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

17-04-2018 11:46AM

molloyjh wrote: »

Well yes, but the details of the case weren't known at that stage so there was nothing to action.

As for the texts being the only actionable thing, that's not actually true. IBF had a post pointing that out to me specifically last week some time on this thread.

Yes, I read it. It was an opinion and whilst it had some overlap with the facts of this case and threw up some interesting precedents on the matter, there is no guarantee that those precedents would have sufficient proximity to be used as a defence by the IRFU.

ClanofLams · 17-04-2018 11:46AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't envy the situation they are in. It's unprecedented. They've made mistakes but it's a very challenging situation to resolve under immense public scrutiny and that's aside from the other stuff going on at the club.

What mistakes have they made? Don’t see much they could have done differently personally.

prawnsambo · 17-04-2018 11:47AM

Deleted User wrote: »

People win these cases all the time? Employers avoid them sometimes to avoid reputational damage and some times they pay out even when they think they could win the case.

Yes, I'm not saying anything different to this. Usually the more high profile the position and employer, the more likely there is going to be a payout. You're balancing the expected costs against the expected outcome. Even if (as an employer) you have a strong case to defend, it will cost you a lot of money to do that.

Deleted User wrote: »

No one is debating that, however the amount that is paid outside of the court is negotiated and agreed by two sides with a vested interest in getting or paying the least.

The greater the sum paid is generally a reflection of the negotiating position of both parties.

If the rumours are true that Jackson received close to full value then it's fair to say that he had a strong position (and I believe on a legal basis that he did).

As I pointed out above, it's not necessarily the strength of the case, but the cost of defending it. If you can get away with paying out 400k and the expected costs are 700k, it's a no-brainer really.

Deleted User wrote: »

The fact that he was sacked for his remarks and Gilroy wasn't sacked for his should really be a lot more illustrative to people on here.

No it shouldn't. Because it wasn't just his remarks. As has been pointed out many times.

irishbucsfan · 17-04-2018 11:49AM

Deleted User wrote: »

This is wrong.

If the publication of that opinion was outside of my control, then my employer would have absolutely no grounds to sack me.

If I made the statement in public, or I made it in private and subsequently was responsible for publicising that statement then there would be grounds for dismissal.

Causation in law has been around a long time, did we get rid of this legal norm while I was looking in the other direction?

Nah, not wrong I'm afraid, especially when you have clauses in your contract which specifically defend your reputation.

Paul Smeenus · 17-04-2018 11:53AM

Deleted User wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If that message became public knowledge and that client represented the majority of your employer's income and that client pulled their business, then yes you would almost certainly be fired unless there are extremely good reasons. No idea why you wouldn't be fired?

This is wrong.

If the publication of that opinion was outside of my control, then my employer would have absolutely no grounds to sack me.

If I made the statement in public, or I made it in private and subsequently was responsible for publicising that statement then there would be grounds for dismissal.

Causation in law has been around a long time, did we get rid of this legal norm while I was looking in the other direction?

Would the Eighth Article of the Human Rights Act not protect someone in this circumstance? As I understand it, the right to privacy in "correspondence" now covers text messages etc?

irishbucsfan · 17-04-2018 11:54AM

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

Would the Eighth Article of the Human Rights Act not protect someone in this circumstance? As I understand it, the right to privacy in "correspondence" now covers text messages etc?

Your employer can't, for example, monitor the content of the messages without informing you (even that was controversial). That's your right to privacy.

errlloyd · 17-04-2018 11:55AM

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

Would the Eighth Article of the Human Rights Act not protect someone in this circumstance? As I understand it, the right to privacy in "correspondence" now covers text messages etc?

No because it has two articles, so again it only really protects you from governments actually trying to access that data.

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

17-04-2018 11:59AM

errlloyd wrote: »

I am just clarifying my understand here, but I thought there were no legally actionable transgressions in your opinion? .

No that's not what I said. I said I didn't think there was a strong one, certainly not against Jackson. Moreso against Olding and Gilroy. They didn't publicly communicate those messages but they did communicate them to a closed group. They are liable for the damage caused by those messages but their liability is limited by the fact that a third party ultimately communicated them into the public consciousness.

