If you want to talk about Ben Cousins, post it here (mega merged thread)

[NMWBloods]

I think common law is beyond most people. That's why those people wear funny wigs, to hide their confused looks.

It's because they all want to be actors!

[NMWBloods]

At last, someone with a decent discussion about the topic.

Yes, it was a bit more useful than "HahahahaHahahaha"...

[ROK Lobster]

So, Guzzita has 5 minutes up his sleeve and Annie and Chow look stupid...

I would consider that WCE have to be careful how they treat Cousins following his dismissal. Guzzita's arguments regarding prior breaches are interesting, but not the point I was ever making. Couselling, rehabilitation etc are the issue if he is cut adrift from what has been essentially his home since he was 17. West Coast will need to consider how they deal with moving onwards quite carefully.

[swantastic]

So, Guzzita has 5 minutes up his sleeve and Annie and Chow look stupid...

I would consider that WCE have to be careful how they treat Cousins following his dismissal. Guzzita's arguments regarding prior breaches are interesting, but not the point I was ever making. Counseling, rehabilitation etc are the issue if he is cut adrift from what has been essentially his home since he was 17. West Coast will need to consider how they deal with moving onwards quite carefully.

Why should they ROK,he broke the agreements that he signed off on so WC have no obligations to him at all.

[ScottH]

Why should they ROK,he broke the agreements that he signed off on so WC have no obligations to him at all.

The club did state that they would offer to help him complete his rehabilitation.

[swantastic]

The club did state that they would offer to help him complete his rehabilitation.

IMO just a smoke screen,they are probably rapt the trouble maker is out of their hair.I dont think they owe him any thing,would you expect your employer to help you out if they terminated your contract if you breached it.?

[Guzzitza]

Why should they ROK,he broke the agreements that he signed off on so WC have no obligations to him at all.

The point is this, if they failed to act with acceptable duty of care earlier, which contributed to Cousins latest indiscretions, then should provide some support for him now, even if he breached the contract, and especially seeing as it appears that the "breach" wasnt as bad as first thought. When I saw the news I assumed he'd been caught with Ice or whatever on him. However this wasnt the case, and WC didnt give due course to check it out.

SO, if WC contributed to Bens current problems by looking the other way, and sacked him prematurely, they have a moral obligation at the very least, and possibly a legal obligation (if Cousins decides to pursue it) to assist Cousins after his sacking. To what extent, and what type of assistance is IMPOSSIBLE to determine, because it would only be decided on by a judge. Like I said, duty of care is a ridiculously ambiguous area, there are no set rules, only interpretations - and we will never, no matter how much you want to bicker about it on here, know whether some WC owe Ben X, or Ben owes WC Y until a judge says so.

I think some people need to get over a few facts:
a) Cousins was a tool who played for WC
b) He got a special contract which stipulated he meet certain requirements
c) He was sacked for (apparently) not meeting these requirements

Just because he is a tool, and had a new contract, doesnt mean the club should treat him like dirt. Every club has a duty of care to their players, just like any employer does. Its not about WC "owes" Ben certain things, they just owe it to all players, normal or special contracted ones, fair treatment.

[Chow-Chicker]

I suppose its a matter of where we draw the line of the responsibilites of the clubs. Even if the drug use is happening during a players free time, it is, to an extent, the responsibility of the club to do something. Even if you get addicted while aprtying with friends, if the club is aware of this problem, but then lets you play anyway (which would be bad foy our health) and keeps paying you and giving you all that status without forcing you to undertake re-hab or whatever then I think thats a neglect of duty of care.

Well that's assuming WC knew about Ben's addiction early on. Unless Ben admitted to them that he has a problem, how are WC supposed to provide a duty of care? They may have suspected he had a problem, but how would they know what it was unless he disclosed? He passed all drug tests. And he may not have admitted his addiction. WC cannot be neglegent in their duty of care if they were unaware of his problem. It took Ben's father to admit that he has an addiction, and then WC acted and sent him to Malibu. And what if WC offered rehab to Cousins early in the piece and he refused?

In terms of the duty of care AFTER he has been sacked, well that sort of hinges on the first duty of care issue. If we consider that WC did all they could to help Cousins and met their duty of care when he was an employee with them, you'd think they arent under any obligation to continue after sacking him. That is, they did all they could, Ben's problem isnt a product of only WC's doing, so WC doesnt owe him anything else.

As above.

However, if you believe (as I do), that WC looked the other way, and then, when it became all too public, decided to sack him... they are breaching their duty of care. BEcause they should have helped him earlier, rather than looking the other way and saving their own asses when the @@@@e hit the fan.

Possibly. However, I try to equate it to my workplace. If I have a problem with alcohol (outside of work), then turn up to work extremely irritible, aggressive and obnoxious to my clients, my organisation will have to deal with me and the issues I have caused. I have compromised the reputation of my organisation with my behaviour, and I am in breach of the company's code of conduct. I admit to my organisation that I am an alcoholic and I am battling to deal with it and it causes my behavioural problems. The organisation will offer me counselling under the EAP (Employee Assistance Program) and give me a written warning on the code of conduct breach. If I continue to compromise the organisation's reputation with my behaviour and fail to adequately participate in counselling / rehab, then they will continue on the path of disciplinary action or dismissal. The organisation has no obligation or duty of care to provide ongoing treatment for my condition because I cannot submit a WorkCover claim for alcoholism. The duty of care for my organisation would be to protect its own reputation and the clients in which I have abused moreso than my own battles with the bottle.

