The Folau Factor



  • I've also read that he is protected under the Fair Work Act, which are laws that protect workers rights. This includes protection for religious beliefs, stopping employers from terminating employment based on those beliefs.



  • @MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:

    @No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:

    Im also interested in how many breaches Cheika has been served a based on this under the coaches section:

    2.7 Accept and respect the authority of a referee, assistant referee, touch judge or other match or team official. Do not abuse, threaten or intimidate, use crude language or gestures, or show unnecessary obvious dissension, displeasure or disapproval towards a referee, touch judge or other match official, whether on or off the field, or a selector, coach, manager or other team official.

    Must be 50 odd at least? Or do they pick and choose what parts to enforce? 🙂

    Although you make a good point which I agree with, it's quite reasonable to have different levels of breaches of conduct, and hence different punishments.

    Yeah but 50 odd low level breaches must add up to something bigger? 🙂



  • @No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:

    I had no doubt he was in breach of the Code of Conduct, so the finding that he was in breach was inevitable and really just a waste of everyone's time.

    The point I'm interested in is whether it infringes on freedom of speech and if an employer can legally terminate someone's contract based on expressing their religious beliefs, because that is a fair can of worms they're opening if they can.

    It shall be an interesting case alright ... Regardless of anybodies leaning, it's Folaus actions which caused this, so I have little sympathy for him.



  • @No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:

    @MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:

    @No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:

    Im also interested in how many breaches Cheika has been served a based on this under the coaches section:

    2.7 Accept and respect the authority of a referee, assistant referee, touch judge or other match or team official. Do not abuse, threaten or intimidate, use crude language or gestures, or show unnecessary obvious dissension, displeasure or disapproval towards a referee, touch judge or other match official, whether on or off the field, or a selector, coach, manager or other team official.

    Must be 50 odd at least? Or do they pick and choose what parts to enforce? 🙂

    Although you make a good point which I agree with, it's quite reasonable to have different levels of breaches of conduct, and hence different punishments.

    Yeah but 50 odd low level breaches must add up to something bigger? 🙂

    per game, you mean?



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:

    And Falou? Did he get to agree?

    🤔 so you're saying that even the player's union was against him?

    @antipodean said in The Folau Factor:

    Both Rugby Australia and RUPA had to agree on the members of the panel.



  • @NTA said in The Folau Factor:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:

    And Falou? Did he get to agree?

    🤔 so you're saying that even the player's union was against him?

    Both Rugby Australia and RUPA had to agree on the members of the panel.

    Nope. I think they played it straight. But the other half of the decision makers did not.

    Do you think the ARU played it straight?



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:

    Nope. I think they played it straight. But the other half of the decision makers did not.

    Your implication is either RA had undue influence over the Players Union, or that something went wrong in the actual hearing itself.

    If there was some kind of procedural issue, then it was up to Folau's representation to point that out, and get the entire thing thrown out.

    Clearly they couldn't, either through incompetence / lack of knowledge (which amounts to the same thing), OR maybe just because it was a breach.

    Edit: Occam's Razor.

    They didn't appeal, so either (again) they're incompetent or they know they can't win there.

    On the assumption this is going to court, the case they choose to test will be interesting.



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:

    Do you think the ARU played it straight?

    Ah - you added this after the original quote.

    Yes, I do. Because, while they may have a shithouse record at running the game into the ground, they weren't about to fuck this up, leave themselves bankrupt, and deserted by fans.

    I'm still not sure why you posit some kind of conspiracy going on here.

    Do you think this is a larger issue?



  • @NTA The Players union are there to protect Folau no? I would have thought it was their duty to dispute the panel selections if they felt their man was being railroaded



  • @No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:

    I've also read that he is protected under the Fair Work Act, which are laws that protect workers rights. This includes protection for religious beliefs, stopping employers from terminating employment based on those beliefs.

    Having beliefs is fine. But I think there are also sections in the Act about expressing those beliefs in a way that is detrimental to the employer.



  • @canefan said in The Folau Factor:

    @NTA The Players union are there to protect Folau no? I would have thought it was their duty to dispute the panel selections if they felt their man was being railroaded

    Bingo. Like most unions, RUPA aren't afraid to pick a fight. While the players' cut of the pie is guaranteed, it's nice to have fewer people you need to represent for the slice 😉



  • @NTA said in The Folau Factor:

    @No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:

    I've also read that he is protected under the Fair Work Act, which are laws that protect workers rights. This includes protection for religious beliefs, stopping employers from terminating employment based on those beliefs.

    Having beliefs is fine. But I think there are also sections in the Act about expressing those beliefs in a way that is detrimental to the employer.

    There are lots of christian players out there ( the odd muslim and maybe other religions too). Folau is the only one who sees fit to post stuff of that nature



  • @NTA said in The Folau Factor:

    @No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:

    I've also read that he is protected under the Fair Work Act, which are laws that protect workers rights. This includes protection for religious beliefs, stopping employers from terminating employment based on those beliefs.

    Having beliefs is fine. But I think there are also sections in the Act about expressing those beliefs in a way that is detrimental to the employer.

    That's more to do with disparaging your employer though. Paraphrasing the bible is a different kettle of fish.



  • One thing is for sure. The lawyers will be absolutely licking their lips. They live for this kind of thing.



  • @No-Quarter Something to do with bringing your employer into disrepute? It is an ugly situation after the last incident. In hindsight, the only thing the ARU could have done would have been to not offer Folau a new contract. I am sure that would have gone down well in Oz too, so they were in a no win situation



  • @No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:

    One thing is for sure. The lawyers will be absolutely licking their lips. They live for this kind of thing.

    There's only one real winner!!



  • @No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:

    That's more to do with disparaging your employer though. Paraphrasing the bible is a different kettle of fish.

    Fair enough. I saw something quoted abut reputational damage but maybe I'm thinking about corporates like my own work 🤔

    @canefan said in The Folau Factor:

    There are lots of christian players out there ( the odd muslim

    I hear that Sonny William Williams is a Muslim 😉 Had a Muslim guy at our club - hated playing during Ramadan because he'd be exhausted!



  • @canefan said in The Folau Factor:

    @No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:

    One thing is for sure. The lawyers will be absolutely licking their lips. They live for this kind of thing.

    There's only one real winner!!

    First against the wall when the revolution comes 😉



  • I would assume Channel 10 has an Inclusion Policy. Do they care that that repulsive creature from the project just slandered millions of Australians? Probably not because another thing that's very selective is what we're supposed to be outraged about.

    With regards to Foulhaw, I'm sick and tired of it. Maybe there is a freedom of speech/religion argument there, but like those dickhead Hollywood virtue signallers he should just stfu and do what he's good at. Now all he's really accomplished is lose a season of his career and miss a world cup. He would have had all the time in the world to insult fornicators and gays when he'd hung up the boots.



  • @NTA said in The Folau Factor:

    @No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:

    I've also read that he is protected under the Fair Work Act, which are laws that protect workers rights. This includes protection for religious beliefs, stopping employers from terminating employment based on those beliefs.

    Having beliefs is fine. But I think there are also sections in the Act about expressing those beliefs in a way that is detrimental to the employer.

    The general protections section of the Fair Work Act apply and he could make a claim RA breached that and test that in the Federal Court. Those provisions have a reverse onus too so RA would have to prove they didn’t breach those protections.


Log in to reply