And neither would the AFLPA. We all know its the allegation of rape is behind the termination but by argueing otherwise the Saints will most likely have to settle with Lovett.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Saints Walking a Fine Line
- Thread starter Pevers-Legend
- Start date
- Tagged users None
And neither would the AFLPA. We all know its the allegation of rape is behind the termination but by argueing otherwise the Saints will most likely have to settle with Lovett.
Obviously the AFL will act in some manner and the AFLPA will be out for blood as St Kilda ignoring the whole process puts in jeopardy the whole CBA - you can't selectively pick the rules you wish to follow.
The AFLPA and AFL work together and if the AFL can't provide for the operation of the CBA then we will have industrial warfare as you have to abide by the rules you agreed to. It should also be noted that in addition to the AFL signing the agreement, all 16 clubs did including St Kilda.
I think there will be a suspended fine of $50,000. That will show the AFL are tough on enforcing this procedure and gives St Kilda an opportunity to attend without incurring a fine.
The AFLPA and AFL work together and if the AFL can't provide for the operation of the CBA then we will have industrial warfare as you have to abide by the rules you agreed to. It should also be noted that in addition to the AFL signing the agreement, all 16 clubs did including St Kilda.
I think there will be a suspended fine of $50,000. That will show the AFL are tough on enforcing this procedure and gives St Kilda an opportunity to attend without incurring a fine.
Bart Wilson
Debutant
the article is false the actual greivence process hasnt started yet this meeting was just some intro thing all the journos are wrong. non event move along saints know what theyre doing.
Actually in fairness, that wasn't the only reason for termination, you can read it on this link.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ent-to-legal-firm--not-him-20100216-o8wy.html
Let's make no mistake which "player" the AFLPaBulldust Association is "supporting"
The one which St Kilda were so anxious to have in their team to make sure they will win the flag in 2010.
- Moderator
- #106
The Employment laws that allow for the creation of LEGALLY BINDING Collective bargaining agreements between employers and employees? The one created by Statute? To protect and regulate the employment rights of the agencies employees?
Such as the one utilised by the AFL/ AFLPA?
That one?
This is how stupid the saints are being - They are trying to argue the tribunal doesnt have jurisdiction (under the collective CBA that governs the conduct of players employed by the AFL) as Lovett has been already been sacked and is no longer an employee of the AFL.
So the independent employment tribunal, set up to regulate the disputes relating to conditions of employment (including cases of unfair dismissal), cant hear this matter as the player is no longer employed?
Jesus.. thats the whole point of the freaking tribunal in the first place.
How ****ing stupid. They would want to seek legal advice before going down that path.
The only thing saving the Saints on this is that the fine appears discretionary (AFL's discretion).
St Kilda are effectively pitting the AFLPA against the AFL.
Big call.
Yes. That one. It is subject to legislation, not the AFL. You have a problem with an EBA you take it to the Industrial Relations tribunal. Not the AFL's Grievance Tribunal.
You want to challenge the IRT rulings you take it to the court, not Mr Demetriou.
All EBAs have inbuilt Dispute Resolution Processes but it is not mandatory that they are used and in fact they often are not.
- Moderator
- #108
The AFL workplace relaions are regulated by Federal employment legislation I would assume (being incoporated and all).
A common Statutory provision in employement legilation is that an EBA (a legally binding agreement) can be created between employer and employee. Such as the current one in effect.
The AFL's greivance tribunal is created via a provision of the current EBA (as agreed to) by both the the AFLPA (on behalf of the players) and the AFL (on behlaf of the clubs).
The EBA (or CBA in this case) and decsions of the Greivance tribunal are binding on the parties as they have agreed (in the CBA) for them to be binding.
An AFL club cant pick and choose what parts of the EBA it does and does not want to follow.
- Banned
- #109
The Saints administration has been truly Peter Garrett-esque of late.
No it can't. But EBA's (or CBAs) are quite prescriptive. So are their dispute processes. StKilda may not think this is a CBA breach. In fact given their various statements you can be pretty sure they do not. They think this is a breach of a contract between Lovett and the club. That is not necessarily subject to any tribunal set up.
I don't know the wordings of either the CBA nor the Player contracts. I do know that not all player contracts are the same.
- Thread starter
- #112
cha ching. blah blah blah blah cha ching.
Saints should go to the AFL to sort this out. Bring the issue to a head and stop this nonsense.
Given the new free trade agreement, the AFLPA has enough clout to organise more issues witht he AFL. I can't see the aFL viewing this well.
The Purple Jesus
Team Captain
- Thread starter
- #115
??? I am disappointed I don't get to see Lovett tear it up for you guys. Although he was traded he is awesome to watch when at his best.
the saints need to sort this out - playing games and risking fines does nothing for them - this has been a disaster but I can't help feel that they have shown their hand too early given their response.
kosifantutti
Premiership Player
Veteran
St Kilda - Marcus Windhager Player Sponsor 2022
St Kilda - James Frawley Player Sponsor 2021
St Kilda - Doulton Langlands Player Sponsor 2020
St Kilda - Robbie Young Player Sponsor 2019
St Kilda - Nathan Freeman Player Sponsor 2018
Reimagine Moorabbin
St Kilda - Nathan Freeman Player Sponsor 2017
- Moderator
- #118
The Saints unilaterally terminated his contract. I'd hazard a guess that kind of behaviour is the exact thing that 99.999% of all CBA/ EBA's cover (as well as minimum conditions of service, entitlements etc).
From my reading of the matter, the Saints whole argument is based on the fact that as Lovett is no longer an 'AFL listed player' (due to the fact they terminated him) he is no longer covered by the terms of the AFL players CBA.
Probably a definition in the CBA defining AFL players as 'Current listed players of an AFL club.' (or some other equally poor definition).
Clearly the Tribunal found that as the CBA covered matters involving unlawful or unjust termination of a contract, there was an implied definition that the CBA was also intended to covered former players regardless of what the definition (or lack thereof) read.
And even a layperson can see why this argument by the Saints is wrong.
Same. Makes it hard to comment with any accuracy really.
They may and they may not. A CBA will usually outline a standard award. The schedule usually outlines those parts of the contract that are specific to the player. So you have a CBA agreement and an attached schedule. Much like an insurance policy....policy wording plus schedule.
Now the schedule may have clauses that require a certain player to attend certain responsibilities.
Their is no doubt this COULD be resolved by mediation. But it doesn't HAVE to be and employment law is the same for the AFL as it is for anyone who works.
It does of course.
Great move. This should have been the procedure from the start instead of firing Lovett, with confidentiality clauses signed by all parties so that nobody would even know whether Lovett was fired or not, or what any terms of settlement would have been.
St Kilda really needs to get rid of this item from their club agenda and move onto things football.
Similar threads
