The Israel Folau saga

[sidelineview]

Curious why you (and Folau) chose to leave out the last bit.

I quoted what Folau posted.
I could go on and on and on ... but I'm not a theologian; just someone who is familiar with the Christian faith.

 

[gel]

No.

Actually, yes.

Learn some history.

 

[sidelineview]

I read that Anthony Mundine piece. And I think he is a complete Muppet. But he did make the point that Israel was quoting the bible. And it was the Bible that was offensive and is what should be banned not Izzy.

Bit of don't shoot the messenger,

Why then can churches, book shops and printers continue to distribute this hate?

I think it's time for a heavily censored version to be written and endorsed by the Government. There should be a bible buy back or amnesty to rid the world of the old offensive scripts. Or perhaps religion should be outlawed.

I think I will read Animal Farm again.

Cleverly worded.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Especially after listening to Turinui, this is why I think the best course of action is to give him a big fine (he said he thought the max was $200K), and then simply just not pick him for the Tahs (and Wallabies for now). There is no need to insert a social media clause because he will be on a final warning. He'll lose all his endorsements, Asics already gone, and he'll either get the shits and seek a mutual release, or he'll re-offend and get sacked without a payout, or he may actually learn from his errors and make himself earn selection again.

However, I'm not placing a lot of faith in RA making the most sensible decision, history says they will probably make the worst one.

KOB, I have stayed away from making comments on this matter mainly because I'm not sure in my own mind how I think it should play out. On the one hand I can't understand how anybody these days can be offended by calls to an imaginary supernatural being, while otherwise I do see there is an employer/employee issue also at stake.

However, if the matter progresses as you suggest, then if there is another issue, under the current EBA arrangements I'd suggest RA still could not terminate the contract without another CoC inquiry.

So, once again on the same merry-go-round. I think the whole EBA arrangement has to be scrapped. Is there any other large organisation (including Public Service organisations) that cede the right to fire to an "independent" committee? My understanding is that the employer retains that right and that it is subject then to appeal to various independent bodies (eg the Merit Protection Review Agency in the APS) or the courts. The reason the ARU (then) and RA (now) are in such turmoil with both the Beale and the Folau incidents is that they are unable to exercise their rights as employers but are shackled with a process that in effect takes the right to fire away from them.

IMo it is time for the Players Association to back off, and allow RA to regain their rights as employers and allow the various appeal mechanisms to run their course.

 

[Braveheart81]

However, if the matter progresses as you suggest, then if there is another issue, under the current EBA arrangements I'd suggest RA still could not terminate the contract without another CoC inquiry.

So, once again on the same merry-go-round. I think the whole EBA arrangement has to be scrapped. Is there any other large organisation (including Public Service organisations) that cede the right to fire to an "independent" committee? My understanding is that the employer retains that right and that it is subject then to appeal to various independent bodies (eg the Merit Protection Review Agency in the APS) or the courts. The reason the ARU (then) and RA (now) are in such turmoil with both the Beale and the Folau incidents is that they are unable to exercise their rights as employers but are shackled with a process that in effect takes the right to fire away from them.

IMo it is time for the Players Association to back off, and allow RA to regain their rights as employers and allow the various appeal mechanisms to run their course.

It's never going to happen. Why would the players give away their rights?

The situation partly arises because a lot of the players aren't directly employed by Rugby Australia but the same rules apply to all of them.

A lot of sports aren't dissimilar in their process. If Steve Smith and Dave Warner had disagreed with the charges and punishment Cricket Australia wanted to hand them they had a right to a hearing and then appeal in front of a CA Commissioner.

 

[KOB1987]

KOB, I have stayed away from making comments on this matter mainly because I'm not sure in my own mind how I think it should play out. On the one hand I can't understand how anybody these days can be offended by calls to an imaginary supernatural being, while otherwise I do see there is an employer/employee issue also at stake.

However, if the matter progresses as you suggest, then if there is another issue, under the current EBA arrangements I'd suggest RA still could not terminate the contract without another CoC inquiry.

So, once again on the same merry-go-round. I think the whole EBA arrangement has to be scrapped. Is there any other large organisation (including Public Service organisations) that cede the right to fire to an "independent" committee? My understanding is that the employer retains that right and that it is subject then to appeal to various independent bodies (eg the Merit Protection Review Agency in the APS) or the courts. The reason the ARU (then) and RA (now) are in such turmoil with both the Beale and the Folau incidents is that they are unable to exercise their rights as employers but are shackled with a process that in effect takes the right to fire away from them.

IMo it is time for the Players Association to back off, and allow RA to regain their rights as employers and allow the various appeal mechanisms to run their course.

I did contemplate that as an outcome. The warning would be in the form that 'another high level breach will result in instant termination'. So yes, it would have to go through another CoC hearing to get to that stage, but there is no grey area about the sanction, and it doesn't have to specifically relate to social media. He knows now that posting similar stuff is going to be viewed as a high level breach of the CoC. And RA can hope for one of the other two outcomes.

I agree about the EBA etc, as an employer I feel that employees have too many rights, and I even thought that when I was an employee of a large firm.

 

[Brumby Runner]

BH, isn't the Smith/Warner situation just what I'm suggesting should happen. CA makes a decision (in this case the suspensions) and Smith and Warner had rights to appeal? Or am I missing something?

