JDB Federal Court Challenge

[The Who]

It seems de Belin's case won't start until November so he will miss the entire season for a second year. Apparently the Players Union are threatening to take the NRL to court to try to overturn the 'no-fault' stand-down rule.

 

[urulion]

It seems de Belin's case won't start until November so he will miss the entire season for a second year. Apparently the Players Union are threatening to take the NRL to court to try to overturn the 'no-fault' stand-down rule.

Well, they may have finally grown a pair of principles. They should have taken the NRL to court as soon as De Belin was stood down (Which was before the policy was even enacted). Better late than never they say. Good on them, working it all out in the short time frame of 12 months

 

[susan]

I must live in a different world. Regardless of whether one agrees with it or not, and I’ll be happily corrected, but I can’t think of a single industry where a person charged with a serious rape offence would NOT be stood down(anyone on here seriously think they would be going to work after being charged with rape?) Many people would be summarily sacked and a lot would not be paid. The very best a person could hope for is being stood down with full pay- and that is Jacks situation.
That’s what happens in the real world so not sure why people think Rugby League would be different.It seems a lot of people think this is some NRL specific thing. It isn’t.

I despise Greenturd. His inconsistencies and favouritism when dealing with less serious offences are ridiculous and obviously open to debate. But when charges as serious as this are involved every single industry in this country would stand a person down.

I’m not saying it’s right or wrong , just saying that’s what ACTUALLY HAPPENS day in day out in the world so it should hardly be a surprise or a massive injustice perpetrated only by the NRL. And the NRL are not responsible for the ridiculous wait times for trial either. Every citizen faces that issue and it’s the responsibility of government to fix it.

 

[The Who]

I must live in a different world. Regardless of whether one agrees with it or not, and I’ll be happily corrected, but I can’t think of a single industry where a person charged with a serious rape offence would NOT be stood down(anyone on here seriously think they would be going to work after being charged with rape?)

When can you sack an employee who has been charged with/convicted of a criminal offence?

There is no general right to sack an employee because they have been charged with or convicted of a criminal offence. Instead employers must consider the effect of the charge or conviction on the individual's suitability to do the job and their relationship with their employer, work colleagues and customers. Relevant matters include the nature of the offence, the nature of the person’s job, the extent to which it involves contact with other employees or the public, and the employee’s seniority or rank.

If there is no adverse effect on their suitability the charge or conviction should have no bearing.

Can you sack before the employee has been found guilty?

An employer considering dismissal must still comply with basic principles of fairness, such as giving the employee the opportunity to state their case and taking into account any mitigating circumstances.

- Dan Begbie-Clench, partner at workplace lawyers Doyle Clayton

 

[susan]

When can you sack an employee who has been charged with/convicted of a criminal offence?

There is no general right to sack an employee because they have been charged with or convicted of a criminal offence. Instead employers must consider the effect of the charge or conviction on the individual's suitability to do the job and their relationship with their employer, work colleagues and customers. Relevant matters include the nature of the offence, the nature of the person’s job, the extent to which it involves contact with other employees or the public, and the employee’s seniority or rank.

If there is no adverse effect on their suitability the charge or conviction should have no bearing.

Can you sack before the employee has been found guilty?

An employer considering dismissal must still comply with basic principles of fairness, such as giving the employee the opportunity to state their case and taking into account any mitigating circumstances.

- Dan Begbie-Clench, partner at workplace lawyers Doyle Clayton

There is a very obvious answer to the above .

JDB has NOT been sacked and at no point in my post did I suggest he should be.

Your quotes deal with what an employer should take into account when deciding whether to sack an employee or when it is appropriate to SACK him .Jack has been suspended on full pay, not sacked..

Some would suggest leave on full pay is a fair outcome for the business and employee, taking into account the image of the business, the very public nature of the business, the extreme gravity of the charges and the employees right to a fair trial. A common sense outcome that addresses the concerns of employer and employee as best it could in a difficult situation.There are never any winners in these situations including the alleged victim.