Let's remember, the IRFU wouldn't take a case against these guys. These legal arguments would form the basis of a case the players would take against the IRFU if they sacked them with no compensation.

errlloyd wrote: »

You've made that abundantly clear for weeks now. Initially when you linked Solicitor Opinions saying the messages were in their own home, and subsequently when you demonstrated that a full pay off was the same deal as they would have got even with no grounds for dismissal.

So, in summary. We can't conclude it was just the text messages based on Jackson or Olding alone, but given Gilroy is not fired, we can conclude it was more than just the text messages.

The Solicitor opinion that I linked (who went a bit further on the Claire Byrne show that I also linked too) simply pointed out that the events around the threesome happened in private in the defendants home. Not in public. She said the messages were also communicated in private. The damage caused by the messages is not in dispute, but, the messages were not made public by the defendants.

If a boulder on my land slides down a hill and crushes a car then I am liable. If however it turns out that the boulder was released by works performed by my neighbour, my liability would be limited and shared.

Getting rid of Olding and Jackson was a deal made outside of the law. Sanctioning Gilroy was a disciplinary matter.

17-04-2018 12:00PM

ClanofLams wrote: »

What mistakes have they made? Don’t see much they could have done differently personally.

I generally just mean in terms of their running of Ulster rugby.

17-04-2018 12:02PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is wrong.

If the publication of that opinion was outside of my control, then my employer would have absolutely no grounds to sack me.

If I made the statement in public, or I made it in private and subsequently was responsible for publicising that statement then there would be grounds for dismissal.

Causation in law has been around a long time, did we get rid of this legal norm while I was looking in the other direction?

I see you are still posting terrible misinformation on employment law?

An employer absolutely can terminate your employment for conduct outside work regardless of whether your private actions became public by your choice.

It's difficult and has a high threshold of proving your activities to be incompatible with your continued employment, but there is nothing in legislation or case law in Ireland that proscribes it.

I repeat, nothing.

You've been banging on about the "they didn't mean it to become public" thing for ages as if it's somehow relevant and yet you've never actually been able to explain how it is relevant in this case.

molloyjh · 17-04-2018 12:02PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, I read it. It was an opinion and whilst it had some overlap with the facts of this case and threw up some interesting precedents on the matter, there is no guarantee that those precedents would have sufficient proximity to be used as a defence by the IRFU.

Ah look, we could be saying that in 10 years time even if no further action has taken been by anyone. There's no guarantee I won't get hit by lightening when I head out for lunch in a few mins. I think it's a safe enough bet this is all totally fine legally speaking.

17-04-2018 12:07PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I see you are still posting terrible misinformation on employment law?

An employer absolutely can terminate your employment for conduct outside work regardless of whether your private actions became public by your choice.

It's difficult and has a high threshold of proving your activities to be incompatible with your continued employment, but there is nothing in legislation or case law in Ireland that proscribes it.

I repeat, nothing.

You've been banging on about the "they didn't mean it to become public" thing for ages as if it's somehow relevant and yet you've never actually been able to explain how it is relevant in this case.

I explained it two posts up. It's not terrible misinformation. It's exactly what one of the preeminent employment lawyers in the country has also been saying.

I guess you know better.

launish116 · 17-04-2018 12:09PM

God I wish Ulster would release a signing or something to attempt to change the story

17-04-2018 12:10PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Ah look, we could be saying that in 10 years time even if no further action has taken been by anyone. There's no guarantee I won't get hit by lightening when I head out for lunch in a few mins. I think it's a safe enough bet this is all totally fine legally speaking.

I'm just saying the article that IBF posted had nothing to do with this case. A judge might allow a legal argument based on the precedents established in those cases but I've yet to hear a legal commentator directly argue a connection between the two.

molloyjh · 17-04-2018 12:12PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm just saying the article that IBF posted had nothing to do with this case. A judge might allow a legal argument based on the precedents established in those cases but I've yet to hear a legal commentator directly argue a connection between the two.