 

[Strewthcobber]

BH, isn't the Smith/Warner situation just what I'm suggesting should happen. CA makes a decision (in this case the suspensions) and Smith and Warner had rights to appeal? Or am I missing something?

Smith and Warner chose not to contest the charge or the sanction which came out of the initial review by the Head of Integrity, which is a bit different to RA. If either wanted to challenge they could have requested a hearing (in front of 1 independent commissioner not RA's 3). They then can appeal the findings of the hearing as well

 

[The Honey Badger]

I read Izzy has already paid $100k in legal fees.

Not bad Mr Boultbee for 3 days work. Same bloke was my rowing coach back in the middle of the last century. He's done alright.

Last time I employed an SC I was told to bring a cheque for 3k. (was over 10 years ago) bit of a different rate for celeb cases.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Smith and Warner chose not to contest the charge or the sanction which came out of the initial review by the Head of Integrity, which is a bit different to RA. If either wanted to challenge they could have requested a hearing (in front of 1 independent commissioner not RA's 3). They then can appeal the findings of the hearing as well

Strewth, am I wrong though in assuming that the original decision to apply suspensions was taken by CA and the various avenues afterwards are part of the review/appeal process? In RA's case, it appears (at least to me) that RA doesn't now have the power to make the original decision. That has been ceded to the CoC panel.

 

[Slim 293]

Actually, yes.

Learn some history.

No, nope, no no no nooooooooooo............. I'm not going to engage with the off-topic, loony far-right conspiracies.

 

[Braveheart81]

BH, isn't the Smith/Warner situation just what I'm suggesting should happen. CA makes a decision (in this case the suspensions) and Smith and Warner had rights to appeal? Or am I missing something?

Not quite. They would have the right to a hearing in the first instance and then if they didn't like the result of that, an appeal hearing.

In terms of total revenue, Cricket Australia is about 3.5x the size of Rugby Australia. Being a much bigger organisation they can afford to internalise the process by having the relevant people on staff rather than externally. The Head of Integrity was a former lawyer.

I would also suggest that CA holds more power in employee negotiations with the ACA than RA with RUPA because they offer far more compelling remuneration for the players. Our cricketers generally don't have the potential of getting paid more elsewhere in lieu of a Cricket Australia contract like our rugby players do. Of course most of them have the ability to get paid lucratively to play elsewhere in addition to their Cricket Australia contract.

I don't think RA would really be able to wrest control away from RUPA without being able to offer most players significantly more money.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

I'm on the list. See you all in hell. Bring a flask will ya?

See you there.

Going by the list, I'll be arriving headfirst in a handbasket. At comet-like speed.

 

[Derpus]

 

[Strewthcobber]

Strewth, am I wrong though in assuming that the original decision to apply suspensions was taken by CA and the various avenues afterwards are part of the review/appeal process? In RA's case, it appears (at least to me) that RA doesn't now have the power to make the original decision. That has been ceded to the CoC panel.

CA Head of Integrity undertakes a review and makes recommendations which for the cricketers was made public. They then choose not to go through the COC panel - in effect pleaded guilty and threw themselves at the mercy of CA's head of integrity.

For RA, an Investigations Officer appointed by RA makes the initial recommendations as well which then procede to the CoC hearing - which we haven't seen.

 

[Braveheart81]

Strewth, am I wrong though in assuming that the original decision to apply suspensions was taken by CA and the various avenues afterwards are part of the review/appeal process? In RA's case, it appears (at least to me) that RA doesn't now have the power to make the original decision. That has been ceded to the CoC panel.

Rugby Australia chief executive Raelene Castle said on Monday the Wallabies and Waratahs’ fullback had been charged with a “high level” code of conduct breach and the organisation’s integrity unit had recommended his lucrative contract be terminated.
Folau can either accept that finding or ask for a code of conduct hearing.
It's essentially exactly the same. Folau could have chosen to accept that and be sacked.

 

[sidelineview]

No, nope, no no no nooooooooooo..... I'm not going to engage with the off-topic, loony far-right conspiracies.

Far right?
Geez, thats become a popular label.
Are Mark Latham and Alan Jones members of the far right?

By the way, it was interesting to hear Nick Farr-Jones throw his two bobs worth in.

 

[Derpus]

Far right?
Geez, thats become a popular label.
Are Mark Latham and Alan Jones members of the far right?

By the way, it was interesting to hear Nick Farr-Jones throw his two bobs worth in.

Its a made up bullshit title that doesn't serve any purpose but to pigeon hole people and set them against each other.

 

[Ignoto]

By the way, it was interesting to hear Nick Farr-Jones throw his two bobs worth in.

Honestly, I think Farr-Jones's comments show how little intelligence and maturity Folau has.

“He was basically told do it in a non offensive way. You can continue to communicate like this and communicate your faith, just do it in a respectful way."

Folau was advised to express his beliefs in a respectful, non-offensive way

“She proposed to him, say something like ‘heaven awaits those who repent from their sins.'

"But he’s saying he was never instructed that way."

You know what we do with employees who can't read between the lines and make educated decisions. They get performance managed.

 

[sidelineview]

Honestly, I think Farr-Jones's comments show how little intelligence and maturity Folau has.


You might be right but it'll all come out in the wash about how clear his instructions were.
I dont know so I cant comment.