Bazz,

The law is not about fairness. It's about
the law. Perhaps that's why the Statue of
Justice wears a blindfold?

This entire case is based on the law
and how it applies to Folau. And, that is what will
be decided in court.

217 posts. How much longer can you lot drag it out!

I received this email today: "Life is short. Make sure you spend as much time as possible on the internet arguing with strangers about politics".

Over a week, and the obsessive are still at it, making not a bit of difference to anything or anyone

Then why are you here?

Dear Bazz,

You wrote;

"A contract does not make any difference to unfair dismissal law."

What?

Rubbish. Only in limited cases at best.

But leaving that aside this applies in NSW;

"If an employee is earning $138,900 or more a year, they are not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application. This is the so called ‘high income threshold’ and the amount changes from year to year."
http://www.slatergordon.com.au/blog/when-can-you-not-claim-unfair-dismissal

Bazz,

A contract makes all the difference.

This is what this case is all about.
Rugby Australia maintains that Folau was dismissed
not because of his religious beliefs, but because he
breached the player code of conduct.

Raelene Castle, The Chair of Rugby Australia has
explained numerous times in TV interviews that the
code is typical of that of many businesses.

It requires players to treat everyone equally and with
dignity, regardless of their sexual orientation; not
to use social media to breach expected standards of
behaviour; and not to make public comments or otherwise
clearly act contrary to the best interests of the game.

Clearly Folau's actions breached the player code of
conduct.

Case Law tells us that Section 351 of the Fair Works
Act requires the employee to prove an employer was
motivated to discriminate against him or her bec ause
of religion. The employer in Folau's case gave him
three warnings, many interviews, and a letter in
writing so that he would clearly understand that he was
breaching the player's code of conduct. Folau chose
to do it anyway. He ignored all the warnings.

Therefore if an employer can point to an employee's
breach of their employment obligations as the reason
for their dismissal instead of a discriminatory
motive - then the employee's claim fails.

In any case, it shall be interesting to see what a
court decides. A Tribunal determined Folau's actions
had breached the organisation's code of conduct.
Now it's up to the Courts.

Hmmm, "Rugby Australia maintains that Folau was dismissed
not because of his religious beliefs, but because he
breached the player code of conduct."

What does the player code say about conduct of religion ?

Of course he upset QANTAS, but they might be in trouble for secondary boycotts.
Oh dear, the decision may generate fairer legislation.
If you think this has been too much, wait till they try and introduce hate speech laws.