Ulster Team Talk Thread III: Les Miserables SEE MOD WARNING POST #1924 + #2755

awec

awec wrote: »

Pending review outcome. Are you saying the IRFU just delay the review outcome for a year to avoid making a decision?

They have the option to take their time with the review, yes.

If they make the business decision not to have either player as representatives again, they can easily do so without terminating any contracts.

awec

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They have the option to take their time with the review, yes.

If they make the business decision not to have either player as representatives again, they can easily do so without terminating any contracts.

They cannot take a year to come to the conclusion of the review. That is unreasonable and unfair.

What would the justification be for a review taking over five times longer than the criminal trial?

mfceiling

In a bit of good news...Darren Cave has signed a contract for another year.

Sangre

Sangre wrote: »

Fair procedures would require a prompt review of any disciplinary issues. A year would be seriously stretching it for an internal review.

Permanent employees or contracted?

Contracted employees could be suspended with pay until the end of the review outcome, even if quick, and then put on gardening leave without any hassle could they not?

Obviously cannot be done for permanent employees as then the gardening leave would be until death, but in contracted employees, with termination dates of contracts, they only have an obligation to pay them until the contract expires. They have no obligations beyond that.

awec

I’m not an expert in this field, so I’ll defer to you emmet if you are, but I have a hard time seeing the IRFU getting away with dragging their heels.

Bridge93

You can't let them rot in the reserves and isolate them. There's case law around this issue albeit football and basketball

awec

awec wrote: »

I’m not an expert in this field, so I’ll defer to you emmet if you are, but I have a hard time seeing the IRFU getting away with dragging their heels.

I am not, and if I were I would still absolutely deny it as wouldn't want anyone to think I was offering any advice.

Nobody is unfamiliar with the 'rot in the reserves' mantra and links I posted yesterday. It is an ugly side to professional sports, that there are ways and means for clubs to 'see out' a contract for a player that they don't want to have anymore.

irishbucsfan

Bridge93 wrote: »

You can't let them rot in the reserves and isolate them. There's case law around this issue albeit football and basketball

Is there case law? About not selecting players whose reputations have been massively damaged? I'd be interested in reading that.

molloyjh

Deleted User wrote: »

They have the option to take their time with the review, yes.

If they make the business decision not to have either player as representatives again, they can easily do so without terminating any contracts.

I can't see them dragging this out for that long. It ha the potential to back fore on them both ways. The players could start going down the constructive dismissal route and the sponsors could decide not to wait for the outcome of the review.

It's a difficult position for both the IRFU and Ulster. On the one hand they can't take action based on the case itself as that has been concluded, but on the other their sponsors might demand that they do. The messages that were sent are not grounds enough for the kind of action that sponsors may be demanding and so how would they justify the action they need to take?

At the end of the day this isn't just about the 2 lads. This is about the game in the country, and this has to take precedence over the individuals if there is a conflict there. They are 2 of thousands and the game will be around well after they've retired. I'd imagine the review is focusing more on the action that the sponsors are requesting and how to balance that up with both their own procedural and legal requirements.

BBDBB

Deleted User wrote: »

I am not, and if I were I would still absolutely deny it as wouldn't want anyone to think I was offering any advice.

oh I get ya


listen, Ive got this bit of land between me and my neighbour, he says the boundary to his land starts at the gate, but I remember my great grandfather who bought the land in 1927 told his grandson (my father) on his deathbed that the land was............:pac:

errlloyd

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Is there case law? About not selecting players whose reputations have been massively damaged? I'd be interested in reading that.

Quade Cooper surely an example.

Dubinusa

I figure the sponsorships will force the IRFU's hand. What's probably happened is that the folks that want them gone are most likely calling the sponsors repeatedly and acting the fool.
I believe they should stay, but sponsors carry a lot of clout. Ulster and the IRFU will do what's best for the brand financially and do it legally. That is to say, with minimum repercussions from the boys.
It's awful for the lads.

jacothelad

Deleted User wrote: »

Permanent employees or contracted?

Contracted employees could be suspended with pay until the end of the review outcome, even if quick, and then put on gardening leave without any hassle could they not?

Obviously cannot be done for permanent employees as then the gardening leave would be until death, but in contracted employees, with termination dates of contracts, they only have an obligation to pay them until the contract expires. They have no obligations beyond that.

Isn't there something in employment law that after being continuously employed for a certain time you are viewed as a permanent employee as far as worker rights are concerned. Both these guys have been employed by the IRFU for at least 6 years - possibly more.