In any case I’m just saying what actually happens where extremely serious charges are involved.Not what should happen or whether it’s right or wrong.
Does anyone seriously think they would be strolling into work after an aggravated rape charge is laid against them ? (other than murder aggravated rape is right at the top in terms of the seriousness of criminal offences) .
Answer in almost every case is no.Real world is they would face suspension until the issue is dealt with. In small less structured workplaces they would often be sacked , rightly or wrongly. Continuing to work as normal would be extremely rare.

Also the employer, in this case the NRL, cannot be held responsible for the ridiculous wait times for serious criminal trials.

In a nutshell these suspensions with pay pending a serious criminal trial are not an NRL thing.Im not sure why people think they are. It’s just normal workplace practice.

I think a lot of it comes from Greenturd hatred which is understandable because he is a disgraceful fool but in these very serious criminal cases he’s just doing what all major employers do.

In contrast to the serious offences above his inconsistencies and blatant favouritism in regard to the more minor indiscretions under his no fault rule is a total dogs breakfast. No doubt the bloke is a dangerous fool.

 

[40 years an eagle]

I think a lot of it comes from Greenturd hatred which is understandable because he is a disgraceful fool but in these serious criminal cases he’s just doing what all major employers do

I think the problem most have with the NRL policy is the discretionary way it is enforced and was poorly implemented.

Nothing in today's NRL management is transparent or consistent.

 

[The Who]

Susan, you make some good points.
However, one difference between a 'regular' worker and a sporting person is the longevity of the respective careers. A sportsman may have 6-10 years at the top of his profession, whereas a normal worker should have 40 years or more.
de Belin won't have a career when his RL days are finished. Thus, the two years he has been forced out of the sport have a far greater impact than two years out of virtually every other career.
I also feel that he and certain other players stood down by the NRL have been dealt with differently than others. Somehow the NRL came up with a length of potential jail time of 11 years. How can one alleged offence which leads to a police charge bring the game into greater disrepute than another alleged offence?

 

[susan]

Susan, you make some good points.
However, one difference between a 'regular' worker and a sporting person is the longevity of the respective careers. A sportsman may have 6-10 years at the top of his profession, whereas a normal worker should have 40 years or more.
de Belin won't have a career when his RL days are finished. Thus, the two years he has been forced out of the sport have a far greater impact than two years out of virtually every other career.
I also feel that he and certain other players stood down by the NRL have been dealt with differently than others. Somehow the NRL came up with a length of potential jail time of 11 years. How can one alleged offence which leads to a police charge bring the game into greater disrepute than another alleged offence?

Absolutely agree with both you guys about inconsistency and transparency. The rule is a mess and poorly designed. The rule should be far clearer in regard to those crimes designated as extremely serious and thus invoking mandatory stand down.
Anyone who knows how the criminal code works would realize maximum sentences should not be the defining method. The offences should be clearly and individually listed and primarily go to those crimes that involve violence, and not just against women.

The other major issue is the fact that Greenberg is the sole arbiter and is obviously biased and just as obviously is a fool.

Just want to make clear my comments above only apply to extremely serious criminal offences like aggravated rape which is a pretty heinous crime to be accused of.In those cases I think an employer has little choice but to do what has been done in JDBs case. The almost universal action taken by major employers across all industries in these cases involves suspension pending resolution so NRL are not reinventing the wheel here which many seem to think.

The rest of it outside of extremely serious criminal offences is an even bigger mess and typical of this administration.

 

[urulion]

I must live in a different world. Regardless of whether one agrees with it or not, and I’ll be happily corrected, but I can’t think of a single industry where a person charged with a serious rape offence would NOT be stood down(anyone on here seriously think they would be going to work after being charged with rape?) Many people would be summarily sacked and a lot would not be paid. The very best a person could hope for is being stood down with full pay- and that is Jacks situation.
That’s what happens in the real world so not sure why people think Rugby League would be different.It seems a lot of people think this is some NRL specific thing. It isn’t.

I despise Greenturd. His inconsistencies and favouritism when dealing with less serious offences are ridiculous and obviously open to debate. But when charges as serious as this are involved every single industry in this country would stand a person down.

I’m not saying it’s right or wrong , just saying that’s what ACTUALLY HAPPENS day in day out in the world so it should hardly be a surprise or a massive injustice perpetrated only by the NRL. And the NRL are not responsible for the ridiculous wait times for trial either. Every citizen faces that issue and it’s the responsibility of government to fix it.

