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

[sptrawler]

Folau is (was) paid millions of dollars by the ARU to do more than just play rugby union. He was their number 1 pin up boy. He was their role model bought and paid for by the ARU to represent rugby union NOT ANY other code, organisation or church.

He was paid over and above any other player with the full knowledge that he must honour his side of the bargain which was spelt out clearly in the contract. Folau can't be too smart otherwise he should not have signed the contract in the first place. I like the saying "You can't have your cake and eat it (too).

Actually if you look at it in a holistic way, this whole green, anti anything mainstream, is becoming a bit of a cult thing.
No rhyme, no reason, nothing other than a desire for change and no logical way of achieving it.
Social media seems to have achieved, a way of connecting lost people, searching for something that is difficult to find.

 

[SirRumpole]

Folau is (was) paid millions of dollars by the ARU to do more than just play rugby union. He was their number 1 pin up boy. He was their role model bought and paid for by the ARU to represent rugby union NOT ANY other code, organisation or church.

He was paid over and above any other player with the full knowledge that he must honour his side of the bargain which was spelt out clearly in the contract. Folau can't be too smart otherwise he should not have signed the contract in the first place. I like the saying "You can't have your cake and eat it (too).

He was paid for his football skills not his opinions.

 

[sptrawler]

He was paid for his football skills not his opinions.

What is next?

 

[StockyGuy]

Perhaps the real issue is the way people in the community in any way idolise bonehead professional jocks. I'm not averse to watching sport, especially NRL, but there's very few sportspeople whose opinion or example mean anything whatsoever to me. I mean they talk in a steady stream of clichés for a start.

There's so many sides and layers to this case. At end of day Folau was biting hand that feeds him - ARU is dependent on sponsorship. Sponsors can disappear in the blink of an eye. He'd been warned before and he persisted.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...ed-on-qantas-sponsorship-20190620-p51zm8.html Link makes very clear sponsors DO care about such controversies. And when a big one leaves, usually other sponsors also re-evaluate. It's bad manners to compromise your employer in that way in a high profile public position.

 

[Value Collector]

A contract of employment should be about employment not what someone says out of hours.

A contract can be for what ever you want, he didn’t have to sign it.

At the end of the day he is being paid to represent a club, both on the field and off it.

 

[Value Collector]

So he has to sell his religious beliefs, I'm not religious personally, but it seems to be a bit totalitarian to say someone can't voice his dislike of a belief, that has been held for 2000 years.
It actually sounds like, an oppressive regime. IMO

No he doesn’t have to sell his religious beliefs, he chose to.

If he wanted to represent his beliefs he should have got a job at church or maybe at the time of signing he should have negotiated to get certain clauses removed from the contract.

 

[Dark Knight 2.0]

Firstly, there was NO clause in Folau's contract about Social Media postings of his religous beliefs apparently. Which leads to the second point - cause of action he is pursuing. By Law you can't prevent someone from writing about their religion beliefs.
Thirdly, do you really think he brought the Game into disrepute? None of you drunk, athiest, fornicator Buffett idolators have taken offence to his post.

 

[qldfrog]

Funny in a way is the reason he is such an idol and role model , is that Folau is not involved in drunk rampage, rape allegations, sex scandals etc
And this is probably because of his religious beliefs he is such a good guy compared to so many of our other top sport athletes
Some irony here...

 

[SirRumpole]

A contract can be for what ever you want, he didn’t have to sign it.

At the end of the day he is being paid to represent a club, both on the field and off it.

I don't think so.

There has to be a demarcation between employers time and private life.

 

[lindsayf]

Firstly, there was NO clause in Folau's contract about Social Media postings of his religous beliefs apparently. Which leads to the second point - cause of action he is pursuing. By Law you can't prevent someone from writing about their religion beliefs.
Thirdly, do you really think he brought the Game into disrepute? None of you drunk, athiest, fornicator Buffett idolators have taken offence to his post.

To some degree I am offended by anyone who smugly thinks that the people around them will go to hell ( experience unspeakable torture forever. It is not an uncommon thing of course.

 

[Dark Knight 2.0]

To some degree I am offended by anyone who smugly thinks that the people around them will go to hell ( experience unspeakable torture forever. It is not an uncommon thing of course.

Then, I wonder if he actually believes it.
There are a few different interpretations of heaven and hell etc.

But he seems a nice Bloke, just brought up in that Islander Christian environment.

 

[rederob]

Firstly, there was NO clause in Folau's contract about Social Media postings of his religous beliefs apparently.

Rugby Australia's website has 28 pages of details pertaining to their Code of Conduct, and I previously linked to a brief document which was used at club level and signed off. I should have used their website link, so apologies.
I could not find a copy of what Folau actually signed on the internet, so here are the clauses he appears to have breached:

1.3 Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.
1.6 Do not make any public comment that is critical of the performance of a match official, player, team official, coach or employee/officer/volunteer of any club or a Union; or on any matter that is, or is likely to be, the subject of an investigation or disciplinary process; or otherwise make any public comment that would likely be detrimental to the best interests, image and welfare of the Game, a team, a club, a competition or Union.
1.7 Use Social Media appropriately. By all means share your positive experiences of Rugby but do not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as a player contained in this Code or in any Union, club or competition rules and regulations.
1.8 Do not otherwise act in a way that may adversely affect or reflect on, or bring you, your team, club, Rugby Body or Rugby into disrepute or discredit. If you commit a criminal offence, this is likely to adversely reflect on you and your team, club, Rugby Body and Rugby.
​

As I said in an earlier post, religion need not be in consideration in terms of his high level breach of the Code as Folau's comments did not disparage religion.

By Law you can't prevent someone from writing about their religion beliefs.

