Folau - Breach of Contract

"where does the control of Folau by the Rugby Admin end?"

Whilst you are employed by any organization, institution, or brand...…. you have to adhere to many different types of clauses, stipulations, requirements etc etc that fall within their company "Code of Conduct", or within the specific contractual obligations or requirements that they have drawn up specifically for you to accept and sign, whilst you represent that brand....especially if you want to be financially remunerated or compensated for representing that brand or company.

Like it or not, but in many ways that brand owns you, from the moment you sign...…..to a certain degree, but it is also something that you yourself accept when signing that contract.... so don't blame the company...… you wanted the contract worth millions.

Here are some very simple clauses or stipulation, in contracts, that I deal with for instance, and all of these clauses listed below are clearly classified as dismissible offences, within the labour law and also in most company's "Code of Conduct", which is always printed out and it is compulsory for every employee to sign and put on file, to prove, should the company have to, at any later stage, that the employee has read and understood this code of conduct, and was fully aware of this code of conduct when they were employed and signed their contract with the company.

I am not at all saying that breaching any of these clauses below could lead to your instant dismissal after the very first offense, which in fact can be done, in some cases.....but what I am saying, is check these clauses out, and tell me how fair that same company is, if any employee is found guilty of any of these offenses...…...not once.... not twice......but 4 times..... and keep in mind what I said, that all these clauses listed here are all dismissible offences.

We do not know what is in Folau's contract, but we do know that he has done this before and that he was specifically requested by his employer, not to do this again...…..so I can assure you right now that given his past history and warnings from ARU, the ARU would most certainly have at least some of these clauses in his contract.

Adverse behavior affecting the image and business of the company

Bringing the company into disrepute

Gross negligence

Causing dissention within the work place, through social media posts, verbal statements

Gross Misconduct

Causing or creating ethnic, religious, gender or political disharmony in the work place

Willfully causing disharmony in the work place

Disregard - ignoring company policy directly related to business and customer relations

Refusing to obey a reasonable verbal or written instruction from management in regards to your contract

Constant or regular non-compliant behavior regarding your contractual stipulations and obligations

Dangerous or irresponsible actions which could negatively affect the image of the brand you represent

Blatant disregard for the rules, regulations and policies of the company 

Misconduct, Behaviour, Performance, which compromises or jeopardizes the company or brand

I am not comparing Folau, to any other person listed below, but what I am pointing out, is that these people below lost multi multi millions, purely for NOT adhering to their contractual obligations, and ended up having their endorsements cancell ed, and the reason why I am mentioning this, is because not one single person on this list below, sued to successfully regain that endorsement or employment, because THEY themselves broke the contract that was in place.

Some of these people listed below did far worse things than Folau did, but my intention here is to show that most companies drop you like a hot potatoe, if they see any sign at all that your actions will threaten the image of their brand in any negative way and they won't give a shit, how big of a star you think you are.

I sad before, the public are fickle, and they want their opinions to matter, and as we see so many times these days, if it means calling for a boycott over social media, they do it, and they are bloody successful in doing it, so no company these days would ever risk it.

These are some of the people, who just like Folau, overstepped their boundaries with their employer / brand and paid the price

Lance Armstrong - Nike

Kobe Bryant - Coke - McDonalds - Nutella

Barry Bonds - Mastercard - KFC

Ben Johnson - Diadora

Floyd Landis - Phonas

Maria Sharapova - TAG Hauer - American Express - Avon

Micahel Vick - Reebok - Donruss

Ray Rice - Nike - Electronic Arts

Adrian Peterson - Castrol - Nike

Wayne Rooney - Coke

Michael Phelps - Kellogs

Ryan Lochte - Speedo - Ralph Lauren

O.J Simpson - Hertz

Magic Johnson - KFC - Converse

Aaron Hernandez - Puma

Jon Jones - Nike - Reebok

Manny Pacquiao - Nike

Jason Giambi - Nike - Pepsi

Gilbert Arenas - Adidas

Warren Sapp - Bud Lite

Marion Jones - Nike

Mike Tyson - Pepsi - Nintendo

If some believe that  this should be moved to the Beeno section, please do it ED

You are repeating yourself ... again. It's all you ever do, DumbAss.

Now I realize you may have been impressed with yourself, having come up with this nonsense all on your own, but it really isn't relevant to the Folau case. Once again you've gotten yourself all mixed up. You really should try to stay on topic. It's a bad habit of yours. Maybe you should tone down a bit on the meds.