Hi Susan hope you are well, I think we have crossed this bridge previously. I have previously agreed to an extensive length in your assessment and still do, however, as discussed previously I do believe that there are subtle differences in the matter of De Belin and a general workplace.

Many people may be sacked, stood down without pay, and may even not have the opportunity to explain themselves (you may be very right), however, that person if he or she happens to be a butcher/painter/store person, or be skilled in many other professions can move to another suburb/town and continue his/her trade. This person may even fill out his/her new employment forms and tick NO CONVICTIONS RECORDED. This person has the opportunity to move on in his/her life pending the trial.

The question is which town/suburb can De Belin go looking for work following his trade as a professional footballer. The NRL has check mated him and probably ruined his carer by being sidelined for 2 years, where he is unable to play for another club.

The no fault circus policy was not in place when De Belin signed an agreement and it has become an NRL specific thing to include terms into an agreement on the run. Most employers have those terms and conditions before the s... hits the fan.

I do not agree that the NRL and all other enterprises act the same, or in a similar capacity. I am yet to see any employer in this country put pressure on a defence lawyer to provide tapes used in a legal process (to be tendered as evidence), or else threaten that a decision would be made with a brief of evidence to the detriment of the player (is that another policy made on the run?).

I also dislike Greenturd, and thoroughly understand that these things happen from day to day in most employment settings, however, Greenturd and the NRL are not day to day employment settings. They deal with celebrity status sport stars and have a greater duty of care than that of a butcher, painter, storeperson etc (especially when making decisions that affect the sports person reputation directly). I personally believe De Belin's reputation is shot, and the NRL are to blame due to the inept policy made on the run and Greenturd trying to flex his muscle.

 

[susan]

Hi Susan hope you are well, I think we have crossed this bridge previously. I have previously agreed to an extensive length in your assessment and still do, however, as discussed previously I do believe that there are subtle differences in the matter of De Belin and a general workplace.

Many people may be sacked, stood down without pay, and may even not have the opportunity to explain themselves (you may be very right), however, that person if he or she happens to be a butcher/painter/store person, or be skilled in many other professions can move to another suburb/town and continue his/her trade. This person may even fill out his/her new employment forms and tick NO CONVICTIONS RECORDED. This person has the opportunity to move on in his/her life pending the trial.

The question is which town/suburb can De Belin go looking for work following his trade as a professional footballer. The NRL has check mated him and probably ruined his carer by being sidelined for 2 years, where he is unable to play for another club.

The no fault circus policy was not in place when De Belin signed an agreement and it has become an NRL specific thing to include terms into an agreement on the run. Most employers have those terms and conditions before the s... hits the fan.

I do not agree that the NRL and all other enterprises act the same, or in a similar capacity. I am yet to see any employer in this country put pressure on a defence lawyer to provide tapes used in a legal process (to be tendered as evidence), or else threaten that a decision would be made with a brief of evidence to the detriment of the player (is that another policy made on the run?).

I also dislike Greenturd, and thoroughly understand that these things happen from day to day in most employment settings, however, Greenturd and the NRL are not day to day employment settings. They deal with celebrity status sport stars and have a greater duty of care than that of a butcher, painter, storeperson etc (especially when making decisions that affect the sports person reputation directly). I personally believe De Belin's reputation is shot, and the NRL are to blame due to the inept policy made on the run and Greenturd trying to flex his muscle.

Hi

I suppose my reply would best be summarised by the fact that as a starting point I don’t see any reason why sports stars are owed any greater duty of care than you and I and should be treated as such. So I have to disagree with you there.It seems the many positive advantages that goes with celebrity that butchers and bakers don’t receive are conveniently forgotten - and those are too numerous to list. You can’t benefit day in day out , financially and otherwise ,from a world that is celebrity mad and getting worse then use your celebrity status to say you need to to be treated differently to us when things go awry. I would suggest it would be a good bet that the pretty sordid antics of JDB that evening that are NOT in dispute prior to the alleged offence are a direct result of his own perceived celebrity status and what he thinks he is entitled to do.

