What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The ‘Anything and Everything’ Thread

Generalzod

Referee
Messages
27,372
On the topics of drugs.
Anybody being threatened with the sack for not being vaccinated there's a letter to download on this site for your employer:


is It true that the NRL requires spectators to be vaccinate entering grounds next year, but when it comes to their anti vax players it’s about choice…
 
Messages
11,345
is It true that the NRL requires spectators to be vaccinate entering grounds next year, but when it comes to their anti vax players it’s about choice…
In regards to spectators, The NRL cannot make a ruling to enforce this.
The only way this can be enforced is by the company, club and/or the council's who own the ground itself, or whoever leases it. They can say that they do not want unvaccinated people on their property.
The NRL originally did state about the unvaccinated not being able to attend but have since curbed that as they would have been worded up about what they can and cannot do.
The NRL do hire the grounds for the finals and SOO, so they would have a say on those games.
Think about it from your own perspective and your house and land. You have the right to refuse anyone into your home, but they can walk on the footpath out the front.
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,345
On the topics of drugs.
Anybody being threatened with the sack for not being vaccinated there's a letter to download on this site for your employer:

They've improved that letter from the original one that I saw. That one actually looks like it's been done by a professional.
On this, as in my previous post, the government have left this up to the employers and the property laws, ie: the right to refuse entry to anyone on their property, whether it be by owning or leasing.
 
Messages
11,345
On the topics of drugs.
Anybody being threatened with the sack for not being vaccinated there's a letter to download on this site for your employer:

The person who owns the ABN attached to this letter, and the Advocate Me movement is one, SERENE TEFFAHA.
A quick Google search shows that this person is not allowed to practice law anymore.

Screenshot_20210924-062340_Chrome.jpg
 

snout

First Grade
Messages
5,492
They've improved that letter from the original one that I saw. That one actually looks like it's been done by a professional.
On this, as in my previous post, the government have left this up to the employers and the property laws, ie: the right to refuse entry to anyone on their property, whether it be by owning or leasing.
Yes, very legal. Very well done.
 

snout

First Grade
Messages
5,492
They've improved that letter from the original one that I saw. That one actually looks like it's been done by a professional.
On this, as in my previous post, the government have left this up to the employers and the property laws, ie: the right to refuse entry to anyone on their property, whether it be by owning or leasing.
Yes, very legal.
The person who owns the ABN attached to this letter, and the Advocate Me movement is one, SERENE TEFFAHA.
A quick Google search shows that this person is not allowed to practice law anymore.

View attachment 54273
Yeah....DD got rid her if her by the looks.

Melbourne tower lockdown class action in doubt after lawyer's licence cancelled, court hears - ABC News https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/100088556
 

DJDL

Bench
Messages
3,113
Produce a copy of the letter by all means. But be prepared for your employer to refuse you entry to your workplace which, by extension, could lead to non-payment of wages or being made redundant.

There is a well-written article here that explains why this can be done.
 
Messages
11,345
Produce a copy of the letter by all means. But be prepared for your employer to refuse you entry to your workplace which, by extension, could lead to non-payment of wages or being made redundant.

There is a well-written article here that explains why this can be done.
Not to mention the WHS quagmire that could occur.
If someone who is not vaxxed comes to work and a vaxxed person is carrying covid without realising, a distinct possibility as we've seen in Byron this week, the unvaxxed gets very sick, or worse, dies. Does the unvaxxed family then sue the business for not providing a safe work environment?
 

DJDL

Bench
Messages
3,113
Not to mention the WHS quagmire that could occur.
If someone who is not vaxxed comes to work and a vaxxed person is carrying covid without realising, a distinct possibility as we've seen in Byron this week, the unvaxxed gets very sick, or worse, dies. Does the unvaxxed family then sue the business for not providing a safe work environment?

