Foxy,

You are wrong, that there was no clause that demanded Folau's adherence to social media laws is common knowledge, and RA tried to amend the contract once they discovered the error.

Without the inclusion in the contract the ability to enforce the "code of conduct" is not legally sound as happened with Ridley and JCU.

The new twist is with an RA official stating that Folau had to be sacked because sponsors would withdraw now makes them co defendents.

SM,

I'll take Raelene Castle's word over yours as to
what was in the contract. She outlined it clearly
in the TV interviews. They did want to add
additional clauses to make it even more tight -
but it turned out they were not necessary. The
Tribunal accepted the contract as it was and
found Folau guilty of having breached it.

Let's wait and see what the Courts decide.
According to Case Law 351 of the Fair Works Act
Folau has to prove that he was discriminated
because of his religion for his dismissal.
If he can't his claim fails.

Foxy,

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/112756611/contract-debacle-that-left-rugby-australia-vulnerable-in-israel-folau-storm

"Rugby Australia chief executive Raelene Castle aborted a last-ditch attempt last year to add a social media clause to Israel Folau's contract that could have saved the game a month's worth of pain.

Castle met with Folau in London in November, as the Wallabies prepared for their final spring tour test against England.

According to sources familiar with the meeting, she was intent on asking him to sign an addendum that should have been included in the original contract he had signed a month earlier........

Their oversights appear to have left RA exposed and on shaky legal ground in the ensuing storm. The Sydney Morning Herald understands Folau was the last signatory to his new contract with RA and NSW Rugby on October 10, but the next day received, via his manager Isaac Moses, a note asking that the new addendum be signed and returned as well.

That addendum was a social media clause, requiring that Folau's use of Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and other platforms not be likely to, among other things, jeopardise the reputation of either organisation or bring into disrepute the wider game.

Moses advised Folau against signing it, meaning the organisation had no protection six months later when Folau, in his own words, received a message from God prompting his two inflammatory social media posts."

SM,

The additional clauses were not
added. The Tribunal found that Folau's contract
had enough in it to warrant a breach of conduct
decision, also taking into account - all the warnings and
letter that Folau had received making things clear
to him. He chose to ignore the lot. And, was
found in breach according to the law as it currently
stands.

With all this controversy surrounding religious
beliefs and freedoms of speech - perhaps what needs
to be done now is have the law reviewed regarding
the powers of employers over employees?

Currently all we have to go on is the law as it stands.
And in this case Folau was found to have breached his contract.
For change to occur the law needs to be re-examined.
Which may not be a bad thing. Something good
just may come out of this sports controversy
after all for the future.

See you on another discussion. I have nothing further
to add to this one. And repeating things is getting a
bit tiresome.

Foxy,

With all due respect, the tribunal was put together and employed by RA and would have to consider the action of the sponsors.

My opinion on the fragility of RA's case is based on:
1 The Peter Ridd case where the JCU tribunal had relied on the code of conduct instead of the actual signed contract, which was shot down in flames.
2 RA was sufficiently worried to off Folau $2m to go away which they would never have done if they were 100% sure of their case.

Both of which have nothing to do with the religious issue, which could obviate both of the above.

Shadow Minister,

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 because
of religion.

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.