Kurtley Beale

[Chris McCracken]

I might just be a logical IT guy who finds fluffy employee stuff utter bullshit at times, but my wife deals with this shit all the time in a state health role. I have to listen to her frustrations on this shit all day.

We live in eerily similar circumstances.......

'Queue Twilight Zone music'

 

[BDA]

The fact Di has resigned doesn't change much. The same if she lied on her CV or was having it off with Link everyday in the office. This stuff is not in the top 50 issues about the case.

She has resigned due to stress caused by bullying and sexual harassment in the work place. She doesn't have to still be an employee to pursue this, and in fact, the fact she felt forced to quit will only add to the case given she has

1. Previously shown a willingness to forgive and move on
2. 3 years in a HP rugby union program interacting with players on a daily basis with no issue.

You would imagine the single text would be more than enough cause for the ARU to sack Beale, or any employee for that matter.

The more you read this stuff the more murky the ARU's liability becomes. On paper they seem like how they handle it will determine how they fare. But having a spokesperson come out and says unequivocally that Beale shouldn't lose his job might complicate things further.

My understanding is that in the case of law suits against Employers resulting from bullying and/or sexual harassment, the question of compensation/liability generally comes down to questions such as:-
a) did the employer fail to take appropriate steps to respond to an employee's complaint
b) did the employer have appropriate safeguard in place to prevent bullying and/or sexual harassment;
c) did the employer have processes in place for such complaints to be dealt with.
, etc.
If it is true that none of this was ever reported to management or staff I would have thought it would be difficult to criticise the ARU given that they clearly have processes in place and have clearly taken the issues very seriously now that they are aware of them.

 

[Thinker]

Actually, her options are limited to 2: report it, or don't.

And in fact, under the terms of her employment as part of the ARU, she really had one option when it comes right down to it - I refer you to the MPP:

7.3 Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy

....

If any person feels they are being harassed or discriminated against or bullied by a person or organisation bound by this Policy they should approach the MPC.

I know it's a big scary world out there for you with women allowed to vote and have jobs, but did you actually read what you are quoting?

In the section ABOUT HOW TO HANDLE COMPLAINTS THE VERY FIRST STEP:

Step 1: Talk with the other person (if safe, reasonable and appropriate)
If the Complainant feels confident to do so, approach the other person(s) to discuss the issues and try
and resolve the problem directly.

Seems to me she followed the procedure TO THE LETTER.

 

[Thinker]

My understanding is that in the case of law suits against Employers resulting from bullying and/or sexual harassment, the question of compensation/liability generally comes down to questions such as:-
a) did the employer fail to take appropriate steps to respond to an employee's complaint
b) did the employer have appropriate safeguard in place to prevent bullying and/or sexual harassment;
c) did the employer have processes in place for such complaints to be dealt with.
, etc.
If it is true that none of this was ever reported to management or staff I would have thought it would be difficult to criticise the ARU given that they clearly have processes in place and have clearly taken the issues very seriously now that they are aware of them.

I agree with this the more I read. The only grey area will be those who knew and weren't the victim.

 

[fatprop]

I threw up the "misogyny" card on this thread a few days ago and I think a few in the media and this thread should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves

I find the truly sad piece in this is that there was an immediate "belief" by some that a female who gets promoted in a "mans" world must be f#cking someone in power.

I also find it concerning that none of the other text recipients appear to do anything about it. Whether it went to her or not, where was the WTFs? we aren't 12! from the other recipients?

I hope to be pleasantly surprised with evidence to the contrary, but I doubt it.

 

[Godfrey]

I know it's a big scary world out there for you with women allowed to vote and have jobs, but did you actually read what you are quoting?

In the section ABOUT HOW TO HANDLE COMPLAINTS THE VERY FIRST STEP:



Seems to me she followed the procedure TO THE LETTER.

To be fair even though Pfitzy was being loud/belligerent rather than correct, I don't think that means he has a problem with her being a woman. I mean he might, but unless I've missed something it's an unfair conclusion.

 

[Pfitzy]

I know it's a big scary world out there for you with women allowed to vote and have jobs,

Well done keyboard warrior. Does talking down to your husband work too?

Yes I've read all the relevant bits. Your problem is you've completely misunderstood the English word "resolve", to whit:

"settle or find a solution to (a problem or contentious matter)"

Patston accepting an apology, then applying conditions to it, does not in any way resolve the matter. It states openly, rather than implies, that the matter is NOT concluded.

Therefore the policy has not been followed TO THE LETTER.

 

[BDA]

nevertheless I would be surprised if Di hasn't already instructed her solicitors to forward a without prejudice demand to the ARU seeking a butt load of compensation and despite the ARU's possibly strong position at law, I would expect they'll be some settlement with a value to avoiding a stoush in the public eye. I wouldn't be surprised if the ARU pays big $$ for Beale's behaviour.