But if there is precedent there that frees up the IRFU to act on more than just the text messages and at least have good grounds to do so. Which is what we are talking about.

Craig Gilroy sent a message in that group and wasn't sacked/bought off/whatever. So clearly the 2 lads were judged on more than just the texts. That's self evident.

irishbucsfan · 17-04-2018 12:13PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I explained it two posts up. It's not terrible misinformation. It's exactly what one of the preeminent employment lawyers in the country has also been saying.

I guess you know better.

When did the lawyer explain this?

17-04-2018 12:17PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I explained it two posts up. It's not terrible misinformation. It's exactly what one of the preeminent employment lawyers in the country has also been saying.

I guess you know better.

You didn't explain it, and that's the... 14th time you've referred to the same crappy blog post by a solicitor?
24th time?

40th?

All I know is I've seen you claim clear nonsense on morality clauses in sports people's contracts while referring to dubious personal experience, and repeatedly post 'information' on employment law that even a cursory Google search will disprove.

The blog post you are referring to doesn't even state that gross misconduct outside work isn't a sackable offence.

Get off it.

Just an example, your beloved Anne O'Connell states that "Whether or not the public likes it, the law requires that Jackson and Olding should not be victimised by their employers for being subject to criminal allegations which were not upheld." and as I've provided evidence before, this is emphatically not the case in the UK. An employee can be terminated simply for having been charged with a crime and there is nothing in Irish legislation that prescribes that either.

Just as another example "neither Jackson nor Olding are required to interact with women as part of their duties of employment." completely ignored that both UR and IRFU have stated ethics and values that personal behaviour can render incompatible with continued employment.

You can make an argument without resorting to claims from an area you are intellectually destitute in. Make a moral argument. Make an ethical argument.

17-04-2018 12:19PM

molloyjh wrote: »

But if there is precedent there that frees up the IRFU to act on more than just the text messages and at least have good grounds to do so. Which is what we are talking about.

Craig Gilroy sent a message in that group and wasn't sacked/bought off/whatever. So clearly the 2 lads were judged on more than just the texts. That's self evident.

The IRFU and Ulster wanted rid of Olding and Jackson. The accusation didn't get through court but it hangs over them. They don't want to be associated with that.

They felt they could hold onto Gilroy and weather the public storm.

All I'm saying is that what they wanted, and what they can do without breaching the employment rights of Olding, Jackson and Gilroy is limited.

Others disagree, that's fine.

awec · 17-04-2018 12:24PM

launish116 wrote: »

God I wish Ulster would release a signing or something to attempt to change the story

Hear we've signed some wee ginger 10 called Jaddy Packson.

prawnsambo · 17-04-2018 12:26PM

awec wrote: »

Hear we've signed some wee ginger 10 called Jaddy Packson.

Would this not be a Peadar Clohessy/Peter Clohessy situation?

molloyjh · 17-04-2018 12:28PM

awec wrote: »

launish116 wrote: »

God I wish Ulster would release a signing or something to attempt to change the story

Hear we've signed some wee ginger 10 called Jaddy Packson.

Otuart Slding couldn’t get his visa then?

Hands Like Flippers · 17-04-2018 12:29PM

awec wrote: »

bilston wrote: »

I still maintain a boycott or not renewing season tickets is counter productive. A protest should be designed to get the point across that doesn't hurt the very people the fans support.

Hard to know what to do really. I think other protests would just be ignored by UR and the IRFU, and hitting them in the pocket is probably the best way to make them stand up and take notice.

Part of me hopes the stadium is empty next weekend, but then it's Bowe and Piutau's last home game so I'm conflicted.

Well I take the opposite view to most apparently so I have just booked for my whole family to go. I want to see the younger players in particular.

Players made their own choices. They have been dealt with, possibly harshly, but the rest of the squad, the CEO, Gibbes, the tea lady etc weren't to blame for their choices so move on.

