@magikmilly @bethgittos This is like the Christian Bakery argument, why cant this truckie have his own political views without @Toll telling him what to do?
-
-
-
Because he is wearing the TOLL uniform and essentially advertising their business while on social media and other news outlets. People will associate the business with his views... that's why.. it should be pretty obvious.
-
If they require him to wear their silly fluro shirt, that don't mean he gotta take an oath of political silence. Would G-Star or Burberry be entitled to sue if he wore their clothing?
-
A company uniform is not a commercially-bought product. People wearing G-Star or Burberry merchandise are not presumed to work for those companies.
-
OK thankyou Milly, I still think the court shouldn't tell him what to do in his own time. Its similar to the way the
@AFL overreach into footy players lives, fining em for their behaviour in the bedroom etc -
He is free to hold his views, express his views and deal with the consequences of his expression of his views. He is not, however, free to bring his former employer into disrepute by doing so while wearing a work uniform with that employer's insignia on it.
-
What if someone shops at an adult store on way home from work, or walks in a Mardi gras in uniform,? (the alleged 'bring into disrepute' is based on ones political views)
-
An employer determines the acceptable code of conduct for their employees, & can also take action against anyone wearing an official company uniform. Toll brought the charge against Erickson because he was wearing their uniform, but it was the court which determined the verdict.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
By "far right" you presumably mean not a liberal.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.