Any way ...you should really learn how to copy and paste. It's simple enough to figure out. If you find it a tad difficu lt then ask. I don't mind guiding you through step by step and beside it'll loosen up a little more time for you to attend to the customers at the pizza counter.

See ... I really do care.

DA, sponsorship is a bit different and I think different rules should apply.

Like I said, I would like to see all the details come out in court and I want to see what the courts can say about the limitations a employer can contractually place on free speech.

Regardless of the outcome, I think this whole thing was blown totally out of proportion. Some people on this site accused him of hate speech and unfair discrimination. The bigger concern should be the gradual increase of intolerance for opposing views....there is a big world war coming...and it won't be between countries.

Very good post blue and I totally agree with your opinion on this

Fair Point Blue, but isn't RA alienating an even bigger group with their action against Folau? How many non-religious people do you think got offended?

Religion in Australia as declared in the census (2016)[1][2]

Good idea /...... its addition will drop some of Beano's garbage down the page.

Db, that is very insightful response, so thank you

No doubt it has blown up, but again, that is also down to the fact that Folau decided to go crowd funding, which is his prerogative, whether I believe it is right or wrong.

I also agree with you about what is in his contract, as that would be crucial to everything, but I seriously doubt that ARU would take such a staunch stand against this, if they never had the necessary evidence to back it up

"but it really isn't relevant to the Folau case"

I can see the level of intellect that I am now dealing with, so I will refrain from responding to you

As much as I want to help you, I cannot improve your stupidity

I also agree with you about what is in his contract, as that would be crucial to everything, but I seriously doubt that ARU would take such a staunch stand against this, if they never had the necessary evidence to back it up

That's just the thing I'm not too sure about. This whole thing is agenda and ideology driven and that's when reason goes out the window.

"DA, sponsorship is a bit different and I think different rules should apply"

I don't necessarily agree with you here Db, it could be different, but the basic conditions of your contract would be more or less the same, or there may be even tighter clauses involved purely due to the popularity or status of the person representing your brand, so yeah..... I guess so  

100% with you blue

I said the exact same thing

To me this was not about the religious issue, it was about people bringing up the religious issue, when to me, it was all about someone going against what his employer specifically requested him not to do.

It then went into the whole religious side of it, which I don't really care about, until you use it to say or justify a employee breaking their  contract because of it, which I think is stupid.

Frankly, to me it's also not a religious issue. He could have been a "Spaghetti Worshipper" for all I care... This is about a small minority special interest group, wielding too much influence, to forcefully promote their own agenda,  with absolutely no opposition tolerated. Facism in a new suit.

Bluebok is fast becoming as daft as rooiperv and shark perv. 

There is tremendous support for free speech and Deep concern for firing people by the majority of ordinary people accross the board. This so very obviously is NOT just a Christian thing as this dumbass Bluebok is saying.

Further as Draad stats show the vast majority of Ozzies know homosexuality is a perversion. 

Secondly, the majority of Ozzies say it's BS  that a person can't quote the Bible without be fired by people like that nz goth freak and her perv buddies. 

One sees very little support for nz goth freak Raylene and given the  stats this is not surprising. 

I am not in the slightest interested in any corrupt contract that might allow people like Folau to be fired. To Hell with any such contract if it exists. 

This whole perv induced debacle is going to blow up in the face of the pervs. 

Actually the pervs running Oz rugby have opened up an avenue where the Oz rugby union could be destroyed.

DA fascist colours are showing. What Folau has to say on Social media is his business. These God haters want to stop free speech they don't agree with and want to fire folk who quote the Bible. 

All this in the name of inclusivity!!!! Note though Folau was quoting a passage about the after life. He was not calling for the banning from rugby of homosexuals.

Sue the pants off these pervs! 

"What Folau has to say on Social media is his business"

This just shows how seriously dumb you really are Beeno

So, in your wisdom, because Folau is a Christian, and he has total freedom of speech, he can say whatever the hell he wants to on social media, how he wants to say it, and to whom he wants to say it, at any time, without facing any repercussions for what he says

He has complete free reign to say anything

LMAO, did you and CC go to the same school?

DA exactly right. Folau has freedom of speech and the right to quote the Bible and not be fired. 

The Bible is used in court to swear you will tell the truth. But the pervs don't want anybody to quote it. Hahahahaha. 

The stinking hypocrisy of the Oz perv union has been outlined by Dr Moz. They have been castigated for their persecution of Folau and rightly so. 