Precisely, which is covered in this part of the article:

Work health and safety laws require employers to take steps to reduce workplace risks, to both workers and customers. The best way to protect hospitality workers and patrons from catching COVID-19 and getting sick is through vaccines. Complying with work health and safety laws is also a defence to any discrimination claim.”
 

snout

First Grade
Messages
5,492
Yep legal minefield upon minefield.
If the employee is fit, capable and prepared to work and fulfilling their roles and responsibilities there is no grounds for dismissal - as the constitution states they cannot be forced to have any medical procedure. Section 51.23a.
The only way the constitution can be changed is by public referendum.
The Australian public voted for that clause in 1946 immediately after WW2. It has been challenged 30 odd times in the supreme court and defeated every time.
The consitution is commonwealth law.
If there's ever a conflict between a state and commonwealth law the constitution states the commonwealth law wins every time. 100%. No legal argument entered into.

On that, said employer would have to allow said employee to work from home if they don't want them on their property.

Workplace health and safety acts do not override the Australian constitution.
Nothing does.
 
Messages
11,345
Yep legal minefield upon minefield.
If the employee is fit, capable and prepared to work and fulfilling their roles and responsibilities there is no grounds for dismissal - as the constitution states they cannot be forced to have any medical procedure. Section 51.23a.
The only way the constitution can be changed is by public referendum.
The Australian public voted for that clause in 1946 immediately after WW2. It has been challenged 30 odd times in the supreme court and defeated every time.
The consitution is commonwealth law.
If there's ever a conflict between a state and commonwealth law the constitution states the commonwealth law wins every time. 100%. No legal argument entered into.

On that, said employer would have to allow said employee to work from home if they don't want them on their property.

Workplace health and safety acts do not override the Australian constitution.
Nothing does.
There are ways around letting someone go at a work place now. The three strike policy does not exist.
If you want someone gone it is all too easy to say that there is no job in that position anymore.

The only acts that succeed in unfair dismissal are ones of discrimination,and the Australian Commonwealth's Act of discrimination consist of the following:
In Australia, it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of a number of protected attributes including age, disability, race, sex, intersex status, gender identity and sexual orientation in certain areas of public life, including education and employment.

No mention of vaccinations status whatsoever.
And contesting an unfair dismissal is extremely hard, and hardly at all if ever, succeeds unless it is based on the aforementioned basis.
Trust me, I've had to look deep into this topic. A workplace can say there is no work for an employee a lot easier now than it used to be able to.

Edit: I left out the most important part. To contest an unfair dismissal you only have 21 days to do so. After that it has to be a clear cut case of discrimination, otherwise there is next to no chance of succeeding.
 
Last edited:

shaggs

First Grade
Messages
9,458
Yes, very legal.

Yeah....DD got rid her if her by the looks.

Melbourne tower lockdown class action in doubt after lawyer's licence cancelled, court hears - ABC News https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/100088556
Seems like they are doing everything they can to prevent that lawyer doing her job. Why is that?
It’s not like she is making millions of dollars chasing ambulances. Or suing big business for her own benefit.
 
Messages
2,839
Yep legal minefield upon minefield.
If the employee is fit, capable and prepared to work and fulfilling their roles and responsibilities there is no grounds for dismissal - as the constitution states they cannot be forced to have any medical procedure. Section 51.23a.
The only way the constitution can be changed is by public referendum.
The Australian public voted for that clause in 1946 immediately after WW2. It has been challenged 30 odd times in the supreme court and defeated every time.
The consitution is commonwealth law.
If there's ever a conflict between a state and commonwealth law the constitution states the commonwealth law wins every time. 100%. No legal argument entered into.

On that, said employer would have to allow said employee to work from home if they don't want them on their property.

Workplace health and safety acts do not override the Australian constitution.
Nothing does.
True ... Unfortunately there is no such thing as "spirit of the Law " in Australia . Its only "rule of law " So even on the simplest of rulings of right and wrong ,the the lower judicial and legal entities can not make any common sense ruling. They rely on tedious red tape laws meant to cover everything ! impossible!!! but gives a job to politicians and their advisers to keep blithering and blathering about technicalities. It all needs to go to the higher courts ,to get anywhere near a just ruling ,AND THEN it just goes back to he said they said or whatever ,Years after anyone remembers the detail .... and WHO has time and money to afford that process?
 

Latest posts

Top