Sacking the CEO because of another baying mob to add to all the other departures makes zero sense to me. It was certainly not Logan's fault that the events in question took place. Who should get the boot after Logan? It's getting a bit ridiculous now...

prawnsambo · 17-04-2018 12:32PM

Hands Like Flippers wrote: »

Well I take the opposite view to most apparently so I have just booked for my whole family to go. I want to see the younger players in particular.

Players made their own choices. They have been dealt with, possibly harshly, but the rest of the squad, the CEO, Gibbes, the tea lady etc weren't to blame for their choices so move on.

Sacking the CEO because of another baying mob to add to all the other departures makes zero sense to me. It was certainly not Logan's fault that the events in question took place. Who should get the boot after Logan? It's getting a bit ridiculous now...

Clearly Ethel. There are questions there.

Hands Like Flippers · 17-04-2018 12:51PM

And another thing. I find this whole business of protesting with placards etc a bit pathetic. Nowadays there are protests about all sorts of stuff at the drop of hat. Have these people not got fruitful lives to live?

Last time I had an issue with UR I wrote a letter setting out the complaint and reasons. Person in charge called and explained the UR position and what they were doing about it. I thought it was fair enough.

MJohnston · 17-04-2018 01:25PM

Isn't all this talk of Jackson and Olding a bit off topic for the Ulster thread now?

They're not Ulster players anymore, and surely there are more positive things to be discussing in relation to the future of Ulster Rugby...*checks notes*....oh.

prawnsambo · 17-04-2018 01:27PM

MJohnston wrote: »

Isn't all this talk of Jackson and Olding a bit off topic for the Ulster thread now?

They're not Ulster players anymore, and surely there are more positive things to be discussing in relation to the future of Ulster Rugby...*checks notes*....oh.

Nordi Murphy.

Has to be one of the best signings in the back row for some time.

17-04-2018 01:29PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

When did the lawyer explain this?

Go to 8 minutes here. It's worth listening to it all, even Neil Francis is reflective here.

https://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/claire-byrne-live-extras-30003215/10862310/

She says that the comments being made in private makes them different as a form of communication. They aren't tweets, they aren't facebook posts etc., How things are communicated does actually matter and who makes them public also matters.

The IRFU contracts are unlikely to specify that all forms of private communication can be subject to disciplinary action.

Again, she acknowledges that she doesn't have line of site on the contracts themselves, but she would also know what would be considered over reach within a contract and difficult to enforce or indeed unenforceable.

Take from that what you will, I'm apparently intellectually destitute on this topic so I'll leave it with you there.

stephen_n · 17-04-2018 01:34PM

Hands Like Flippers wrote: »

Well I take the opposite view to most apparently so I have just booked for my whole family to go. I want to see the younger players in particular.

Players made their own choices. They have been dealt with, possibly harshly, but the rest of the squad, the CEO, Gibbes, the tea lady etc weren't to blame for their choices so move on.

Sacking the CEO because of another baying mob to add to all the other departures makes zero sense to me. It was certainly not Logan's fault that the events in question took place. Who should get the boot after Logan? It's getting a bit ridiculous now...

Sack em all and let God sort them out!

prawnsambo · 17-04-2018 01:42PM

Deleted User wrote: »

She says that the comments being made in private makes them different as a form of communication. They aren't tweets, they aren't facebook posts etc., How things are communicated does actually matter and who makes them public also matters.

The IRFU contracts are unlikely to specify that all forms of private communication can be subject to disciplinary action.

You're focusing on the comments and posts on WhatsApp as if they were the sole focus of the IRFU in their review. Firstly, you don't know that. And secondly, there is clear damage to the guys reputations. We have no line of sight on their contracts, but it has been accepted on here that there is likely to be reputational clauses in their contracts and there have been examples given of those types of clauses in action. CF, Teddy Thomas' 'ethics clause' in his Racing contract.

Squatter · 17-04-2018 01:50PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

Nordi Murphy.

Has to be one of the best signings in the back row for some time.

Yep. I was - and am still - really gutted that Leinster were willing (or were pushed) to release him. But I wish him all the best at Ulster.

I don't know how he's going to do at out- half, but I guarantee that he'll always give 100%.

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

Comments