Hall Quits

[connolly]

Probably not. I would think that appropriate workplace behaviour does not include punching colleagues. Wouldn't the swans have to demonstrate they had done everything they could (counselling, anger management, colouring in with Willo's kids), provided him with formal warnings (as had the tribunal) in terms of 3 strikes. First is verbal, "Baz, punching Maguire was not appropriate", second "Baz, punching Staker was not appropriate, this is your second warning", "Baz, you punch Ben Rutten...."
As for unfair dismissal, why bother, it's a long road and his salary puts him over the limit for which he can claim protection under legislation. He would need to take another road?

Whatever the shafters may have done procedurally the issue is whether Halls actions substantively breached the essential terms of the contract. They couldn't have unless there was a specific clause in his contract. Aggression and rough play is part of the game. He was punished by the rules. He would only go to unfair dismissal in these circumstances for reinstatement. And for anyone out there who is going to say he resigned the issue is whether he was constructively dismissed. A resignation where the will of the employee is overborne is constructive dismissal.

[Kanga]

Kanga as they say truth will out. What really happened will emerge. The club has stiffed a player who played with ticker. Thats bad enough but the sanctimonious garbage of Roos and Co just demeans the club even more. If they let Hall say goodbye to the punters on Saturday there will be no doubt he left with their respect. None for the shafters and smart arses that squeezed him out.

Well said mate. No one likes to see a former champion 'punted'. I am just wondering if and when they will start dancing on his grave.

[Lucky Knickers]

Whatever the shafters may have done procedurally the issue is whether Halls actions substrantively breached the essential terms of the contract. They couldn't have unless there was a specific clause in his contract. Aggression and rough play is part of the game. He was punished by the rules. He would only go to unfair dismissal in these circu,stances for reinstatement. And for anyone out there who is going to say he resigned the issue is whether he was constructively dismissed. A resignation where the will of the employee is overborne is constructive dismissal.

But what route can he take? He has no protection under unfair dismissal laws. Is he suing for earnings?
Would the courts view the punches as aggression and rough play? Maybe the Maguire and Wakelin ones, but the Staker/Rutten ones border would be assault if not on the footy field. Why should "we" accept behaviour there that isn't tolerated off the field.
I actually think the case against the AFL, in changing the rules, would have a better shot at constructive dismissal.
I understand you don't approve of Roos/Kirk and the Club and management of this issue.
I have never liked talking in the media about players - hated it since Davo-gate. Whilst Davo fired the first salvo, I didn't like the club choosing to respond as they did.
What I will say is Baz has not looked like a man enjoying his footy for a long time now. He's been regulated out of the game and his frustrations are showing. Those sparks that we have loved about him up to 2006 have been getting fewer and far between in terms of him intimidating. It's like he doesn't even know half the time what he has done.
Even his thumbs up to the umps in the Pies game had a very odd look to it.
Connolly - did you see a future for Baz in AFL at the Swans? Are you happy for him to continue to react to the pressures of the game by punching players? What would you have done differently at the club?

[connolly]

But what route can he take? He has no protection under unfair dismissal laws. Is he suing for earnings?
Would the courts view the punches as aggression and rough play? Maybe the Maguire and Wakelin ones, but the Staker/Rutten ones border would be assault if not on the footy field. Why should "we" accept behaviour there that isn't tolerated off the field.
I actually think the case against the AFL, in changing the rules, would have a better shot at constructive dismissal.
I understand you don't approve of Roos/Kirk and the Club and management of this issue.
I have never liked talking in the media about players - hated it since Davo-gate. Whilst Davo fired the first salvo, I didn't like the club choosing to respond as they did.
What I will say is Baz has not looked like a man enjoying his footy for a long time now. He's been regulated out of the game and his frustrations are showing. Those sparks that we have loved about him up to 2006 have been getting fewer and far between in terms of him intimidating. It's like he doesn't even know half the time what he has done.
Even his thumbs up to the umps in the Pies game had a very odd look to it.
Connolly - did you see a future for Baz in AFL at the Swans? Are you happy for him to continue to react to the pressures of the game by punching players? What would you have done differently at the club?

Generally with unfair dismissal cases where an ex-employee has resigned under pressure, after they have thought about it (or spoken to the union or lawyer) they file for reinstatement on the basis that their resignation was a constructive dismissal and they want their job back. Most constructive dismissals arise form the ultimatum given to employees of "You either resign or we will sack you". Significantly Hall "resigned" (he didn't "retire" legally - he terminated his contract by "resignation") after the public statements by the coach, captain and the now highest paid player at the club. The issue is was his will overborne in his termination of his contract? The public denunciation of Hall by Roos, Kirk and O'Keefe was critical in this as they made his decision a virtual fait accompli. Further more there is a nasty imputation in all this in that if Hall had not resigned when he did the "leadership group" would have declared him unwelcome at the club. Hall resigned rather than be further humiliated. Constructive dismissal. As for punching opposition players (don't know whether you can describe opponents as colleagues) the competition rules which are implied terms in the players contract have the penalty covered. Addition penalties by clubs are OK but they have to be proportionate and fair. The shredding of what remains of Hall's career and professional standing is hardly warranted by the Rutten tap. As i said Hall will not probably make any application for redress. He will take up boxing. And become a multi millionare if he put a few palooka's on their arse. The point i am making is that the club's conduct is not only unethical it is also against fair play and employment law protections. Colless should feel very proud of himself today. Hopefully one day that plonker walks the plank.

[Lohengrin]

They will probably continue to pay him under his contract so what is he going to sue for?

