Izzy

Select to expand quote

NotWal said..

Isn't that a breach of contract? I think you'll find it is.

Yes it is, the CoC is part of the employment conditions and compliance with it is almost certainly referenced in the actual contract.

With regard to other breaches of the Code, firstly other breaches have no impact on an individual case legally, however I can see the point from a fairness perspective.

The level of severity of the actual actions could be seen as worse in many of the other public cases that did not receive a termination. However you need to note that Rugby Australia is actually pretty lenient on wayward employees behaviour and tends to give second chances provided the individuals acknowledge they have breached the code and let down their team, provide public apologies regarding their behaviour, agree to never do it again and generally accept whatever sanctions are handed down by the tribunal - which could include additional clauses in the contracts, promises not to repeat, possible reductions in salary or fines etc....

These sanctions are generally accepted by those individuals and they get on with playing rugby in the knowledge further breaches are not going to be taken well.

Do I need to comment how the Falou attitude to all that was after his multiple breaches? He won't even acknowledge he has breached the code of conduct, refused to apologise, refused to take down the posts and refused to agree to stop posting the offending content. Exactly what choice were RA left with but termination??

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

NotWal said..

Isn't that a breach of contract? I think you'll find it is.

Yes it is, the CoC is part of the employment conditions and compliance with it is almost certainly referenced in the actual contract.

With regard to other breaches of the Code, firstly other breaches have no impact on an individual case legally, however I can see the point from a fairness perspective.

The level of severity of the actual actions could be seen as worse in many of the other public cases that did not receive a termination. However you need to note that Rugby Australia is actually pretty lenient on wayward employees behaviour and tends to give second chances provided the individuals acknowledge they have breached the code and let down their team, provide public apologies regarding their behaviour, agree to never do it again and generally accept whatever sanctions are handed down by the tribunal - which could include additional clauses in the contracts, promises not to repeat, possible reductions in salary or fines etc....

These sanctions are generally accepted by those individuals and they get on with playing rugby in the knowledge further breaches are not going to be taken well.

Do I need to comment how the Falou attitude to all that was after his multiple breaches? He won't even acknowledge he has breached the code of conduct, refused to apologise, refused to take down the posts and refused to agree to stop posting the offending content. Exactly what choice were RA left with but termination??

I would use examples such as Kurtley Beale, Quade Cooper and James O'Connor who have repeatedly (more than twice) breached the Player Code of Conduct, and been given many many chances. These players have committed CRIMINAL offences repeatedly and not been terminated.

Maybe RA needs to be reminded of how soft they actually are when the offence is not something they are pathetically virtue signalling....

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

NotWal said..

Isn't that a breach of contract? I think you'll find it is.

Yes it is, the CoC is part of the employment conditions and compliance with it is almost certainly referenced in the actual contract.

With regard to other breaches of the Code, firstly other breaches have no impact on an individual case legally, however I can see the point from a fairness perspective.

The level of severity of the actual actions could be seen as worse in many of the other public cases that did not receive a termination. However you need to note that Rugby Australia is actually pretty lenient on wayward employees behaviour and tends to give second chances provided the individuals acknowledge they have breached the code and let down their team, provide public apologies regarding their behaviour, agree to never do it again and generally accept whatever sanctions are handed down by the tribunal - which could include additional clauses in the contracts, promises not to repeat, possible reductions in salary or fines etc....

These sanctions are generally accepted by those individuals and they get on with playing rugby in the knowledge further breaches are not going to be taken well.

Do I need to comment how the Falou attitude to all that was after his multiple breaches? He won't even acknowledge he has breached the code of conduct, refused to apologise, refused to take down the posts and refused to agree to stop posting the offending content. Exactly what choice were RA left with but termination??

To demand a religious person show contrition and apologise for practicing their religion or lose their job is unreasonable, thousands though out history have given their life in often horrible circumstances before doing such a thing, it is discrimination.

It seems that the application of the RA code of conduct is in conflict with Christianity and most other religions for that matter, the test will be what the court deems most important. The freedom to practice religion vs an employers right to demand compliance with their employment conditions 24 hours a day.

My guess is even if RA and the militant left wins this battle the war will be lost, we already have legislation to prevent such discrimination taking place but if the court gets it wrong then the Parliament will make it clearer, you cannot discriminate based on religion, you cannot have a multicultural tolerant inclusive society if views that are in conflict with modern Western political correctness are not tolerated.

No one is saying people can do and say whatever they want in the name of religion, that is an extreme view, talk of slavery and stoning etc for example.

However people should be free to do or say whatever LAWFUL thing they want in their capacity as a private person in their own time. Nothing Izzy has said or done is illegal.

