Mate, in a normal workplace situation he could lose his job for bringing the name of his employer into disrepute.Originally Posted by plague
Think of the coin he will still make....he is a fortunate boy.
Mate, in a normal workplace situation he could lose his job for bringing the name of his employer into disrepute.
Think of the coin he will still make....he is a fortunate boy.
Nah, that's not how normal workplaces operate.
Just sayin it's a pretty solid precedent they've set. Hate to be the next bloke that simulates sex with a dog for seven seconds instead of six. Prob straight to the gallows.
Mate it is normal workplace process, I'm a business manager who deals with HR - I can give you plenty of examples and saw one of my own staff members (a league player natch) lose his job over just being drunk at Belmont Sporties. No real issue apart from a bit of push and shove and getting kicked out of the club. Something that could happen any weekend in the Squadron.
Once it made the papers, and it was mentioned where he worked, he was asked to resign quietly.
What I'm saying is the shennanigans in themselves are no real issue. If it is caught by mates on video it is no issue, even if put on Facebook etc.
However if that video gets put in the public domain and your employer can be identified, you can be pinged by that employer if they feel you have blackened their reputation.
The said employer would be identified very rarely for most of us, but someone who is a well known face, like an NRL player, will have his employer in disrepute immediately.
This is the reason for the huge mania every Christmas party now - if anyone plays up the employer can be readily identified.
Last edited by Jetmaster; 05-03-2016 at 10:06 AM.
ok cool if we're doing bone fides i employ people, they work for my business, I've had to sack people, I've had to defend legal action due because of some of those decisions in the past.
The CBA negotiated by the players union is not 'normal workplace process'. thats my point.
see, this isn't 'getting the sack'. and if your aforementioned workplace laws were so black and white there would be no need for such a request. the fact he was asked quietly means a deal was better than fight. and its a good tactic. but don't pretend that the bloke was all out of options.Once it made the papers, and it was mentioned where he worked, he was asked to resign quietly.
now look, heres my man telling it like it is.
he goes onIt is very rare that an employment contract will expressly state the types of behavior that an employee should engage in outside of the workplace. However, in the decision of Rose v Telstra[1] the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (now the Fair Work Commission) held that the conduct of employees outside of work can be so offensive to the contractual ‘workplace relationship’ that there may exist a contractual right at common law for the employer to discipline or dismiss the employee. Generally, the Courts have only upheld this position where the conduct meets any of the following three requirements:
The off duty conduct, when viewed objectively, is likely to cause serious damage to the relationship between employer and employee; or
The off duty conduct damages the employer’s interests; or
The off duty conduct is incompatible with the employee’s duty as an employee.
i highlighted those 2 bits to emphasise the debate.In Rose v Telstra 1998, Rose, a technician for Telstra, was asked to assist in taking the workload off another branch by temporarily relocating. Rose accepted and booked into a hotel paid for on travel allowance expenses. One evening Rose was involved in a fight, resulting in him being stabbed in the same hotel room. Rose notified his supervisor of his inability to work. Telstra was of the opinion that the incident amounted to improper conduct and subsequently Rose’s employment was terminated. At trial, Telstra’s main argument was that Rose’s out of duty conduct had been brought into the scope of his employment. The reasoning was that the travel allowance provided for the location of the incident. However the Court did not agree and found in favour of Rose. It was highlighted that the behaviour had no sufficient connection to Rose’s employment duties.. He had not been wearing the Telstra uniform at the time, he had not been on call and the incident did not occur in a public place. The Court also found any inclination to cause harm to the interests of Telstra was weak. Thus, even though the incident had been reported on, evidence that was led illustrated that the incident was contained as a ‘local rumor’ and most reports failed to mention Rose’s employment status.
'sufficient' and 'most' meaning there is no absolute point to say "thats too much or thats not enough".
now the fact you brought up an example that went one way, and i brought up one that went another, means that we have a good old fashioned grey area.
which is the only point i was trying to make.
so anyway lets get back to 5 hit ups up the middle and kick for touch 'ey.
Yeah because a bloke forcing himself upon a female shouldn't be condemned.
oh yeah i agree, everyone on here is saying its cool cool.
I'm not following. Where is the part about the Telstra guy pissing himself while trying to mount a dog ?
It's implied.
Everyone knows your Telstra bloke comes round and fixes your phone lines then simulates sex on your dog.
Oh wait, or was that Optus?
You're right, this is confusing.
Actually, as an aside, was it ever established that he did piss himself?
(Read somewhere he spilt a drink on himself in his state).
Because THAT is a sackable offence right there!!!
Rugby League is a game where two teams physically beat the crap out of each other for 80mins. Very little, if anything of what happens on the field would ever be tolerated within anyone's general day to day life.
Which makes it absolutely ridiculous to see a player have to answer for being drunk and a goose outside of work and yet never be called into question for beating the crap out of blokes for 80 mins a week 25 games per year as part of their job.
You see this why I like Dunster because he is smart and truthful.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/juni...7f6341ae380e53
Punched the ref, punched his captain, and smeared his own blood onto someone else - Rugby League mixed with the Central Coast.
OK
Back when men were men and there were no "excuses" for behaviour...
Steve Roach got four weeks for this tap.
That kid should be banned for life - end of.
Blokes wearing the wrong colour shorts, anyone really surprised? Like the bloke who shows up to training in board shorts, cant be trusted
a lot of junior rugby league comps have security these days
not hard to see why
junior bogan retards just doin what they do until they can afford an adidas bum bag #thisisnrl
That'll fix itManly prop Liam Knight sprayed Aerogard in his mouth after being arrested for drink driving
Whilst with police the accused was cocky and showed no real concern for the seriousness of the matter
for those of you wondering what awful act an NRL player would get up to next
A Brisbane Broncos player recently left his wife in labour with their first child to go play rugby league, despite his partner begging him not to
if you ever needed proof that rugby league people are disgusting human beings, the Broncos applauded him on this and referred to it as a selfless act
Actually was quite common before "new age" man and feminism. Footballers and cricketers were more often than not away from home when their kids were born In fact any request for parental leave was frowned upon.
A classic example was in the 80's when Allan Border was batting at the SCG - a message came up on the then new big screen congratulating him on the birth of his new daughter in Brisbane.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote