lot of business, customers that used to be willing to do business with you will abandon you.
Click to expand...
If I owned a restaurant then no way would I be promoting any political or religious cause. Doing so is a “can’t win” approach - it’ll attract few if any new customers but will lose at least some of those on the other side.

The question though is whether or not I have the right to sack the chef for expressing political or religious views or circulating propaganda in a private capacity, in their own time and in no way involving my restaurant?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
3K
sptrawler
Labour Law - Breach of Contract
Replies
4
Views
3K
CanOz
Crikey's version of Mr Downer's farewell speech to John Howard
Replies
2
Views
4K
BradK
B
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
10K
sptrawler
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...