Suggesting employers can control what you do and say 24 hours a day is bordering on ownership of your life. The left (see unions) would in most instances be totally opposed to employers having that much control of employees, in this instance the application of this control suits their virtue signalling PC agenda. They should be careful what they support because it will be turned against them in future.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
Suggesting employers can control what you do and say 24 hours a day is bordering on ownership of your life.

I think you will find that is limited by control on the employment conditions being reasonable. I agree if they are unreasonable then they could be challenged and I doubt any employer would get away with conditions that impinge on peoples basic rights in favour of themselves.

However employers must have rights to protect themselves as well and that is where the balance comes in. In this case there is a clear conflict between an individuals faith and a Code of Conduct.

The test will be - is the code fair or does it place unreasonable restrictions on the individuals rights? That will be the meat of this case.

My view is that the Code of Conduct is a very balanced and fair document with respect to social and human rights. Compliance does not favour the employer at all, except for it's reputation. It merely asks the employee to treat others fairly and with dignity, even on public social media posts. I believe it will be hard for any argument say that adherence to that requirement places unreasonable restrictions on an employees freedoms, especially when that individual clearly has a role that represents the employer.

So correct, I think this is the part that most people do not realize about this case. It isn't about Izzy saying all gays will go to hell etc., its that your employer has the right to terminate you for what you post online. It will be the fist work case in Aus that a person has been sacked through their use of social media. Huge presidence for the future for all of us.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
You are ignoring the fact that Izzy did not break any law, he did not deny anyone's rights unless of course you think we all have a right to not be offended which is of course ridiculous.

I 100% agree the meat of the case will be about what is and is not reasonable for an employer to enforce.

I share your view on the code's reasonableness whilst working or representing the employer, I disagree that Izzy is the property of RA given his high profile. He is person and should be free to live his life outside of work as should we all.

Cos contract law isn't a law?

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

cammd said..
You are ignoring the fact that Izzy did not break any law, he did not deny anyone's rights unless of course you think we all have a right to not be offended which is of course ridiculous.

I 100% agree the meat of the case will be about what is and is not reasonable for an employer to enforce.

I share your view on the code's reasonableness whilst working or representing the employer, I disagree that Izzy is the property of RA given his high profile. He is person and should be free to live his life outside of work as should we all.

Cos contract law isn't a law?

No his contract is not a statute law, use your common sense, companies do not write laws. Governments do, Section 772 of the Fair Work Act is one of them

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Kamikuza said..

cammd said..
You are ignoring the fact that Izzy did not break any law, he did not deny anyone's rights unless of course you think we all have a right to not be offended which is of course ridiculous.

I 100% agree the meat of the case will be about what is and is not reasonable for an employer to enforce.

I share your view on the code's reasonableness whilst working or representing the employer, I disagree that Izzy is the property of RA given his high profile. He is person and should be free to live his life outside of work as should we all.

Cos contract law isn't a law?

No his contract is not a statute law, use your common sense, companies do not write laws. Governments do, Section 772 of the Fair Work Act is one of them

Contracts are written within the law. There's no law that says "you have to wear the workplace uniform" but you're still open to losing your job is you don't comply.

No doubt there are few employers who would appreciate their representatives being self-righteous judgemental jerks to their customers...

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Paradox said..

NotWal said..

Isn't that a breach of contract? I think you'll find it is.

Yes it is, the CoC is part of the employment conditions and compliance with it is almost certainly referenced in the actual contract.

With regard to other breaches of the Code, firstly other breaches have no impact on an individual case legally, however I can see the point from a fairness perspective.

The level of severity of the actual actions could be seen as worse in many of the other public cases that did not receive a termination. However you need to note that Rugby Australia is actually pretty lenient on wayward employees behaviour and tends to give second chances provided the individuals acknowledge they have breached the code and let down their team, provide public apologies regarding their behaviour, agree to never do it again and generally accept whatever sanctions are handed down by the tribunal - which could include additional clauses in the contracts, promises not to repeat, possible reductions in salary or fines etc....

These sanctions are generally accepted by those individuals and they get on with playing rugby in the knowledge further breaches are not going to be taken well.

Do I need to comment how the Falou attitude to all that was after his multiple breaches? He won't even acknowledge he has breached the code of conduct, refused to apologise, refused to take down the posts and refused to agree to stop posting the offending content. Exactly what choice were RA left with but termination??

To demand a religious person show contrition and apologise for practicing their religion or lose their job is unreasonable, thousands though out history have given their life in often horrible circumstances before doing such a thing, it is discrimination.

It seems that the application of the RA code of conduct is in conflict with Christianity and most other religions for that matter, the test will be what the court deems most important. The freedom to practice religion vs an employers right to demand compliance with their employment conditions 24 hours a day.

