Tuqiri sues ARU in NSW Supreme Court
By Ed Jackson, 9 Jul 2009
- Tagged:
- ARU, Australian Rugby Union, Lote Tuqiri, Matt Henjak, NSW Rugby Union, Rugby Union, Rugby Union Player's Association, Tony Dempsey, wallabies
Lawyers for sacked Wallabies winger Lote Tuqiri have commenced legal action in the NSW Supreme Court against the Australian Rugby Union for breach of contract.
The action came on the very day the Rugby Union Player’s Association (RUPA) said some Wallabies were feeling fearful and intimidated in the wake of Tuqiri’s sacking.
The RUPA on Wednesday announced they were launching an investigation – headed by an unnamed “high-profile” retired judge – into the reasons why the dual international had his contract worth up to $1 million a year ripped up by the Australian Rugby Union (ARU).
On the same day, Tuqiri’s manager Les Ross released a statement confirming the superstar’s lawyer Mark O’Brien had commenced proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court against the ARU for breach of contract.
The statement said due to the court proceedings, Tuqiri could have no involvement in the inquiry announced by the RUPA into his termination.
“As the matter is now before the courts there will be no further comment,” the statement said.
RUPA chief executive Tony Dempsey said several Wallabies, including captain Stirling Mortlock, were supporting the Association’s action as they seek answers over Tuqiri’s dismissal.
Announcing the sacking last week, the ARU cited an alleged breach of the player code of conduct but declined to give any detail of the offence because of possible legal action from Tuqiri challenging the decision.
The former rugby league star was reportedly on his final warning following some off-field indiscretions, including being fined $20,000 and banned for two matches for failing to attend a team medical in July 2007 and being fined and suspended after a nightclub spat with teammate Matt Henjak in South Africa in July 2005.
Dempsey said players were fearful about the security of their own contracts as a result of the sacking.
“There is a feeling of fear and intimidation (from) a number of players and they want to understand whether or not they are also walking on broken glass here and are they subjecting themselves to summary termination,” Dempsey told reporters.
“Players are uncertain where they’re standing and we need to create that certainty. We need to create some clarity around what constitutes a termination of a contract and what doesn’t.”
Dempsey said the RUPA had decided to initiate the investigation after uncovering information relating to Tuqiri’s sacking which he said raised concerns over the ARU and NSW Rugby Union’s conduct, but refused to reveal that information.
“I don’t want to steal Lote’s thunder,” Dempsey said.
“I don’t want to play out what is inevitably going to rise out in the court action that Lote’s running against the ARU.
“I want to stick to the focus of our investigation. We have information enough to arouse our suspicions that there may be a possible breach of the collective bargaining agreement and it’s important for the players that we take the action we are.
“We want answers as to the process, we want answers as to the reasons and we want to make sure that there has been no personal vendetta by anyone within the ARU against Lote.”
The ARU said in a statement they were confident the issue had been dealt with correctly.
“ARU appreciates that RUPA represents players interests. Let them be assured this matter has been dealt with in a proper manner,” the ARU said.
“ARU has also consistently stated we will not be going into details of the Lote Tuqiri termination due to the threat of legal proceedings.”
Dempsey said that if the investigation revealed a breach of the collective bargaining agreement they would launch their own legal action against the ARU or NSWRU.
Despite the player concerns, Dempsey said industrial action had not been discussed and was unlikely to become an issue in the future.
“That’s premature and hasn’t been discussed at all,” he said.
“I would be very surprised if the players were to take that position.”
© AAP 2012Recommend this story.
July 9th 2009 @ 3:29pm
Brad said | July 9th 2009 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
PLAYERS WILL ALWAYS STICK TOGETHER, ITS THE RUGBY CODE. FOR DEANS TO BACK THE ARU SAYS ALOT. HE COULD HAVE TAKEN A VERY DIPLOMATIC SILENCE APPROACH BUT SIDED WITH THE ARU.
July 9th 2009 @ 3:59pm
Greg Russell said | July 9th 2009 @ 3:59pm | Report comment
Like it Sam! The BC is not going to happen – 3 tests out of 4 against NZ, with only 1 played in Australia? I don’t think so! – but TN is pretty close to a 1 in 3 chance (for all 3 teams!).