The actual outcome will affect every player from here on in. Perhaps they will be forced to publish their What'sApp and text history so that we can see that everyone is being treated exactly the same. It's only fair isn't it?

We are also forgetting that these guys do have rights...stupid, sexist feckery isn't really a reason for draconian treatment. Are unpleasant, misogynous private communications more brand damaging than filming yourselves having a threesome and putting it in the public domain or breaking the face of a doorman or being convicted of drunk driving? I'm not certain that 'legally' they would be. Let's face it though, these two are toast no matter what the outcome. I doubt if they have a hope in hell of 'fair treatment' either by the IRFU or any tribunal if they were daft enough to go down that route. If they are offered a pay off they should take the money and run to the South of France for example.

Bridge93

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Is there case law? About not selecting players whose reputations have been massively damaged? I'd be interested in reading that.

Yeah I did a module on sport contract law a while back. Was fascinating stuff. I'm sure the notes are lying around I'll try dig them out. It's rare for a number of reasons but can be grounds for litigation in certain circumstances

Unless there is something pretty specific in their contracts I think it's actually going to be difficult for Ulster / IRFU to sack Olding and Jackson. As the solicitor on Claire Byrne said, what goes on in private or what is messaged in private is difficult to rely upon for a disciplinary action. Similarly pressure by sponsors doesn't give Ulster / IRFU carte blanche to dismiss them either.

Keeping them in the reserves is also challenging. It could be argued certainly in Jackson's case as someone else mentioned that it would be constructive dismissal or a change to their scope of their responsibilities. Keeping an investigation going for a year would be similar and that's ignoring the fact that after the allegation was made and interviews held with police, the players went back on the pitch with Ulster / IRFU probably knowing some of the details. That the suspension didn't occur until they were formally charged a year later suggests that the two bodies were prepared to keep playing the lads despite the allegation made against them.

I've no doubt this will be resolved with a chunk of change and a handshake. But anyone who suggests it's clear cut is well wide of the mark.

Sangre

jacothelad wrote: »

Isn't there something in employment law that after being continuously employed for a certain time you are viewed as a permanent employee as far as worker rights are concerned. Both these guys have been employed by the IRFU for at least 6 years - possibly more.

.

Yes, but it doesn't outright preclude use of fixed term contracts. You just need a very good reason. I suspect the argument would be made that sports players are an exemption.

Not my area but a very quick google reveals the below German employment tribunal case. Not a precedent case of course but helpful analysis of issues.

https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/articles/item/the-legality-of-fixed-term-employment-contracts-in-european-professional-football-the-mueller-case-and-beyond

jacothelad

jacothelad wrote: »

Isn't there something in employment law that after being continuously employed for a certain time you are viewed as a permanent employee as far as worker rights are concerned. Both these guys have been employed by the IRFU for at least 6 years - possibly more.

We are also forgetting that these guys do have rights...stupid feckery isn't really a reason for draconian treatment. Are unpleasant, misogynous private communications more brand damaging than filming yourselves having a threesome and putting it in the public domain or breaking the face of a doorman or being convicted of drunk driving? I'm not certain that 'legally' they would be. Let's face it though, these two are toast no matter what the outcome. I doubt if they have a hope in hell of 'fair treatment' either by the IRFU or any tribunal if they were daft enough to go down that route. If they are offered a pay off they should take the money and run to the South of France for example.

I am speaking dispassionately about what I see as the IRFU's options if they make the business decision that they cannot have the two as representatives again.

As before, I don't think that that is a clear cut decision. What constitutes 'unfit representatives' is not something I want to think much about. There would be a tonne of grey area there and hard and fast rules would become outdated as societal norms adjust anyway.

On a human level, I feel very badly for all involved in the court case, and hope that all can pick their lives back up and continue. In the case of PJ and SO, I believe that the best thing that could happen to them is that the IRFU buy them out of their contracts, and they head out of Ireland away from the drama for a couple of years minimum. Potentially France or SA for Super Rugby might be a possibility.
In the case of the complainant, the main witness and the two other accused, I hope they can get as much anonymity as is possible, somehow, and try and get back on track.

bilston

mfceiling wrote: »

In a bit of good news...Darren Cave has signed a contract for another year.

Excellent news...and an absolute no brainer...I hope he is starting tomorrow night.

molloyjh

The real issue here is the assumption of guilt by a large portion of people, which has been there for many from before the case itself began, and the pressure that puts on all involved. It would be lovely if we could all look at it objectively and identify what a sensible approach would be to the scenario, however that simply isn't the real world. And unfortunately it's the real world we all live in. If, hypothetically, a million people still believe the guys committed the crime they were accused of, there are consequences to that. Those can't be ignored, even if they aren't objective opinions and no matter how much others may disagree with them. Sport and sports sponsorship requires buy in from people. If you don't get that or start to lose it then you have to make a call on whether you can live with the losses or need to change.