Of course a dumbass fascist like you would not approve of free speech and being able to quote the Bible without being fired. You and your fascist PERV, buddies are the problem DA. 

Fire Folau to promote INCLUSIVJTY. BWHAHAHAHA explain that one perv. 

Man you are a serious nutjob. Bwhahahaha. 

Crash goes DA. Funny how some folks here have through this incident had their fascist nature's exposed. 

Perves like DA disgust me. 

Nope CC and I were schooled by the Bible. The Book that shaped Western Democracies, values and traditions which made these countries the greatest in the world and the most free. 

Until perv globalist picks like you came along determined to destroy Western Civilization and the free democratic nation states. 

What a loser!!!! 

By the way what Folau says is that gays and others that  don't repent will go to Hell. He warns them as he should. He is 100% correct in everything he did. 

This has been God's unchanging truth for centuries and will never change no matter what sick pervs like you say.

Best you take serious note of the warning. 

Folau used he scriptures and has the right of free speech.   I know the labour laws virtually universally applied well enough to know that free speech is not a basis fopr termination oof employment.    SB Williams had made some very similar statement and nothing has been done in his case.   So why the difference.

One gains the impression that the rugby authorities in Australia landed themselves in serious trouble - the game is struggling financially and the fact is that Folau is one of the top performers in Australian rugby and his absence from the game is seriously harmful to the rugby code of sport.  

The Aussies want to see their teams winning and his absence had a seriously detrimental effect on the Waratahs,   There can be no argument against that fact.   

As stated above the Court will have all the evidence available and I believe that the majority of Aussie rugby supporters will want to see the back of that weird I nearly say woman in charge  - she would be very welcome in NZ - and I am sure if she is appointed will cause havoc in NZ rugby as well.   Maybe we should all hope she is appointed  by one of their franchises.       

Duh !! Beeno……

Wake up you utterly stupid little boy

I was not in any way talking or referring to Folau talking about gays...... or the bible...... or even any particular scripture...… nothing of the sort

You posted:

"What Folau has to say on Social media is his business"

Do you still 100% stand by this statement?

"I know the labour laws virtually universally applied well enough to know that free speech is not a basis fopr termination oof employment"

Hold on Mike, maybe I misunderstood you here..... I sure hope as hell that I did...…. are you stating here that you can racially abuse people on social media, or even insult people on social media or post homophobic posts on social media...…..  and not get fired from your job, because of your "Freedom of Speech"

You are joking right?

"Comparing Folau to Ben Johnson, Lance Armstrong and OJ Simpson seems a bit harsh"

Moz, I stated in my post that some of these people on that list did a lot worse things than Folau did, and I also stated that the reason why I am mentioning them in this list is to show how many of these individuals could not or did not sue, to get that endorsement or sponsorship back, once it was lost or cancelled.

I did not compare Folau directly to these people's actions and I made that very clear in my post, because I would be the first to agree that it would not be fair to Folau to do that .

"My guess is if there is an open and shut clause in Folau's contract he wouldn't be suing and Oz rugby would be informing the media."

Good point, and I would normally agree with you on that, but I just can't see the ARU doing what they did, without the necessary ammunition behind their decision, and also not putting anything into his contract because of his previous transgressions, but if he wins his case, I will be the first one to state that here.

This notion by quite a few people on here, that you can state whatever the hell you like, in or on any podium or social media outlet, is incredibly naïve and stupid.

You can and possibly will get legally dismissed for posting less harmful stuff than Folau, on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc etc

Yan can and possibly will get dismissed for hiding behind your "Freedom of Speech" or "Freedom of Expression" if you post derogatory, racist or homophobic posts on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram...… etc etc

You can even get fired for just liking or sharing a post or a tweet that falls under the same category as above, and I am surprised that so little people are even aware of this.

Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody...….. has carte blanche to say whatever they want to say, on any and every subject that is close to their heart, on any or all media platforms, without facing the possible consequences thereof...…..which certainly includes dismissal or cancelation of contract...…. and the sooner most people realize that, the better. 

"You can and possibly will get legally dismissed for posting less harmful stuff than Folau, on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc etc"

Less harmful than quoting from the Bible?....Come on! Thks notion that it was hate speach and unfair discrimination is absolutely absurd! RA totally overreacted and it's too late to turn back....that or they are very far gone.

"Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody...….. has carte blanche to say whatever they want to say, on any and every subject that is close to their heart, on any or all media platforms, without facing the possible consequences thereof...…..which certainly includes dismissal or cancelation of contract...…. and the sooner most people realize that, the better. 

