News Folau case may send Rugby Australia broke.

[Mr Invisible]

You two could be right. But 3 Australian Senior Council/Queens Council lawyers all deemed that Rugby Australia were within their rights to sack Folau. One of those lawyers specialises on the law that you two are talking about and she considered it open and shut.

Also, Folau's complaint was that he thought he wouldn't get a fair shake from Rugby Australia. But the panel that judged him were independent. So it's not Rugby Australia that's judging him.

The judge will look at it like they do any case:
1) you were deemed to have breached contract by 3 of Australia's senior council
2) you chose not to appeal

Folau will enter the court on the back foot with a large chunk of evidence against him. It'll take a miracle for him to win.

My guess is that he won't contend it. He'll make a public announcement that Australia is evil and he hopes they repent then he'll retire.

We are talking about two completely different scenarios here.

SCENARIO 1:
Mediation via a panel of 3 to decide if Israel Folau had breached Rugby AU's Code of Conduct with enough grounds to sack him. Verdict: Yes he did.

Mediation panel was made up of: John West QC (Independent Mediator), Kate Eastman SC (RugbyAU Appointed) and John Boultbee AM (RugbyAU Players Association Appointed).
West and Eastman know each other, have mediated on same and opposing sides of the table, and are in similar circles. Boultbee is not an SC/QC and has not practised as a barrister since 1989.

One can understand why with any appeal, it would still not be in Folaus favour, because any SC/QC that RA appoint, if they are mediators they are likely to know each other, and hence questionably remain impartial.

SCENARIO 2:
The case heads to court as Folau takes RA to court for unfair dismissal. In doing so Folau will argue that the things he stated did not breach any human rights, nor any anti discrimination laws, and hence were not at a level that would allow RA to consider termination, or even take it to mediation.

RA can appoint the same SC, and Folau the same legal team, however it will be held in front of an impartial judge who will only be ruling on legislation regarding unfair dismissal laws.

This is where RA are going to get screwed, because that CoC I previously posted is that vague, theres no way they can hold him to having breached it, regardless of what a questionably "impartial" mediation panel might think.

It'll be seen by an independent judge who won't be ruling on the contract, but rather on workplace laws. That is where RA will come unstuck, as a single sentence in a Code of Conduct that is incredibly vague won't give them a leg to stand on.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

If he did it accidentally then he could apologise and we'd all move on. But he did it deliberately and he refused to apologise.

Worse than that. He said that he did it because God personal spoke to him and told him to do it.

God doesn't personally speak to Christians. That's covered in the bible under the whole false prophet thing.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

We are talking about two completely different scenarios here.

SCENARIO 1:
Mediation via a panel of 3 to decide if Israel Folau had breached Rugby AU's Code of Conduct with enough grounds to sack him. Verdict: Yes he did.

Mediation panel was made up of: John West QC (Independent Mediator), Kate Eastman SC (RugbyAU Appointed) and John Boultbee AM (RugbyAU Players Association Appointed).
West and Eastman know each other, have mediated on same and opposing sides of the table, and are in similar circles. Boultbee is not an SC/QC and has not practised as a barrister since 1989.

One can understand why with any appeal, it would still not be in Folaus favour, because any SC/QC that RA appoint, if they are mediators they are likely to know each other, and hence questionably remain impartial.

SCENARIO 2:
The case heads to court as Folau takes RA to court for unfair dismissal. In doing so Folau will argue that the things he stated did not breach any human rights, nor any anti discrimination laws, and hence were not at a level that would allow RA to consider termination, or even take it to mediation.

RA can appoint the same SC, and Folau the same legal team, however it will be held in front of an impartial judge who will only be ruling on legislation regarding unfair dismissal laws.

This is where RA are going to get screwed, because that CoC I previously posted is that vague, theres no way they can hold him to having breached it, regardless of what a questionably "impartial" mediation panel might think.

It'll be seen by an independent judge who won't be ruling on the contract, but rather on workplace laws. That is where RA will come unstuck, as a single sentence in a Code of Conduct that is incredibly vague won't give them a leg to stand on.

I spend a lot of time dealing with members of the legal fraternity as a legal security specialist and trust me, they all know each other. It's one of the strangest things. Every legal person is best of friends. There's very little actual competition.

They also take their work and reputation seriously. Two QC/SC's don't get together and say, "yeah, let's screw this guy over". SC's and QC's get their position and ranking because they are rated as the most knowledgeable and trusted professional legal representatives in the country.

As I said, you could be right. It could end up falling in Folau's favour. But it's not a case of RA loading a panel to get rid of Folau. It's some of the most well respected legal representatives in the country saying that his sacking is completely legal.

Us saying that they are wrong is like a hair dresser telling you not to take legal advice from a neurosurgeon.

 

[Mr Invisible]

Yeah most of them know each other in some way. I wasn't suggesting that the panel was loaded, but rather that he faced a losing battle, given two legal professionals would know each other, whereas his legal representation is RugbyAU Players Association legal guy. Hence he doesn't just have Folau, but every Rugby players interests at heart. His values may not align with what Folau said, and Folau may have picked better legal representation by not using the RLPA guy. When it goes to court you know he'll pick the best he can (would be hilarious if he engaged the services of John West to defend him).