Brad – Deans has to back his boss in public (think about it!), so I read nothing at all into that. That said, I fully expect that Deans does agree with JON. However one has to accept that a sacking is a contractual issue, not one about personal morals.
July 9th 2009 @ 5:28pm
True Tah said | July 9th 2009 @ 5:28pm | Report comment
Greg
Warne is not the best example, the bloke was a key figure of the Australian cricket team throughout his indiscretions, Lote as great as he was, is not currently a key figure of Australian rugby.
July 9th 2009 @ 10:37pm
westy said | July 9th 2009 @ 10:37pm | Report comment
As Smith says in the Australian he doubts the case will ever go to a full hearing. It would be wonderful to have Connolly Flowers and o’neill under cross examination as to who said what. Wonderful potential spectacle. And hasn’t O’Neill done a good job in keeping Deans out of the decision ?
July 9th 2009 @ 10:41pm
Billo said | July 9th 2009 @ 10:41pm | Report comment
I think Deans is very foolish to have come out in public against Lote.
A coach should always be seen to be backing his players, rather than the management, because it is his players who have to play for him. If the coach is seen to collude with the sacking of a player, particularly when the other players don’t accept the severity or justice of the punishment, or the way it has been administered, then the coach could face some future problems winning the players’ trust in future.
This has happened at an unfortunate time, and I am amazed that the reason for Lote’s sacking hasn’t come out yet in public.
July 9th 2009 @ 10:43pm
westy said | July 9th 2009 @ 10:43pm | Report comment
If a player only has a contract with the Waratahs are the protocols exactly the same ? Does Tuqiri have seperate contracts with the Waratahs and the ARU. Going to love these legal proceedings.
July 9th 2009 @ 11:14pm
Brett McKay said | July 9th 2009 @ 11:14pm | Report comment
Westy, Tuqiri was contracted directly to the ARU, but then had a standard contract with the Tahs, almost as a sub-contract under the ARU deal. It’s not quite the same as the Australian cricketers being contracted centrally, and then just nominating which State they play for, but it’s similar. The ARU contract would be all-encompasing…
July 10th 2009 @ 10:15pm
Bay35Pablo said | July 10th 2009 @ 10:15pm | Report comment
Mattamkll, 11.8% from India? Must be the cricket threads …
RUPA lauching an inuiry now is just silly. Pre-empts the court case, everyone says nothing because of it. Just grandstanding and wasting their members cash. Try waiting until the court case finishes, then using what came out of that to analyse the situation (if the true aim is to learn from it).
So, ARU won’t say anything. LT won’t say anything. RUPA won’t say much. Worried Wallabies won’t name selves. Everyone has got a dose of silence!!!
July 11th 2009 @ 7:44pm
Mike said | July 11th 2009 @ 7:44pm | Report comment
1. Bay35pablo wrote: “RUPA lauching an inuiry now is just silly. Pre-empts the court case, everyone says nothing because of it.”
????? The issue raised by the RUPA is separate to Tuqiri’s complaint. Neither is dependent on the other being upheld. Nor does it in any sense “pre-empt the court case”, nor does it cause anyone to “say nothing”.
The RUPA complaint, as I understand it, is that they were not consulted – that complaint will stand or fall on its own merits, regardless of the fate of Tuqiri’s action. While it is true that the two actions might have an influence on each other, there is no reason for one to wait. The RUPA is responsible to look after the interests of its members. The ARU should welcome RUPA interest, as it provides a sounding board for very real player concerns.
2. SportyM wrote: “The simple fact was that lote was on his last strike, so it really does not matter what happened, I would feel sorry for him if this was his first breach, the fact is he was on his last.”
This is a popular assumption, and almost certainly wrong. I will be very surprised if the court agrees that Tuqiri can be on a “last strike” because of previous alleged incidents in 2005 and 2007, particularly as two of them pre-date his current contract. The issue is likely to turn primarily on this latest alleged incident.