With that I agree 100% Where we differ is on the seriousness of the offense...and the extent ot the employer's right to prescribe certain behavior. 

I expect this will come down to the interpretation of a preventative clause in his contract....and I think RA is probably stretching the application a bit. This will not be a simple y/n question of law.

According to what I read Folau's contract has no clause dealing with the circumstances as outlined relating to his dismissal.    

This is going to be funny - very funny.  My guess is that woman will be fired and the courts will order Folau's  re-instatement or failing which a massive pay-out.    

Maaik, they will probably spin a "not  bringing the game in disrepute " BS clause.

Just BTW, I don't agree with the way Folau did things, but RA is even more at fault here. Pro sport my arse!

DA to clarify, i am referring to Folau's right speak out about his Christian faith and any orther thing a decent man like him wants to.Anybody trying to take that away can get lost.

Those using social media to call for murder and such like very obviously need to be censored. BUT that is NOT what we are dealing with here and you darn well know it. Like the two pervs rooitwit and sharktwit i don't see you protesting about all the vile garbage coming from the globalist left progressives. its like water off a ducks back. you don' t seem to care at all!

Mike makes the point above, as i did, about sunni bill Williams (who called gays animals) and there was another muslim who was on You Tube talking about capital punishment for gays which i mentioned. BUT you say nothing. Just admit you are a one eyed raving biased anti Christian loon.

What have you said about all the points i have raised??? No all you can do is lash out at an honourable man quoting the bible. Pathetic!

Less harmful than quoting from the Bible?

Quoting from the bible since when? When did this player post a quotation from the bible?

Or the quotation must be provided.

Mike makes the point above, as i did, about sunni bill Williams (who called gays animals)

Third time is the charm.

First point, the claim that people turned a blind eye when this player was put under scrutiny and his sponsorships reviewed.

Second point, the guy was pressed not because he uttered those words but because he posted a picture of himself featuring a Zimbabwean Iman who was reported to have compared gays to animals once.

Guilty through association.

Nothing to do with the australian player. Victimology is high by all measures because the last thing those christians want is to be treated as this muslim guy was.

OK Trad, it wasn't a direct Biblical quote. I'm not a fire and brimstone kinda guy, but he basically said that sinners are going to hell...and some of those sinners got angry and had hime fired.

So I gather you recon his punishment suited the crime?

Nope Draad he quoted God's Word which says they go to Hell if they don't repent.

Ultimately these pervs types are insisting that God's Word must not be quoted and those disobeying will be banned for life - all in the name of inclusivity. By the way name one person Folau excluded from playing for the Wobblies.. They must be stark raving mad. The sheer arrogance !!

This is an explanation of why Israel Folau will lose. Even if this was not explicitly stated in his contract, it is common law that an employee is obliged to follow in a democratic country. 

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/human-rights-and-the-limits-of-religious-freedom/10286070

In a secular liberal democracy, the four types of religious freedom outlined above - to believe, to worship, to act and to proselytise attract different degrees of liberty. For example, people are generally free to believe whatever takes their fancy, no matter how ill-founded or bizarre. This is not so in all societies. Some theocracies will punish "heretics" for holding unorthodox beliefs.

Acting out of belief - in worship, deeds and proselytising - is often, however, subject to some measure of restraint. For example, pious folk are not permitted to set up a pulpit (or equivalent) in the middle of the main road. They are not permitted to beat a woman, even if the teaching of their religion allows (or requires) her chastisement. They are not permitted to let a child die because of a religious objection to life-saving medical procedures. Nor are they able to teach that some people are "lesser beings," lacking intrinsic dignity, simply because of their gender, sexuality, culture, religion and so on.

In other words, there are boundaries set for the expression of religious belief, whatever those beliefs might be. It is precisely the setting of such "boundaries" that has become a point of contention.

---

Anyone could make their own religion that allows robbing banks and the stock exchange markets. However, their freedom is restricted by the law- and they would be arrested. 

Case closed eh? I can see why you find this simple perspective palatable. Ethics is a little more complicated a subject than is covered in the intellectually poor article you've referenced as an explanation of all that's involved here. Your choice of an icon representing oligophrenia however is spot-on. Well done.

Shark, your hate of Christianity have robbed any reason...with your line of reasoning, the Bible must either be banned/regulated or certain portions altered.  Sounds an awful lot like Nazi Germany or the USSSR to me. Carefull what you wish for.