* BTW I'm not taking a position on the case myself one way or the other, it's just factual at this point that they were found Not Guilty and everyone should realise that from a legal perspective the matter is concluded. They cannot be punished for something they were never legally guilty of in the first place. Taking issue with professional organisations adhering to the law and being professional is in no way helpful to anything.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

They cannot be punished for something they were never legally guilty of in the first place.

This is absolutely incorrect under UK employment law, to be fair.

http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/article-details/criminal-offences-outside-work-what-can-employers-do wrote:

Can you sack before the employee has been found guilty?

In some cases it may be possible to dismiss an employee on the basis of the charge alone. This will usually only be the case if the offence is a very serious one. For example, the dismissal of a staff member because they had been charged with murder was ruled to be fair. A charge of rape or child sex offences may be regarded in the same way. If the individual is acquitted of the offence this does not mean that the dismissal will necessarily be unfair. This is because the employer is not held to an absolute standard of proof when making its decision to terminate; it is only required to act reasonably.

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.

They are not guilty of a crime, that does not mean they are not guilty of being dickheads.

There is no statute that would convict anyone of being a dickhead, but teams are completely capable of making the decision not to include dickheads.

People's reactions on social media, or in newpsapers adverts, or in rugby grounds (protest planned outside ravenhill tomorrow I believe) may be unreasonable or misguided, but those are the people who Ulster's sponsors need to sell goods and services to, and there's absolutely no way that their sponsors will want to be associated with either of these players at least until the heat dies down.

The Black Stags

irishbucsfan wrote: »

molloyjh wrote: »

They cannot be punished for something they were never legally guilty of in the first place.

This is absolutely incorrect under UK employment law, to be fair.

http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/article-details/criminal-offences-outside-work-what-can-employers-do wrote:

Can you sack before the employee has been found guilty?

In some cases it may be possible to dismiss an employee on the basis of the charge alone. This will usually only be the case if the offence is a very serious one. For example, the dismissal of a staff member because they had been charged with murder was ruled to be fair. A charge of rape or child sex offences may be regarded in the same way. If the individual is acquitted of the offence this does not mean that the dismissal will necessarily be unfair. This is because the employer is not held to an absolute standard of proof when making its decision to terminate; it is only required to act reasonably.

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.

They are not guilty of a crime, that does not mean they are not guilty of being dickheads.  

There is no statute that would convict anyone of being a dickhead, but teams are completely capable of making the decision not to include dickheads.

People's reactions on social media, or in newpsapers adverts, or in rugby grounds (protest planned outside ravenhill tomorrow I believe) may be unreasonable or misguided, but those are the people who Ulster's sponsors need to sell goods and services to, and there's absolutely no way that their sponsors will want to be associated with either of these players at least until the heat dies down.

If the people who don't want PJ and SO (and the other two defendants) to play for Ulster again protest at the match I can see a reaction by the people who do want them to play again, probably in the form of their own protest. They also buy goods and services from the sponsors.
It is not clear cut at all.

errlloyd

The Black Stags wrote: »

If the people who don't want PJ and SO (and the other two defendants) to play for Ulster again protest at the match I can see a reaction by the people who do want them to play again, probably in the form of their own protest. They also buy goods and services from the sponsors.
It is not clear cut at all.

Yeah I was thinking about this the other day. It's real damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's all become so visceral.

irishbucsfan

The Black Stags wrote: »

If the people who don't want PJ and SO (and the other two defendants) to play for Ulster again protest at the match I can see a reaction by the people who do want them to play again, probably in the form of their own protest. They also buy goods and services from the sponsors.
It is not clear cut at all.

It is not clear cut, you're right. However I think I know which brush I'd prefer to be tarred with if I was a sponsor.

eigrod

The Black Stags wrote: »

If the people who don't want PJ and SO (and the other two defendants) to play for Ulster again protest at the match I can see a reaction by the people who do want them to play again, probably in the form of their own protest. They also buy goods and services from the sponsors.
It is not clear cut at all.

From the sponsors perspective, there is a vast difference between the two. Will BOI, or whoever, want an Ulster Team Bus (perhaps with their logo on it?) being pelted with eggs, bottles or whatever being splashed all over the Irish & British media and Social Media ? Guaranteed those protesting outside the grounds will have "Shame on you BOI (or whoever)" on their placards and guaranteed the media will be there to publicise that.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This is absolutely incorrect under UK employment law, to be fair.