If they don't pay him, then of course it depends on the terms in the contract. But he is contracted to play football and by getting repeatedly suspended he is unable to fully perform his duties under the contract.

[Beer Baron]

YAY!

He's done a lot for the club, credit where credit is due..... but I stand by my YAY!

[caj23]

Wow, perhaps the inflows received from the Kennelly and Coney law suits will offset the $'s we'll be forking out for Barry

[Lohengrin]

Wow, perhaps the inflows received from the Kennelly and Coney law suits will offset the $'s we'll be forking out for Barry

[connolly]

Waiting.

[connolly]

Strange organization that does nothing to protect its rights in a contract where people breach them but pressures a loyal employee to tear his up. Laugh. Can't stop.

[Yakety_Yak]

Whatever the shafters may have done procedurally the issue is whether Halls actions substantively breached the essential terms of the contract. They couldn't have unless there was a specific clause in his contract. Aggression and rough play is part of the game. He was punished by the rules. He would only go to unfair dismissal in these circumstances for reinstatement. And for anyone out there who is going to say he resigned the issue is whether he was constructively dismissed. A resignation where the will of the employee is overborne is constructive dismissal.

Objection Your Worship

The Hon counsel for the prosectution Connolly QC (q stands for queer ),bases his whole case on spurious conjecture, emotional babbling, and due to a complete ignorance of the FACTS, he cannot make any intelligent mention of them in his tirade.

The QC has not read the said contract!

Nor does he understand how a football club runs, nor specifically the "bloods code" which is a fundamental paramount mandatory procedural mode of operation and also basis of employment of the Sydney Swans Football Club.

Therefore he cannot contest the basis of the said contract.

I move that the case be dismissed, and QC ought study for his law 101 &102exams covering torts and common law precedents & contract law fundamentals, much more ernestly in future, hopefully next time he will pass examination.

[Swannette]

What YY said.....

AND, that this tirade of conspiracy that so seriously suggests, nay, asserts, that Barry has been hardly done by and that Paul Roos and Brett Kirk are the twin towers of some devil that morphed out of a yoga mat is INCREDIBLY boring to most of us, not to mention way off the mark IN FACT, so Connolly, man, get over it. Unless of course you sprout all this stuff for the sole purpose of drawing attention to yourself, in which case, let the sprouting continue!

[Lohengrin]

Waiting.

For what?

[connolly]

Objection Your Worship

The QC has not read the said contract!

Son thats true but its an issue of breach of contract not whats in it. Employment law is a branch of contract law and equity. For many years the law has recognised the concept of constructive dismissal. Its really quite interesting. The law in regard to the correct test for constructive dismissal is set out in Allison v Bega Valley Council (1995) 63 IR 68 (there is no link to AUSTLII) but there are several precedent references where a Full Bench of the Industrial Relations Court of New South Wales (Peterson and Marks JJ, and Connor CC) said (at pp 72-73) :
?It is a trite observation that a contract of employment like any contract can come to an end in a number of ways. Termination can be "by" the employer where an employee is "dismissed" either with notice in accordance with the provisions of the contract or without notice in the event of serious and wilful misconduct. Both the employer and the employee may mutually agree that the contract of employment should come to an end. In other cases the employee may bring about the termination by resigning.
In some cases the circumstances in which the termination comes about makes it difficult to determine whether there was termination "by" the employer or the employee. There are cases where the courts, after analysis, have determined that although on the face of it an employee has resigned and brought about the termination of the contract of employment, in reality the conduct of the employer has compelled or unduly influenced the employee to resign. The most quoted example is an assertion by an employer to an employee to the effect that the employee must resign or he or she will be dismissed. This situation is commonly referred to in the text books and decided cases as a "constructive dismissal", that is in effect the employer has brought about the termination of the contract of employment.
Although the term "constructive dismissal" is quite commonly used it can deflect attention from the real inquiry. That inquiry should involve an analysis of what occurred. Did the employer behave in such a way so as to render the employer's conduct the real and effective initiator of the termination of the contract of employment and was this so despite on the face of it the employee appears to have given his or her resignation?
It is obvious that a consideration of these matters must be made on a case-by-case basis and that an attempt to formulate general principles in the absence of particular facts will not assist in the overall determination of this issue.
In order to undertake the necessary analysis it is necessary to look carefully at all the relevant facts. It is necessary to determine whether the actual determination was effectively initiated by the employer or by the employee particularly where the dynamics within a factual situation may change. For example, an employer may demand a resignation with a threat of dismissal, negotiations may then ensue and the employee may ultimately be genuinely pleased with the outcome of those negotiations to the extent that any resultant resignation may be said to be given freely and without any undue influence being brought to bear by the employer.
Where an employee initiates the termination of the contract of employment it is necessary to consider whether that ostensible act of termination was give freely and without any undue pressure. If the ostensible resignation is, in effect, a response to and consistent with a desire by an employer that such resignation be forthcoming, then what has occurred may be that the termination has been brought about by the employer and that in this way the employee has been dismissed.

The concept of constructive dismissal implies the existence of conduct on the part of an employer which is plainly contrary to the continuance of a contract of employment by its express or implied terms. The authorities (haven't the time to drag them out but i will later if you are still interested) establish the concept that there is implied in a contract of employment a term that the employer will not, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct itself in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between employer and employee. An intention to repudiate the contract doesn't have to be proved. Rather, it is a matter of objectively looking at the employer's conduct as a whole and determining whether its effect, judged reasonably and sensibly, is such that the employee cant be expected to put up with it.
Now do ya reckon Hall was constructively dismissed?

[connolly]

For what?

Thought so.