I do know that the law does not currently grant them special status. I think you would be very disappointed if you think a court would regard suspending a person with full pay pending the outcome of an aggravated rape charge( a heinous crime if found guilty ) is a denial of natural justice. That’s why it rarely happens. It’s a common sense answer to a difficult situation.

I suppose it comes down to this Urulion. I am guessing from your legal knowledge that you are a young lawyer employed at a legal firm? If I’m wrong correct me.
If tomorrow you were charged with aggravated rape what do you think your employer, who like the NRL would be extremely conscious of reputation, would do.

If they are like any law firm I have been involved with they would suspend you until the issue was resolved. I am absolutely certain you would not be in the office the next day. You would not work for two years and your role at the firm would be forever clouded. A law firms currency is it reputation. That’s how the world works. And that’s what the NRL has done.JDB deserves no more than you do as a budding young lawyer because he can play football.

And don’t you think anyone charged with aggravated rape and suspended from work would have reputational damage. Celebrities aren’t the only ones with reputations. It would be devastating to the common man as well.

Anyway let’s agree to disagree and start to think of defeating the evil scum invaders at brookie in a couple of weeks. I’ll be there with bells on.

 

[urulion]

Hi

I suppose my reply would best be summarised by the fact that as a starting point I don’t see any reason why sports stars are owed any greater duty of care than you and I and should be treated as such. So I have to disagree with you there.It seems the many positive advantages that goes with celebrity that butchers and bakers don’t receive are conveniently forgotten - and those are too numerous to list.What I do know is that the law does not currently grant them special status. I think you would be very disappointed if you think a court would regard suspending a person with pay pending the outcome of an aggravated rape charge is a denial of natural justice. That’s why it rarely happens. It’s a common sense answer to a difficult situation.

I suppose it comes down to this Urulion. I am guessing from your legal knowledge that you are a young lawyer employed at a legal firm? If I’m wrong correct me.
If tomorrow you were charged with aggravated rape what do you think your employer, who like the NRL would be extremely conscious of reputation, would do.

If they are like any law firm I have been involved with they would suspend you until the issue was resolved. I am absolutely certain you would not be in the office the next day. A law firms currency is it reputation. That’s how the world works. And that’s what the NRL has done.JDB deserves no more than you do because he can play football.
Anyway let’s agree to disagree and start to think of defeating the evil scum invaders at brookie in a couple of weeks. I’ll be there with bells on.

Hi Susan,

No the law does not grant sport stars special status, however, the damages more than likely will be extensively higher due to their status/earnings and what they stand to lose due to the decision.

Absolutely agree a firm would suspend you immediately, however, you sign that agreement on your first day, being made aware of your obligations. They don't make it up on the run after you have been charged and after asking you to stand down and you refuse. As you would know, working at previous firms, they would be grounds for discrimination.

Thank you kindly, Young? I wish I still was lololololololol , I have been doing this for a little while now.

Agree, and yes, look forward to round one. This off-season just seems to be longer than usual for some reason and I will be there with my kids (die hard Sea Eagles supporters as well).

 

[susan]

Hi Susan,

No the law does not grant sport stars special status, however, the damages more than likely will be extensively higher due to their status/earnings and what they stand to lose due to the decision.

Absolutely agree a firm would suspend you immediately, however, you sign that agreement on your first day, being made aware of your obligations. They don't make it up on the run after you have been charged and after asking you to stand down and you refuse. As you would know, working at previous firms, they would be grounds for discrimination.

Thank you kindly, Young? I wish I still was lololololololol , I have been doing this for a little while now.

Agree, and yes, look forward to round one. This off-season just seems to be longer than usual for some reason and I will be there with my kids (die hard Sea Eagles supporters as well).

The NRL does have a clause in the contract very similar to a normal employment contract you and I would sign regarding bringing the game and club into disrepute, just like you or I committing acts that effect our employers..

Mitchell Pearces long suspension and huge fine for what was not an illegal act was the biggest example.JDB agreed to that.

When he signed the contract, he and all the other contracted players agreed to being bound by any future rules that the NRL invoked so he effectively agreed to the no fault rule. This is not unusual in contracts issued by sporting bodies . The court has already held that the NRL had the power to suspend him under that rule so it’s a moot point.

