NRL’s no-fault standdown policy facing legal challenge from players association

Rugby league players are again challenging the NRL’s controversial no-fault standdown policy, but this time they may win.

The Rugby League Players Association (RLPA) and the NRL are sitting down for two days of arbitration hearings from today.

The players argue the policy was introduced in February last year without proper consultation, which would be in breach of their contractual agreement.

“The RLPA is currently engaged in a confidential and private dispute resolution process under the collective bargaining agreement with the NRL,” the RLPA said in a statement.

“The dispute centres around the construction of the terms of the CBA (collective bargaining agreement) and its primacy. In particular, the ability of the NRL to make changes to players’ terms and conditions of employment without consultation with, and the agreement of, the RLPA.

“The effect on the so-called ‘standdown’ policy will form part of the resolution of the central issues in the dispute.”

Ron McCallum, who has been an expert in labour law for the past three decades, said the RLPA had a solid case.

“The player’s association may be on strong ground because the no-fault standdown policy does appear as a change of terms and conditions which would require consultation within the terms of the enterprise agreement,” Emeritus Professor McCallum said.

Without knowing the intricacies of the case, he believes introducing the standdown policy, which automatically suspends a player facing a charge that carries a potential sentence of 11 years’ jail, could be deemed unlawful.

“My guess is that the players’ association may be successful in the arbitration proceedings,” he said.

Backlash from sponsors led to introduction of rule

The rule was the brainchild of former Australian Rugby League Commission chairman Peter Beattie. Some argue it was hastily implemented as a knee-jerk reaction to the game facing a public relations nightmare.

Several players had been charged with serious offences, particularly relating to their treatment of women, and the brand’s image was suffering. There was also a backlash from sponsors.

Dragons star Jack de Belin has been forced out of the game for two years because he is facing sexual assault charges.

The 29-year-old will remain sidelined as his matter has been set down for retrial next April.

Getting a successful outcome in arbitration for the RLPA will depend on what terms and conditions players agreed to when they signed their contract with the NRL.

“The terms and conditions of sports people, which are usually set by enterprise agreements and/or by their contracts, are highly unusual,” Professor McCallum said.

“They can be required to conduct themselves properly when in public, to have check-ups with designated doctors, adhere to diets. Their contracts are akin to those of entertainers.”

The NRL will likely argue being charged with a serious offence gives it the right to suspend a player.

But can the administration mandate that policy without clearing it with the players first?

“There may be some terms in the enterprise agreement which could be read as giving broad stand-down powers to their employers,” Professor McCallum said.

The Fair Work Commission has ruled against employers for denying an employee procedural fairness.

In one case an apprentice butcher who had been charged with accessory to murder was dismissed by his employer.

The commission found that decision was harsh and unjust, ruling in favour of the employee who was awarded six weeks wages in compensation.

In the case of a school teacher or doctor who is immediately suspended when charged with a serious offence like sexual assault, that is common practice.

“Usually because some of their terms and conditions of employment are governed by education statutes and regulations which give powers of suspension to education authorities where the care of children is concerned,” Professor McCallum said.

Mediation talks failed between the parties earlier in the year, so they’ll again hash this out in arbitration.

NRL confident policy will survive

The NRL has told the ABC it won’t be commenting on the confidential and closed process.

Chief executive Andrew Abdo has previously expressed his confidence that the policy will survive the challenge and the rule is here to stay.

The rule has already been cleared by the Federal Court.

Federal Court Justice Melissa Perry rejected the claim that the rule constituted an “unlawful trade” for Jack de Belin and the Dragons chose not to appeal the decision.

But it’s been a polarising policy from the beginning.

Groups like Ladies Who League, which champions women’s involvement in the code, have been big supporters.

“I am very proud of the work the NRL has done, particularly in relation to the no-fault standdown and its Voice Against Violence program, but we’ve still all got work to do,” Ladies Who League founder Mary Konstantopoulos said.

“Domestic violence and violence against women is certainly a society issue and national emergency, violent behaviour is violent behaviour and we need to call it out and say this is not acceptable.”

Some argued players are innocent until proven guilty.

One of the Dragons sponsors, Norm Black who owns TripADeal, has described the policy as flawed, presuming players are guilty before they’ve had their day in court.

Even after arbitration, the NRL says a decision is not expected until next year.