Israel Folau's position is "unsustainable" in its contractual battle with Rugby Australia

OPINION: Israel Folau challenges the right of Rugby Australia to terminate his contract?

Of course it is. After all, how was Rugby Australia able to end its annual $ 1 million contract in spite of himself – twice now – alienating almost the entire rugby community in the world, the gay community, his teammates, his coach , administrators, sponsors of the game and the majority of the Australian public? All this when he legally committed last year to do nothing and has personally committed not to surrender the Australian rugby before signing his four-year contract? I mean, why can not he continue to receive a million dollars a year from his employer, while behaving in a way that will cost them millions of dollars? Why are they so difficult?

In a situation that is already overworked, I do not want to add much to that by being mean. But Folau's position, in my opinion, is totally untenable and …

And wait!

READ MORE:
* Israel Folau challenges dismissal intent
* Israel Folau issued a notice of offense
* John Hopoate defends Israel Folau
* Benji: Folau can not be allowed
* Owens: Folau crossed the finish line
* Israel Folau storms a "distraction"
* A sporty lifeline for Israel Folau?
* NRL & # 39; Inclusive & # 39; excludes Folau
* The return of Folau NRL is questionable

If you wear the ear in the west, you can now hear the thunder of keyboards. As a chronicler after chronicler, shock after shock, shock after shock, you are unleashed on the fact that all this is a question of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Oh yes. Despite the demonstrable damage caused by Folau last year by setting up homophobic posts – and if to say that gays will burn in hell is not homophobic, pray, say, what is it? what does it take? – their true position is that he should be able to do exactly the same thing, in the infinite, until the game and his finances are a smoking ruin.

Because it's freedom of expression and religion!

I repeat, it's not such a thing.

Once again for the models, no one restricts Folau's freedom of speech by dragging him to prison. But he's also not exempt from the consequences of what he said. These consequences include the termination of his contract for breach of conditions.

Freedom of religion?

Please. Folau may believe what he wants, including the illogical and offensive absurdity that the same almighty Lord who did attract some of his creations by their kind will also make them burn in the pits of the world. hell for all eternity.

Yes, he can believe that. But when he is proselytizing and places him in the public domain, although he knows the harm he's causing, the damage he's done to his employer and the fact that he's missed a commitment that he took not to do that, so he has no legal leg on which to stand.

For the friends, when all the columns will be written and all the speeches will be finished, it will be a good deal of labor law and the fact that he has or has not breached his contractual obligations in a sufficiently egregious manner to that his contract be terminated.

I think that's exactly what he's done and the independent court and, if necessary, a court will find it.

Under the collective agreement between Rugby Australia and the Rugby Union Players Association, the contract that each player signs is standard and therefore can not include in the contract the specific provisions of Folau on social media. Nevertheless, even in this typical contract, the protocol on social media is clear and no one at RA – or Folau's teammates, it seems – has any doubt that he has violated them.

Beyond that, there is specific documentation separate from the formal contract by which Folau and his management – legally and formally – have been clearly explained the consequences of the Folau repetition. There were meetings and, among other things, Folau is personally committed to his coach Michael Cheika, so as not to revive the Wallabies.

Despite everything, Folau did it … again.

When his employers tried to contact him, the radio remained silent for nearly 36 hours, which also violated his legal commitment to respond quickly to his employer's concerns. When his employers finally met him, to sit face to face, there was no remorse and, as we speak, the position is still available.

In how many workplaces in Australia, does an employee expect that he or she reasonably expects to stay in the job market?

So, currently, the process is that Folau will have to bring the Code of Conduct Tribunal, three people who will be charged with determining to what extent the player could be in breach. According to the contract signed by Folau, under which he agrees to submit to this procedure, the court must determine whether "the behavior of the player was intentional", "if the consequences of this behavior were reasonably foreseeable at the time the conduct took place. place "," if the player's behavior has or has not impaired the sensitivity of the general public "and" it would result in damage to the reputation of Rugby Australia ".

Can anyone seriously claim that Folau has violated these provisions at the highest level?

For my life, I do not see how Folau's contract can survive him.

* Former Wallaby Peter FitzSimons is a columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald.