This article gives a good run down on things: The incident is only in mediation at the moment, it has not gone to court / full blown hearing.
The mediation is to decide if the "high level" breach is valid. They have now done so, which means there are other avenues Folau can use to fight this. First will be an appeal and a new panel of members (who can't use teh previous case as bias, and media reporting could swing that in Folaus favour. If he then does not accept a mutual agreement by the new mediators/panel, it goes into the courts.
From there he could argue on FWC/Anti Discrimination factors, etc etc.
All that points towards twisting RA's arm for a payout rather than risk losing a legal case whereby he is simply reposting others words (not his own).
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/rugby-union/israel-folau-faces-his-day-of-reckoning-with-conduct-panel/news-story/fbd7b24d10599f90613069f21f41b3ee
Folau is fighting to save his career after RA chief executive Raelene Castle issued the three-times John Eales Medallist with a “high-level” breach notice last month and threatened to tear up his four-year, $4 million contract following his latest round of inflammatory social media posts.
Folau is being represented by high-profile solicitor Ramy Quatami and barrister Adam Casselden.
...
Stage one of the prohibitively expensive process to determine whether RA can legally terminate Folau begins with much attention expected to focus on whether it has jeopardised its own case by trying to look tough in the early days of the dispute.
On top of the criticism it is already taking over its tactical handling of the situation,
RA is now certain to be condemned for the cost of fighting this battle.
No one in the organisation was able to speculate on what the legal bill will run to but if, as most people suspect, today’s code of conduct hearing in Sydney is but the opening salvo of a battle that will rage all the way through the legal system, then
it could easily run to six figures.
If RA loses, it surely will be hit with having to pay out Folau’s $4 million contract in part or in full. That is all money that will never find its way into grassroots rugby. All this to be rid of a player who,
in RA’s opinion, went back on his solemn word and, in doing so, put himself before his team.
Whatever happens this weekend, the case almost certainly will go to appeal.
The losing party has until 72 hours after the tribunal makes its findings to determine if it will challenge. In that event,
a new code of conduct hearing, with an entirely reconstituted three-person panel, would rehear the case.
- If that also fails to produce a mutually acceptable outcome, the matter would
then be taken to the legal system.
- If the dispute is seen as purely an employer-employee wrangle, then RA is on its surest ground. As Castle put it: “At its core, this is an issue of the responsibility that an employee owes to their employer and the commitments they made … to abide by the employer’s policies … and adhere to the employer’s values.” Yet, even here, RA could strike problems. There is, for example, no obligation on the part of the code of conduct hearing to accept RA’s evaluation of Folau’s breach as “high-level”.
Only a high-level breach carries the ultimate sanction of termination.
- If the tribunal re-categorises Folau’s breach as low or middle level, then there is no way RA can sack him, short of paying him not to play, Quade Cooper-style. And there is always the possibility the tribunal will find that
re-posting someone else’s words may not constitute an offence of any kind.
In its joint announcement with the NSW Rugby Union,
RA stated that its intention was to terminate Folau — unless there were unknown extenuating circumstances. There are also concerns about the comment by Wallabies coach Michael Cheika that he could see no way in which Folau could be included in the Wallabies side.
Both pronouncements were made in the days almost immediately following Folau’s controversial April 10 social media post, when feeling was running strongly against the three-times John Eales medallist, with most people believing that he had had a second chance and so should be sacked immediately.
- If the hearing takes into account whether Folau’s rights to free speech and religious expression have been infringed, it could also become messy. Ever since RA took the unilateral decision to support the right of homosexuals to marry, it left itself legally exposed if a segment of the code’s following — in this case the Pacific Islander community — had problems with its stand.
....
I still see this going pear shaped for RA. I reckon it'll drag on into the courts, where Anti Discrimination Board as well as Fair Work Commission can come into play.
RA are arguging that his comments are his own, however if he gets backing from the church, and it's found that his comments are infact part of scripture (not his own personal beliefs), then things are gonna get interesting.
This case is just delaying the inevitable... the end of Rugby in Australia.
Hurry up and kill it Castle, before Rona gets too old!
1. Meaney
2. Smith
3. Anyone
4. Hoppa
5. Rona