Folau is not prevented from expressing his beliefs. However, if and when he chooses to do so, he has to accept that he made undertakings wrt to his employment that should be considered. Actions have consequences.

Thirdly, do you really think he brought the Game into disrepute? None of you drunk, athiest, fornicator Buffett idolators have taken offence to his post.

Given I do not follow Rugby, and its poster boy has made comments which are plain silly from where I sit, then in my eyes there has been an adverse affect. His comments have also affected the code's sponsors, and they are able to measure that impact in dollar terms, so it becomes a material impact on the sport.
Be aware that Folau's case has little to to with anyone being "offended" by his comments, as he fell at the first hurdle by not treating everyone equally, fairly and with dignity. Those concepts are typically "Christian" and, from a religious perspective, tend to paint him into a corner.

 

[SirRumpole]

A contract can be for what ever you want, he didn’t have to sign it.

You mean it can be anything the employer wants ?

The ARU is a monopolist employer , if you don't like what they offer there is nowhere else to go.

There are rules that control business monopolies, these rules are devised by governments to protect individuals against the oppressive dictates of corporations. I don't see why rules should not be introduced in the case of employment contracts to protect individual rights.

 

[Dark Knight 2.0]

You mean it can be anything the employer wants ?

The ARU is a monopolist employer , if you don't like what they offer there is nowhere else to go.

There are rules that control business monopolies, these rules are devised by governments to protect individuals against the oppressive dictates of corporations. I don't see why rules should not be introduced in the case of employment contracts to protect individual rights.

Yep, that's the issue. Does the ARU have the right at Law to censor or terminate based upon quoting Biblical verses. They believe not - its not a legal Contract or Termination.
That's why they are prepared to go all the way to the High Court.

Izzy just has too many hangeroners I'd say. Too many people in his Ear and using him.

 

[rederob]

You mean it can be anything the employer wants ?
The ARU is a monopolist employer , if you don't like what they offer there is nowhere else to go.
There are rules that control business monopolies, these rules are devised by governments to protect individuals against the oppressive dictates of corporations. I don't see why rules should not be introduced in the case of employment contracts to protect individual rights.

Rumpy, you continue to completely miss the many points at issue.
In the world of everyday work, one is required to act in an appropriate manner to their colleagues.
RA has codified this and clearly expects players to treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity.
As an employer, RA is successful because it has, in detail, clarified how all matters are to be addressed by all participants, including spectators. It has done this to maintain and protect its BRAND.
Folau has used the media in a manner which both disrespects his player colleagues and damages the brand. Worse, he had been warned, so has acted maliciously. He needs to be very careful that RA do not, after the court case, pursue him for damages which will be quantifiable.

 

[SirRumpole]

In the world of everyday work, one is required to act in an appropriate manner to their colleagues.

As long as he respects his code of conduct on the field and at other times when "on duty" , then he has fulfilled his obligations.

He's probably insulted virtually all of his colleagues with his statements, but that doesn't affect his ability to do what his job is which is to play football.

As for "damage to the brand", he is one cog in the "machine". I doubt if sponsors are going to pull out of a lucrative arrangement just because of what one bloke says.

 

[rederob]

As long as he respects his code of conduct on the field and at other times when "on duty" , then he has fulfilled his obligations.

Not so at all Rumpy.
In Folau's case you would have us believe that he only needs to abide by the RA's code of conduct for about 2 hours each week. After that you would consider it ok to disrespect his colleagues and damage the brand.
Laws which protect the interests of employers and employees are not constrained by the clock.
It is a nonsensical view that people's actions "after work" cannot impact their employment obligations and this is occasionally tested in law. Most times people who are sacked for such breaches realise it's smarter to just move on.
Rather than repeat yourself, you need to show why your idea has substance.

 

[Dark Knight 2.0]

Rumpy, you continue to completely miss the many points at issue.
In the world of everyday work, one is required to act in an appropriate manner to their colleagues.
RA has codified this and clearly expects players to treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity.
As an employer, RA is successful because it has, in detail, clarified how all matters are to be addressed by all participants, including spectators. It has done this to maintain and protect its BRAND.
Folau has used the media in a manner which both disrespects his player colleagues and damages the brand. Worse, he had been warned, so has acted maliciously. He needs to be very careful that RA do not, after the court case, pursue him for damages which will be quantifiable.

Rob, the case Folau's team are running is that the ARU does not have the right at Law to impose those religous restrictions or terminate him.
Either the Contract or the Termination is ILLEGAL due to relevant Statutes.

 

[moXJO]

Not so at all Rumpy.
In Folau's case you would have us believe that he only needs to abide by the RA's code of conduct for about 2 hours each week. After that you would consider it ok to disrespect his colleagues and damage the brand.
Laws which protect the interests of employers and employees are not constrained by the clock.
It is a nonsensical view that people's actions "after work" cannot impact their employment obligations and this is occasionally tested in law. Most times people who are sacked for such breaches realise it's smarter to just move on.
Rather than repeat yourself, you need to show why your idea has substance.

Quoting a religious text in what he believes to be saving peoples souls is a very fine line for dismissal. He obviously has a case.

 

[SirRumpole]

Laws which protect the interests of employers and employees are not constrained by the clock.
It is a nonsensical view that people's actions "after work" cannot impact their employment obligations and this is occasionally tested in law. Most times people who are sacked for such breaches realise it's smarter to just move on.

So you believe that employers should have the right to impose conditions on employees that bind them every minute of their lives ?

I agree that sometimes this is necessary, eg out of work hours drug taking where the effects may still be present during working hours. However the idea that this should also extend to expression of beliefs is anathema to anyone who believes in a free society.

So lets take another example.

Player A has trouble with his car, can't get any satisfaction from his dealer or the car maker, so vents his problems on social media. Oops, said car maker turns out to be a sponsor. Grounds for sacking ?