Having the 8 commissioners deal with it on a case by case basis with clear guidelines including standing down with full pay when charged with clear listed specific serious offences was the obvious answer.But the Turd messed it up again.

I had to explain to my daughter what the case was about last year as she is a huge footy fan. I think when you try to do that it illustrates the difficulty of the whole issue for fans, players ,sponsors and the NRL alike.

Maybe it’s this simple : getting blind drunk and organising group sex with another woman ( with consent or without ) while your heavily pregnant wife is at home is not a good career move so don’t be surprised if it goes to ****.

Whether his conduct was illegal or not you would reckon the loss of reputation bit is overdone ... I would think the actions he has admitted to has already given his reputation a near fatal whack and for the life of me can’t see how it qualifies him for special treatment due to his supposed celebrity status. I can’t see sponsors jumping over each other to get him to endorse a product, regardless of the verdict. Pregnant wives and consensual group sex doesnt sell, and it definitely does not get you invited to dinner parties.And if Jack is found guilty reputation will be the last of his problems.

I’m glad your youngsters are eagles lol
It’s good for the soul. Cheers

 

[yokahontas]

No the law does not grant sport stars special status, however, the damages more than likely will be extensively higher due to their status/earnings and what they stand to lose due to the decision.

I think what sometimes gets overlooked here is that while, yes, sports stars/celebrities stand to lose a lot more, that’s also because they’re getting paid exorbitant amounts of money that allow them to set themselves up for life (if they use the opportunity wisely) in an 8-10 year career, which their ‘average Joe’ peers won’t achieve within a timeframe four or five times that (in terms of standard of living). So where forgoing $60K in a year (the amount that’s being commonly bandied about as what JDB has ‘lost’ in unearned rep bonuses etc) would be crippling for me, it’s realistically pocket change for a guy who’s being paid 10x that while suspended from his primary employment.

Prior to these charges, the guy has already earned what constitutes an entire working life’s worth of money - for playing a game. It’s hard to see the sense in that giving him yet more privilege or special status over someone his age who, by pure dumb genetic luck (or lack of), doesn’t have any appreciable sporting talent and will spend the next 40 or 50 years digging ditches or the like to get anywhere near the sum that JDB has already banked during his NRL career.

 

[urulion]

The NRL does have a clause in the contract very similar to a normal employment contract you and I would sign regarding bringing the game and club into disrepute. TJDB agreed to that.He also signed a contract which had a provision where he agreed being bound by any future rules that the NRL invoke so he effectively agreed to the no stand down rule.

I think a charge of aggravated rape fits the bill in terms of satisfying that disrepute provision anyway and being stood down with pay given Mitchell Pearces long suspension and massive fine under that rule for a juvenile drunken video which was in no way illegal.

JDBs actions that are not disputed prior to the event would seem worse than Pearce on their own.
The no fault rule is just a reactionary badly worded poorly administered sub provision to the overarching idea that a certain level of behaviour is expected.The disrepute clause has been used many times and the players made aware of it ad nauseum via education by club and nrl so only a fool would not be expected to be suspended for a very long time if your actions were deemed serious enough to warrant a felony charge.Another mess made by Toddy when it is not that difficult.

I had to explain to my daughter what the case was about last year as she is a huge footy fan. I think when you try to do that it illustrates the difficulty of the whole issue for everyone concerned.
I’m glad your youngsters are eagles lol
It’s good for the soul. Cheers

1) I can only assume the NRL would have a clause/s outlining 'bringing the game into disrepute' in the contracts, however, they must be extremely poorly drafted, or fails to flesh out the term 'disrepute' to eliminate ambiguity.

Otherwise, why would they have so many different outcomes and lack of consistencies on player behaviour? Also, why would they run and insert a policy ' no fault stand down policy' if bringing the game into disrepute would cover player behaviour appropriately? (I personally believe this is because it did not give Toddy his discretionary power to stand a player down).

2) More than likely JDB has agreed to NRL future rule/policy changes. Keeping in mind they must be made appropriately by following a procedure and be effectively constituted in the policy. The NRL created the policy on the run after the charges occurred with JDB.