As a caveat to all that, I am not saying that Ben hasnt neglected his duty, which is to do the right thing by the club. However, just because one person neglects their duty, doesnt give you the right to neglect your own, otherwise where would society be? Besides, Ben Cousins is just one man. Personally, I always hated him, but I think the way WC have treated him his really poor. These clubs aren't your local footy clubs, this are mulit-million dollar corporations. Yes, players are paid a lot of money, but these clubs arent a charity, they can afford to pay that much because they rake in a crap load of cash. Ben Cousins is one man, with an addiction. WC is a corporation run by highly paid executies - there should be enough decision making ability there to do the right thing by a player, whether he is an arrogant drug addict or not.

Well that becomes a moral decision rather than a legal obligation. To some degree I sort of agree, but then, what if there are a number of players with similar problems? It becomes a can of worms for clubs to deal with. Which makes ROK look stupid.

[Guzzitza]

IMO just a smoke screen,they are probably rapt the trouble maker is out of their hair.I dont think they owe him any thing,would you expect your employer to help you out if they terminated your contract if you breached it.?

That depends if my contract arrangements were to with an addiction, and that addiction may have been exaserbated due to their employment of my services and their neglect to help me with my addiction because it would impact their bottom line.... Get it???

Stop looking at the contract as the be all and end all. A contract is a contract, it doesnt over rule every law and moral expectation of society.

[ROK Lobster]

Possibly. However, I try to equate it to my workplace. If I have a problem with alcohol (outside of work), then turn up to work extremely irritible, aggressive and obnoxious to my clients, my organisation will have to deal with me and the issues I have caused. I have compromised the reputation of my organisation with my behaviour, and I am in breach of the company's code of conduct. I admit to my organisation that I am an alcoholic and I am battling to deal with it and it causes my behavioural problems. The organisation will offer me counselling under the EAP (Employee Assistance Program) and give me a written warning on the code of conduct breach. If I continue to compromise the organisation's reputation with my behaviour and fail to adequately participate in counselling / rehab, then they will continue on the path of disciplinary action or dismissal. The organisation has no obligation or duty of care to provide ongoing treatment for my condition because I cannot submit a WorkCover claim for alcoholism. The duty of care for my organisation would be to protect its own reputation and the clients in which I have abused moreso than my own battles with the bottle.

It's not an either/or. My point, from the outset (and in the other thread) is that if WCE cut him adrift without support they may breach the duty of care they owe him. They know he is vulnerable, they know that he has had no real life experience and that he has been involved with the football club all of his adult life. It is "reasonably forseeable" that left to his own devices cut off from his established support network and social network and the stability and routine of football life that he may come to harm. It is simple as that, and they need to ensure that they are not negligent in how they treat him following his dismissal from employment by the club.

[ROK Lobster]

Well that becomes a moral decision rather than a legal obligation. To some degree I sort of agree, but then, what if there are a number of players with similar problems? It becomes a can of worms for clubs to deal with. Which makes ROK look stupid.

No, that is the law. It can only be said so many times. You do not understand the law. You do not know what you are talking about. You know a little and refuse to accept that there may be something that you do not know.

[Guzzitza]

Well that's assuming WC knew about Ben's addiction early on. Unless Ben admitted to them that he has a problem, how are WC supposed to provide a duty of care? They may have suspected he had a problem, but how would they know what it was unless he disclosed? He passed all drug tests. And he may not have admitted his addiction. WC cannot be neglegent in their duty of care if they were unaware of his problem. It took Ben's father to admit that he has an addiction, and then WC acted and sent him to Malibu. And what if WC offered rehab to Cousins early in the piece and he refused?

.

Well this is the real issue isnt it... As i said, there is a reason why the media is harping on regarding the many different problems at WC. It suggests a systemic problem, and given the amount of monitoring of players that goes on, you'd think they may have known something was up. If theres is evidence they knew and did nothing, thats a problem, if they did offer him counselling and tried to intervene then, as I said, they have done all the can for him and have no obligation. We will never know, unless Cousins tries to sue them. If he tries to sue, then we will hear just how much WC knew.

Hypotheically, Cousins would argue they knew about his addiction and did nothing. While WC would either a) argue they knew nothing, or b) argue they were aware and offered him re-hab and whatever else and constantly refused until it became public and then was forced to go.

Who knows. We aren't about to anytime soon.

[Chow-Chicker]

No, that is the law. It can only be said so many times. You do not understand the law. You do not know what you are talking about. You know a little and refuse to accept that there may be something that you do not know.

Now worries Denuto - it's in the vibe.

I suspect we will see Ben Cousins fighting this in the High Court - and you will be representing him.

[ScottH]

Tell him, he's dreaming.

[ROK Lobster]

Now worries Denuto - it's in the vibe.

I suspect we will see Ben Cousins fighting this in the High Court - and you will be representing him.

No one has said that WCE have breached their duty of care, just that they owe Cousins one. The High Court was referred to because they are source of the general law (also know as the common law). Lower courts have to follow the law as expounded by the High Court. If Benny did bring an action against his club, the judgments of the High Court would be referred to in determining whether or not WCE had breached their duty. In this instance, if Cousins brought an action, for breach of duty of care, the law is what the High Court has said it to be. You continually demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about.