They are not guilty of a crime, that does not mean they are not guilty of being dickheads.

There is no statute that would convict anyone of being a dickhead, but teams are completely capable of making the decision not to include dickheads.

People's reactions on social media, or in newpsapers adverts, or in rugby grounds (protest planned outside ravenhill tomorrow I believe) may be unreasonable or misguided, but those are the people who Ulster's sponsors need to sell goods and services to, and there's absolutely no way that their sponsors will want to be associated with either of these players at least until the heat dies down.

Hmm, everyday's a school day I suppose...thanks for that.

eigrod wrote: »

From the sponsors perspective, there is a vast difference between the two. Will BOI, or whoever, want an Ulster Team Bus (perhaps with their logo on it?) being pelted with eggs, bottles or whatever being splashed all over the Irish & British media and Social Media ? Guaranteed those protesting outside the grounds will have "Shame on you BOI (or whoever)" on their placards and guaranteed the media will be there to publicise that.

I can all but guarantee that if BOI came out publicly to demand that the players be sacked all of those placards would still appear. Just like the petition to have the IRFU and Ulster conduct a review was getting signatures long after they said they were going to do just that.

The Black Stags

molloyjh wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This is absolutely incorrect under UK employment law, to be fair.



They are not guilty of a crime, that does not mean they are not guilty of being dickheads.  

There is no statute that would convict anyone of being a dickhead, but teams are completely capable of making the decision not to include dickheads.

People's reactions on social media, or in newpsapers adverts, or in rugby grounds (protest planned outside ravenhill tomorrow I believe) may be unreasonable or misguided, but those are the people who Ulster's sponsors need to sell goods and services to, and there's absolutely no way that their sponsors will want to be associated with either of these players at least until the heat dies down.

Hmm, everyday's a school day I suppose...thanks for that.

eigrod wrote: »

From the sponsors perspective, there is a vast difference between the two. Will BOI, or whoever, want an Ulster Team Bus (perhaps with their logo on it?) being pelted with eggs, bottles or whatever being splashed all over the Irish & British media and Social Media ? Guaranteed those protesting outside the grounds will have "Shame on you BOI (or whoever)" on their placards and guaranteed the media will be there to publicise that.

I can all but guarantee that if BOI came out publicly to demand that the players be sacked all of those placards would still appear. Just like the petition to have the IRFU and Ulster conduct a review was getting signatures long after they said they were going to do just that.

The problem with these people is that they will never stop and nothing will ever be good enough for them. If PJ and SO are let go, they'll still want all players at Ulster Rugby to attend classes on good behavior. If they start protesting at Ulster Rubgy when PJ and SO aren't even playing - like this weekend, then it's Ulster Rugby that are the target. Whether PJ or SO are let go now doesn't matter to them.

molloyjh

The Black Stags wrote: »

The problem with these people is that they will never stop and nothing will ever be good enough for them. If PJ and SO are let go, they'll still want all players at Ulster Rugby to attend classes on good behavior. If they start protesting at Ulster Rubgy when PJ and SO aren't even playing - like this weekend, then it's Ulster Rugby that are the target. Whether PJ or SO are let go now doesn't matter to them.

There are a lot of people who are so keen to outrage that they don't stop to think whether the outrage is appropriate or required. That said this whole case has, and should, drive conversations about what is acceptable behaviour and what is not, as well as other conversations about consent. It is important to have those conversations and not let them fade away. Just as long as those conversations are happening in a general sense rather than in relation to the individual case itself. So people not forgetting can be a good thing as much as it can be a bad thing.

Buer

Another strong side named by Ulster for tomorrrow night. The Ospreys are in good form but Tipuric is gone for 7s duty and their line up looks very beatable. Interestingly, they've put AWJ in the back row where he hasn't played in years.

jwwb

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/scout-leader-accused-of-rape-not-vetted-despite-garda-advice-1.3458578

"Scouting Ireland decided that the man had “no case to answer” after the Director of Public Prosecutions ruled out bringing charges, but Mr Elliott stressed that the threshold for a criminal prosecution is that of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. Mr Elliott said he could find no evidence “that consideration was given to the relative probability” that the incident could have happened as described by the woman, who was “largely ignored”."

Some parallels can be drawn

Bridge93

Just on BOI.

I'm in the FS industry and, while taking this with a pinch of salt, have heard from a few different people that BOI have threatened to pull their sponsorship of Ulster as expected but have also threatened to pull out of Irish rugby entirely, including the other provinces