Non Footy Chat Thread II

[I'm a loser baby...]

Close but between the two there's an L of a difference.

 

[Gronk]

Will be interesting to see if this precedent impacts Izzy’s court case. Whilst the nature of the tweets were different, both employers sacked on the basis of breach of code of conduct.

 

[Twizzle]

I think that tells us whats gonna happen to Izzy, same issue, workplace agreement, nothing to do with free speech.

 

[Gronk]

I think that tells us whats gonna happen to Izzy, same issue, workplace agreement, nothing to do with free speech.

The only sure thing is that Izzy's lawyers will still run the case as far as they can bc they know that there is $3M in legal fees sitting in trust. I hope they keep some aside for the ARUs costs if/when he loses.

 

[hindy111]

I found this in my travels.

 

[hindy111]

I think it was a sign from above.

 

[Gronk]

I found this in my travels.

View attachment 32061

Your floor is filthy.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I think that tells us whats gonna happen to Izzy, same issue, workplace agreement, nothing to do with free speech.

It's not about free speech, it's about freedom of religious practice.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I found this in my travels.

View attachment 32061

We use that brand. They're the cheap ones.

 

[Gronk]

It's not about free speech, it's about freedom of religious practice.

Kinda The plaintiff is alleging wrongful termination of his contract and in the the case he will argue freedom of religious expression, contractual obligations and the language of discrimination.

The thing is that it's not his choice of how the case runs. The court may very well hold that the root of issue is if an employer has the right to terminate an employment contract due to a breach of code of conduct. He will try and hang his hat on this ...

From SMH

All states and territories apart from NSW and South Australia offer legal protections to employees and independent contractors against discrimination on the grounds of religion.

However, an employee from any state can make a claim against dismissal under the Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009 alleging discrimination under section 772 on the grounds of religion. Rugby Australia said Folau was an "employee" of Rugby Australia and the NSW Waratahs.

Mark Fowler, an adjunct associate professor of law at the University of Notre Dame, said that Folau, as an employee, could argue he was sacked on the basis of his religion under the Fair Work Act.

 

[hindy111]

Your floor is filthy.

I was dining at a Thai in Springwood.
My advice.
No

 

[Gary Gutful]

*'dining'

 

[Bazal]

The best part was Izzy making an application to the Fair Work Commission despite not being eligible to apply for anything under the Act.

It's all very calculated.

 

[Gronk]

I was dining at a Thai in Springwood.
My advice.
No

*'dining'

Happy ending ?

 

[Gronk]

The best part was Izzy making an application to the Fair Work Commission despite not being eligible to apply for anything under the Act.

It's all very calculated.

The above ^^^^ SMH article suggests >>>> Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009 alleging discrimination under section 772 on the grounds of religion.

 

[Gronk]

^^^^^ Here is 772. IMHO he was not terminated bc of Pentecostalism at all. Indeed no discrimination was made between different flavours of religion. It was that he ignored a code of conduct and posted devisive shit on the internet which damaged the ARU's brand.

772 Employment not to be terminated on certain grounds

(1) An employer must not terminate an employee’s employment for one or more of the following reasons, or for reasons including one or more of the following reasons:

(f) race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer’s responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin;

 

[Twizzle]

It's not about free speech, it's about freedom of religious practice.

no, it was about her workplace agreement with the federal govt

 

[Bazal]

The above ^^^^ SMH article suggests >>>> Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009 alleging discrimination under section 772 on the grounds of religion.

Yes, but his lawyers well know that he is not covered under General Protections because he was not dismissed for exercising a right (such as PRACTICING his religion for eg).

He is not covered for unfair dismissal (my dept) because he does not meet the threshold criteria, particularly monetarily.

The matter went to a conciliation where, surprisingly, no agreement was reached. It was a step on the way and nothing more

 

[hindy111]

Happy ending ?

It was just a green curry you bastard

 

[Gronk]

Yes, but his lawyers well know that he is not covered under General Protections because he was not dismissed for exercising a right (such as PRACTICING his religion for eg).

He is not covered for unfair dismissal (my dept) because he does not meet the threshold criteria, particularly monetarily.

The matter went to a conciliation where, surprisingly, no agreement was reached. It was a step on the way and nothing more

Well he has $3M in a fighting fund so he is not going to go away. It's not as if it's his cash to lose !