 

[Gnostic]

I also think there are a few management experts out there getting workplace warnings confused to yellow cards - workplace warnings don't re-set to zero when given.

If someone grossly fucks up, and you say "you're not boned, but don't do that again", the first incident is not expunged from history. It happened and should be able to be revisited (especially within just 4 months) as it clearly proves repeat behaviour.

I totally agree Gagger, but for said "management action or the incident to be revisited the incident should be dealt with properly the first time. IE. if it is going to be mediated with no formal actions so be it, but it needs to be recorded as such. If we have informal proceedings and informal outcomes it is unreasonable for such things to be taken seriously at a later date. AND if such informal proceedings take place and evidence is retained I seriously question the ethics of people doing such things. Evidence of first complaint is a well established legal point and a delayed formal complaint brings up motivations etc.

Like I said earlier anybody in a management position who take informal "counselling" actions with an employee is not doing their job properly and is doing all parties a dis-service.

None of that absolves the wrong doer of any culpability they hold for their actions, but it certainly brings into question the professionalism of the management.

 

[Cat_A]

I'd argue that the second (known at this stage) incident took the first from an isolated incident to a pattern; both caused public embarrassment with workmates.

 

[vidiot]

None of that absolves the wrong doer of any culpability they hold for their actions, but it certainly brings into question the professionalism of the management.

In this context, Patston is not the manager. She is an employee that has been sexually harassed by another employee. With an unknown number of players (other employees) complicit.

 

[kiap]

Actually, her options are limited to 2: report it, or don't.

And in fact, under the terms of her employment as part of the ARU, she really had one option when it comes right down to it - I refer you to the MPP:

7.3 Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy

....

If any person feels they are being harassed or discriminated against or bullied by a person or organisation bound by this Policy they should approach the MPC.

You're way out of line here and out of your depth. Firstly, your reference is not from the ARU MPP (their Anti-D&H policy is below).

Secondly, "should" does not mean the same as "must". There is no compulsion on lodging a complaint; nor is there a limitation placed on reporting harassment after which a victim can no longer do so. The avenue for reporting harassment is clearly set out in the statement that "If any person feels they are being harassed or discriminated against or bullied by a person or organisation bound by this Policy, they may make an internal complaint", in the ARU document:

Anti-Discrimination and Harassment​

​

The ARU aims to provide a sport environment where all those involved in its activities are treated with dignity and respect..​

​

The ARU recognises that all those involved in its activities cannot enjoy themselves, perform to their best, or be effective or fully productive if they are being treated unfairly, Discriminated against, Harassed or bullied.​

​

The ARU prohibits all forms of Harassment, Discrimination or bullying based on personal characteristics listed in the Definitions. Discrimination, Harassment and bullying are extremely distressing, offensive, humiliating and/or threatening and create an uncomfortable and unpleasant environment. In some circumstances Discrimination, Harassment and bullying are against the law.​

​

Descriptions of some of the types of behaviour which could be regarded as Harassment or Discrimination are provided in the Definitions at clause 11.​

​

If any person feels they are being harassed or discriminated against or bullied by a person or organisation bound by this Policy, they may make an internal complaint. In some circumstances, they may also be able to make a complaint to an external organisation.. The complaints procedure is outlined in Part C of the Policy.​

 

[Chris McCracken]

For what it's worth, I had the idea of doing a piece for G&GR on the harassment angle, so I rang the former HR Superintendent where I used to work. Since she didn't want to be identified and I realised just what a shit fight I'd be getting myself into, the article won't be happening, but here's what she said (and note: I am only semi-literate in HR speak and this is my translation):

Firstly, she is very aware of every last thing that has been published, what is BS and what is conjecture and hearsay. This is like an open case study for HR professionals.

On the subject of Di keeping the photos from management, I was incorrect that she might have remit over them as HR personnel. However, she is perfectly within her rights to do exactly what did insofar as keeping it between her and Beale. This sways with the ridiculous amount of "Diversity" training I've had. People have a right to take the matter up without involving management.

She also pointed out there is no limit on time or circumstances that can make it incorrect to bring the matter back up. In fact, she wouldn't actually need an incident like what happened on the plane. She could just have a change of heart. Something like that she realised she'd been duped. Not that anyone is saying that's what happened.

She also reminded me of a policy at my former workplace that, if a staff member was to be driven home under any circumstance, the member's immediate supervisor was to perform that duty. That is above and beyond any other task. This is becoming more and more common in more and more workplaces. I can vouch for that, having had to drive team members home on a number of occasions.

If such a policy was in place, or simply if Link believed in that sort of thing, that would vindicate driving her to the airport in Argentina and perhaps even Perth.