Agree with what you are saying Hacky... though if he takes it further it goes from a "determination of Rugbys rules" to a "determination of Fair Work Commission and Employment Laws".

Could get very interesting.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Yep. I'm just not sure how far it'll go. It could go on for years, or it could be thrown out straight away. I'm sure he'll receive advice not to pursue it but I also know that many are backing him financially for it.

 

[Wahesh]

I think Israel deciding against the RA appeal is a smart move because he'll just be wasting his time. They've made a decision based on sponsorship and they won't change their minds. Taking them to court is the smart decision. He might just want to get paid out his contract. RA should just pay him out in an OoC settlement and be done with this - that's their best interest financially. Dragging this on and on in court will cost them big time!

 

[Dawgfather]

QANTAS is Rugby Australia's lead sponsor. If they pull out the sport collapses.

But it wasn't just them. Asics were planning to pull sponsorship and fans were boycotting the game.

Fact is if Rugby Australia did nothing then the sport wouldn't survive.

I agree rugby in Australia is in dire financial and popularity circumstances, but that is more to do with their administration of the game than anything to do with Israel Folau.

 

[Dawgfather]

I think Israel deciding against the RA appeal is a smart move because he'll just be wasting his time. They've made a decision based on sponsorship and they won't change their minds. Taking them to court is the smart decision. He might just want to get paid out his contract. RA should just pay him out in an OoC settlement and be done with this - that's their best interest financially. Dragging this on and on in court will cost them big time!

They already offered him a few million dollars to walk away and he refused it.

 

[Wahesh]

They already offered him a few million dollars to walk away and he refused it.

His full contract is worth $4,000,000 - he probably wants it all.

 

[Dawgfather]

His full contract is worth $4,000,000 - he probably wants it all.

I honestly don't think it really has a lot to do with the money. I think this is mostly a principled stand.

 

[Dawgfather]

Also - all the talk of people 'boycotting' rugby - don't believe it. This is the usual twitter/social media approach whenever someone doesn't like something.

They say they are boycotting something, but probably won't. And if they do it will last a week or two until they get their child like emotions under control.

Alternatively they aren't even rugby fans to begin with and when they say 'boycotting', it doesn't really mean anything because they probably don't go to games and don't buy any merchandise anyway.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Most likely accurate. A lot of boycotters were never going to attend a game in the first place.

At the same time the A-League boycott cost the game a lot. But they were dedicated fans that just had too many things go against them.

 

[Dawgfather]

It's a fair argument (the financial one), that RA are already struggling and if they lose Qantas, maybe the game in Australia would also go under. Hard to argue against it unless you want to argue that RA should put principles ahead of the ongoing survival of the game.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

It's a fair argument (the financial one), that RA are already struggling and if they lose Qantas, maybe the game in Australia would also go under. Hard to argue against it unless you want to argue that RA should put principles ahead of the ongoing survival of the game.

Why not both?

 

[Flanagun]

Why not both?

Solid point.....principles are subjective.... the sad thing is Folau could have easily stayed true to his own principles, while respecting Rugby Australia's.

 

[Mr Invisible]

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...e-heads-for-legal-stoush-20190521-p51psc.html

Israel Folau has tapped one of Australia's leading workplace relations lawyers and Melbourne silks, Stuart Wood QC, for advice as he mulls taking on Rugby Australia in court alleging a breach of contract.
A representative for Folau said that it was too early to say Wood had been “engaged” by the rugby superstar but confirmed the pair had been in talks over next steps in his ongoing tussle with RA.
...
While Folau has not confirmed his legal team or decided which avenue in the courts he will go down, the Herald understands the 30-year-old is setting his sights on being represented by Wood.
If Folau takes the matter to the Supreme Court, he would challenge RA’s decision on contractual grounds.
However, if Folau decides to appeal his sacking on religious grounds with the Fair Work Commission, he has until June 10 to lodge a complaint for unlawful dismissal.
If a settlement is not agreed between Folau and RA, the matter can be taken to the Federal Court.

Game on if this happens.

 

[Realist90]

The double standards (hypocrisy) shown here by some is absolutely amazing and brave lol.

 

[Dawgfather]

Why not both?

Isn't your argument that if RA stood up for the free speech principle, then they would lose Qantas as a major sponsor? And therefore the game could go under?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Isn't your argument that if RA stood up for the free speech principle, then they would lose Qantas as a major sponsor? And therefore the game could go under?

Nope. This has nothing to do with free speech so that doesn't come into it.

Free speech is the right for people to speak freely without the government stopping them. It also doesn't protect a person from repercussions for what they say.

Rugby Australia can protect the principles of the game and the players without pissing off the sponsors. Like when they say something like, "we accept the inclusiveness of all people". Then it would go against their principles if they accepted people when they post stuff that aims to remove inclusiveness.

 

[Flanagun]

The double standards (hypocrisy) shown here by some is absolutely amazing and brave lol.

If double standards are brave, you are modern day William Wallace....lol