My guess is even if RA and the militant left wins this battle the war will be lost, we already have legislation to prevent such discrimination taking place but if the court gets it wrong then the Parliament will make it clearer, you cannot discriminate based on religion, you cannot have a multicultural tolerant inclusive society if views that are in conflict with modern Western political correctness are not tolerated.

The point has already been made that demonizing a minority is not acceptable in an ethical society, regardless of the religious standing of the bigotry.

Select to expand quote

NotWal said..

cammd said..

Paradox said..

NotWal said..

Isn't that a breach of contract? I think you'll find it is.

Yes it is, the CoC is part of the employment conditions and compliance with it is almost certainly referenced in the actual contract.

With regard to other breaches of the Code, firstly other breaches have no impact on an individual case legally, however I can see the point from a fairness perspective.

The level of severity of the actual actions could be seen as worse in many of the other public cases that did not receive a termination. However you need to note that Rugby Australia is actually pretty lenient on wayward employees behaviour and tends to give second chances provided the individuals acknowledge they have breached the code and let down their team, provide public apologies regarding their behaviour, agree to never do it again and generally accept whatever sanctions are handed down by the tribunal - which could include additional clauses in the contracts, promises not to repeat, possible reductions in salary or fines etc....

These sanctions are generally accepted by those individuals and they get on with playing rugby in the knowledge further breaches are not going to be taken well.

Do I need to comment how the Falou attitude to all that was after his multiple breaches? He won't even acknowledge he has breached the code of conduct, refused to apologise, refused to take down the posts and refused to agree to stop posting the offending content. Exactly what choice were RA left with but termination??

To demand a religious person show contrition and apologise for practicing their religion or lose their job is unreasonable, thousands though out history have given their life in often horrible circumstances before doing such a thing, it is discrimination.

It seems that the application of the RA code of conduct is in conflict with Christianity and most other religions for that matter, the test will be what the court deems most important. The freedom to practice religion vs an employers right to demand compliance with their employment conditions 24 hours a day.

My guess is even if RA and the militant left wins this battle the war will be lost, we already have legislation to prevent such discrimination taking place but if the court gets it wrong then the Parliament will make it clearer, you cannot discriminate based on religion, you cannot have a multicultural tolerant inclusive society if views that are in conflict with modern Western political correctness are not tolerated.

The point has already been made that demonizing a minority is not acceptable in an ethical society, regardless of the religious standing of the bigotry.

The point is it is not for an employer to decide what is and what is not an acceptable religous view when it is legal and private and unrelated to work.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

cammd said..

Kamikuza said..

cammd said..
You are ignoring the fact that Izzy did not break any law, he did not deny anyone's rights unless of course you think we all have a right to not be offended which is of course ridiculous.

I 100% agree the meat of the case will be about what is and is not reasonable for an employer to enforce.

I share your view on the code's reasonableness whilst working or representing the employer, I disagree that Izzy is the property of RA given his high profile. He is person and should be free to live his life outside of work as should we all.

Cos contract law isn't a law?

No his contract is not a statute law, use your common sense, companies do not write laws. Governments do, Section 772 of the Fair Work Act is one of them

Contracts are written within the law. There's no law that says "you have to wear the workplace uniform" but you're still open to losing your job is you don't comply.

No doubt there are few employers who would appreciate their representatives being self-righteous judgemental jerks to their customers...

Has an employer got a right to enforce uniform standards whilst you are not at work.

My guess is you will not answer that with a straight yes or no.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Its a great shame that RA is being used as a platform to forward social agenda's rather than what its meant for.

That comment is so totally ignorant of the game of Rugby it's not funny. I am talking about the grass roots club level Rugby, not the high stakes international test level. There is no leftist "social agenda" being pushed by Rugby Australia. What they are pushing is the World Rugby core values. Try googling the inclusiveness policies of Rugby Australia or World Rugby. They are protecting the very fabric the code is built on at the grass roots.

Try reading this article from 2017, the issue is not a recent one.
www.world.rugby/news/271808?lang=en

I have said multiple times that Rugby Australia had no choice but to sack Folau. That's not just from a contractual perspective, its from a core value perspective. His actions haven't just breached an Australian employers contract, they have breached the World Rugby Code of Conduct and the very heart of the games inclusiveness policies. If they did not sack him, World Rugby would have stepped in and sanctioned both Rugby Australia for not taking action and sanctioned Folau themselves.

It's rugby, not church

As unfortunate as it is to have to bear a "tax" on society in the form of non-producing, highly paid legal practitioners I'm now realising how necessary it is to have people educated enough who can read the law, understand it and implement its intent.

The lack of understanding across the general populace is astounding. And where does that position trial-by-jury of one's peers if that misunderstanding is so prevalent??!!