Agreed with Pearce, again it seems way over the top and another decision made on the run in my view.

Well my daughter is the same, a huge NRL and Sea Eagle fan. She is 20 now and does not really like JDB. If it was up to her, he (JDB) would not be playing footy for a very long time. As you, I have ongoing conversations with her trying to make her see both sides.... not easy, but get a great conversation out of it. I also do not condone his behaviour while his wife was pregnant and putting himself in that position. Although I do not think much of him, I do wish if he is guilty of what he is accused of, I hope he never comes out again. However, if that is not the case one can only hope he is cleared and moves on.

 

[urulion]

I think what sometimes gets overlooked here is that while, yes, sports stars/celebrities stand to lose a lot more, that’s also because they’re getting paid exorbitant amounts of money that allow them to set themselves up for life (if they use the opportunity wisely) in an 8-10 year career, which their ‘average Joe’ peers won’t achieve within a timeframe four or five times that (in terms of standard of living). So where forgoing $60K in a year (the amount that’s being commonly bandied about as what JDB has ‘lost’ in unearned rep bonuses etc) would be crippling for me, it’s realistically pocket change for a guy who’s being paid 10x that while suspended from his primary employment.

Prior to these charges, the guy has already earned what constitutes an entire working life’s worth of money - for playing a game. It’s hard to see the sense in that giving him yet more privilege or special status over someone his age who, by pure dumb genetic luck (or lack of), doesn’t have any appreciable sporting talent and will spend the next 40 or 50 years digging ditches or the like to get anywhere near the sum that JDB has already banked during his NRL career.

Totally... could you imagine soccer players, basketball players, boxers where some may earn 100 times more than the best paid NRL player. The courts are not rewarding them, rather, providing damages to the extent of the damages suffered. Putting the individual back in the place he/she would have been, if the damage/loss had not occurred.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

I agree with comments above by @susan (good to see you back posting in time for season kickoff!)

The only qualification I make is regarding

In contrast to the serious offences above his inconsistencies and blatant favouritism in regard to the more minor indiscretions under his no fault rule is a total dogs breakfast. No doubt the bloke is a dangerous fool.

re the "minor' indiscretions" (ie those carrying maximum penalties of less than 11 years) it is now quite blatantly obvious this is not 'no fault', quite the opposite. NRL assesses the fault when exercising discretion. Not saying this is inappropriate, just saying it is in no way shape or form 'no fault'.

Having the 8 commissioners deal with it on a case by case basis with clear guidelines including standing down with full pay when charged with clear listed specific serious offences was the obvious answer.But the Turd messed it up again.

Agreed. Or how about the Integrity Unit? Seems like the appropriate body to make a call. Having this power wielded solely by the bloke who (1) gives personal references to some players, and who (2), due to being CEO of the NRL, has a vested interest in certain clubs doing well for various strategic reasons, makes the NRL look amateurish at best, or more likely corrupt.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Totally... could you imagine soccer players, basketball players, boxers where some may earn 100 times more than the best paid NRL player. The courts are not rewarding them, rather, providing damages to the extent of the damages suffered. Putting the individual back in the place he/she would have been, if the damage/loss had not occurred.

Are you assuming the allegations are falsely made? A court finding of 'not guilty' is no basis for such a claim, as you well know, due to the burden of proof in criminal cases falling on the prosecution!

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

The other major issue is the fact that Greenberg is the sole arbiter and is obviously biased and just as obviously is a fool.

Oh yeah, I also disagree with this comment. In that, while I agree that Greenberg is a danger to rugby league as we know it, I disagree he is a fool. He is no fool he is really clever (but of course this only makes him doubly dangerous).

 

[urulion]

Are you assuming the allegations are falsely made? A court finding of 'not guilty' is no basis for such a claim, as you well know, due to the burden of proof in criminal cases falling on the prosecution!

Not sure what you are talking about SER8 what falsely made allegations are you referring to? If we are talking about damages and putting a person back to where they would have been if the damage wasn't suffered. It would be about Jack suing the NRL, not sure what falsely made up allegations you are talking about

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Same as the cops, if they act reasonably on evidence available to them are you suggesting they can be sued?