 

[ACT Crusader]

What's behind Harris and others reporting this so called ARU and Cheika "contact"

On the OZ website a short time ago

THE burgeoning crisis of the Kurtley Beale texting affair has led the ARU to sound out NSW Waratahs coach Michael Cheika.
A veteran of 47 Tests for Australia, Beale has been stood down while being investigated by the ARU over two incidents involving the Wallabies former business manager Di Patston, who resigned on Saturday.
The ARU has sounded out Cheika about the possibility of taking over the Wallabies from coach Ewen McKenzie, whose winning percentage will fall below 50 per cent if Australia loses to the All Blacks in Brisbane on Saturday night.
Beale and Patston clashed on a Wallabies flight from South Africa to South America a fortnight ago over attire, while Beale also distributed an offensive text message about Patston back in June.
The context of the texts leaked to The Daily Telegraph indicate Beale begged for forgiveness from Patston after he sent her two crude and humiliating text message pictures.

A distressed Patston is understood to forgiven a remorseful Beale at a face-to-face meeting, agreeing to give him a second chance and not reveal the texts to McKenzie or the Australian Rugby union.
McKenzie is insistent that he didn’t learn about the text exchange between Beale and Patston in June until after their spat on the way to Argentina.
The ARU is under pressure to terminate Beale’s contract, while the player is also believed to be considering playing in France or switching to rugby league.
NSW Waratahs chairman Roger Davis said today it would be a tragedy for Australian rugby if Beale was lost to the game.
“The ARU is conducting a review and we will see what happens, but it would be a tragedy for Australian rugby to lose Kurtley,” Davis said.
“To lose him would be a major disappointment and a backward step for the code. He has been an extraordinary footballer at schoolboy, Super Rugby and international level.”
Davis also revealed that the Beale affair had interrupted the Waratahs negotiations to extend the contract of Super Rugby winning head coach Cheika.
“Michael has just returned from a study tour of Argentina and this is a distraction for him,” Davis said.
Beale is to face an ARU conduct committee this week, which is proving a distraction to the Wallabies ahead of their Bledisloe Cup match with New Zealand at Suncorp Stadium.

 

[Gnostic]

In this context, Patston is not the manager. She is an employee that has been sexually harassed by another employee. With an unknown number of players (other employees) complicit.

A management position is a management position. All managers have a clear responsibility to report such matters. If we change it to a matter of workplace safety and any manager identifies an issue and doesn't deal with it whose responsibility does it become. Does it matter that they were not the "safety" manager? Is she "HR" trained or not? This is my point, if she was conflicted in dealing with the issue because she was grossly offended, fine call in another manager to deal with it. But it MUST be dealt with. This informal bullshit is just that, no one who has worked in a management position would (should) deal with issues in such a matter, especially not a HR trained manager.

There are questions that need to be asked regarding the management of the team and the ARU arising from this matter. Beale should be gone, make no bones about it, no umpteenth chance, and that should be made clear to him, that even if this matter were not so serious he would be gone for that reason (his history). But his sacking should not be a cover for the poor systems and poor management that this sorry tale has exposed. If we want a silver lining to this smog cloud, then that is it. Shine a light on the management and genuinely improve it. I would guarantee that team performance would improve.

 

[blues recovery]

So where does this come from. Lets bring up the race card because nothing else is working . Lets add racist to all of the other rubbish written about the poor woman.

 

[No4918]

Tapes (texts in this case) from both sides have been aired. Why even suggest the racial stuff? That didn't happen and has absolutely no bearing on this. Really stupid thing to say.

 

[Tomikin]

What's behind Harris and others reporting this so called ARU and Cheika "contact"

On the OZ website a short time ago

In my head nothing, at the moment Links being assinated for no reason. Nothing has come out that his done anything.

And then put Chekia in the job..gee thanks..

Let's get rid of the two best Ozzie coaches by 2015 world cup (if Chekia fails)..

Give Like till next world cup then get the best guy for the job.

Chekia with Fisher and Larkham helping.

 

[Chris McCracken]

What's behind Harris and others reporting this so called ARU and Cheika "contact"

On the OZ website a short time ago

Growden Tweeted that this morning. If it's true, then the only ethical reason I can think of they could have done it is because McKenzie has signalled his intention to resign.

It could also just be lazy journalism - reporting on something tweeted by someone else. Happens all the time. That's what I'm hoping/backing.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Well done keyboard warrior. Does talking down to your husband work too?

Yes I've read all the relevant bits. Your problem is you've completely misunderstood the English word "resolve", to whit:

"settle or find a solution to (a problem or contentious matter)"

Patston accepting an apology, then applying conditions to it, does not in any way resolve the matter. It states openly, rather than implies, that the matter is NOT concluded.

Therefore the policy has not been followed TO THE LETTER.

The resolution was that Patson would forgive the matter providing Beale showed it was merely an anomaly in his behavior not a pattern.

Let's not forget, Patson's reputation and potentially her ability to do her job were at stake by her escalating the matter.

Should the victim of harassment and bullying be obligated to escalate the issues if that makes their position untenable? I would hope not.