Wentworth Sold!

[Jon Wiggett]

I wish the owner good luck trying to enforce that one. There has been a damning report on the new version of the West Course by 'Fine Golf'.

Most clubs have that rule now. Social media is a big player you have to have that in place to keep the trolls unarmed.

So good you posted it twice Adrian   


I doubt you would get away with expelling a member for tweeting they didn't like the new version as much as a previous one. It is only if there is provable financial detriment or loss of image that you might. Having something in the club's rules does not make it law.


Jon

[Adrian_Stiff]

Yes it does make it a 'law' within the club that you can expell a member, we just went through that process.


You have to have a written policy in place displayed in your rule book, or on your website that they must not discredit the club, its staff, officers. It can even be a one tweet and they are out.

[Thomas Dai]

What about at a private members club, where the owners are the members, even shareholders? That might provide an interesting legal scenario.
atb

[SL_Solow]

Most clubs have a similar rule, even those privately owned.  They also have grievance procedures.  Penalties vary.  But if the rules are properly noticed, procedures are followed, and penalties are applied evenly, the rules should be enforcible.  It is rare that expulsion will be used absent multiple offenses or a truly egregious single offense of any rule.

[Jon Wiggett]

Yes it does make it a 'law' within the club that you can expell a member, we just went through that process.


You have to have a written policy in place displayed in your rule book, or on your website that they must not discredit the club, its staff, officers. It can even be a one tweet and they are out.

Adrian, the owner has tried to ban criticism by saying members can not criticise or they will be expelled which will just not stand up in court.  If it were possible then he could have gotten rid of all the members he wanted to when he bought the place and wanted to put up the fees, the members disagreed with him. They criticised him in the national press and yet the members won. You cannot get rid of members because they criticise the club its staff, offices etc. which is apparently what he thinks.


Discrediting is something different which requires an unfounded accusation which causes either loss of standing or financial loss to the person or organisation.


The Wentworth owner is threatening to expel members for criticism which won't happen because freedom of speech trumps club rules.


Jon

[Adrian_Stiff]

Jon - If I own a golf club, I make the rules. If you do not adhere to the rules I can expell you with no recourse to a court provided that the rules are clearly displayed. My rules can be whatever I choose provided they are clearly displayed. They could be that all members shall wear Blue shirts and if you rack up in red then you can't play.


Provided that it is clear when you join and you have agreed to abiding by the rules of the club then you have no recourse to any national court as you broke the rules.


Professional golfers abide by a code of conduct/ethics to talk to the press but at all times promoting the best interests of the tour and that includes not passing a negative comment about the course or its sponsors. Golf course architects do the same when they join one of the associations, I did not join because I did not agree with their rules, had I joined and broke a rule I can't take that to court because there is no case for not agreeing with a rule after you agreed to them. The only action you could take is if you did not break the rule.


The Social Media Policy is quite standard. In many cases you can't just say what you think, if you did not like the Steak as a member just keep it to yourself or go through the grievance channels. If you decide to post negative comments on facebook, twitter etc then you broke the rules.


http://www.theplayersgolfclub.com/membership/membership-terms-and-conditions/


That's our wording (see rule 18). We/You have to have this in place in to do the things I just outlined.

[Jon Wiggett]

Adrian,


private organisations still have to abide by the laws of what ever country they happen to be in which in the UK means the right to freedom of speech without fear of persecution. It is not possible to create the kind of totalitarian North Korean state that makes up it's own laws at will just to punish those it does not like. As I pointed out before, were that the case the owner at Wentworth could just have made a rule that all the members were forced to break to get rid of the members.


However, if you are so sure of yourself. Make a rule (law) about not criticising your course, find a member who is a lawyer, solicitor. Get them to criticise the course, chuck them out of the club and see what happens


Jon

[BHoover]

Adrian,


private organisations still have to abide by the laws of what ever country they happen to be in which in the UK means the right to freedom of speech without fear of persecution. It is not possible to create the kind of totalitarian North Korean state that makes up it's own laws at will just to punish those it does not like. As I pointed out before, were that the case the owner at Wentworth could just have made a rule that all the members were forced to break to get rid of the members.


However, if you are so sure of yourself. Make a rule (law) about not criticising your course, find a member who is a lawyer, solicitor. Get them to criticise the course, chuck them out of the club and see what happens


Jon

With all due respect, I'm not sure you correctly understand the concept of the right to free speech. Although it does mean you cannot be persecuted by the government for speech or other forms of expression, at least here in the US, the right of free speech does not include the expectation that one can rely on the courts for redress in the event of being drummed out of a golf club based on freedom of speech. Breach of contract, however, may be an avenue in court, depending on the contractual language and the particular circumstances. But freedom of speech does not protect you from being kicked out of a golf club. In other words, criticizing your golf club and being told to hit the road is not persecution.

[Jon Wiggett]

Brian,


in the UK you cannot get rid of someone just because you do not agree with them whether that is at work or in a members club. As I have already pointed out, the new owner wanted to get rid of the members when he first bought it. It went to court and he lost. I do not know what the situation is in the US but the in the UK law of the land has priority over little kings in their private fiefdoms.


Jon

[BHoover]

But would any potential cause of action be based on breach of contract (which I understand) or violation of some free speech right?


In the US, free speech is a right against government interference. Just because the government cannot imprison or otherwise penalize you for exercising your rights of free speech and/or expression, it does not mean you cannot be fired or punished by your employer, for example. To use another example, if I sign a membership agreement, and the owner of the club kicks me out because I expressed my dissatisfaction with the course conditions, I cannot sue the club for violation of my right to free speech. If anything, I may be able to sue based on some breach of contract theory, but even that ultimately depends on the contractual language. If the agreement contains a non-disparagement clause, in out of luck. But, as you state, the law may well be different in the UK.

[Daryl David]

Brian,


in the UK you cannot get rid of someone just because you do not agree with them whether that is at work or in a members club. As I have already pointed out, the new owner wanted to get rid of the members when he first bought it. It went to court and he lost. I do not know what the situation is in the US but the in the UK law of the land has priority over little kings in their private fiefdoms.


Jon

Jon, does this mean that an employee of a company in the UK can not be terminated for using public media (social or otherwise) to cast dispersion on the company's products or management?  Just curious.  I thought companies in the UK had polices similar to companies in other countries that prevent employees from doing this and if an employee did violate the rule, they would be disciplined or terminated.  Would the employee be able to say their being fired was a violation of their free speech rights?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Brian,


in the UK you cannot get rid of someone just because you do not agree with them whether that is at work or in a members club. As I have already pointed out, the new owner wanted to get rid of the members when he first bought it. It went to court and he lost. I do not know what the situation is in the US but the in the UK law of the land has priority over little kings in their private fiefdoms.


Jon

Jon, does this mean that an employee of a company in the UK can not be terminated for using public media (social or otherwise) to cast dispersion on the company's products or management?  Just curious.  I thought companies in the UK had polices similar to companies in other countries that prevent employees from doing this and if an employee did violate the rule, they would be disciplined or terminated.  Would the employee be able to say their being fired was a violation of their free speech rights?

Jon is not understanding the concept of a social media policy and it's relationship to be a member/worker/ footballer/ tour player. You basically sign up to the terms and conditions, if you breach them you get the Spanish full stop.


If a tour player tweets the greens were shit he gets fined. This policy has in real terms been place for a long time , Tommy Bolt slagged off the greens to the newspapers and was repremanded by the PGA for breaching the rule of 'acting in the best interests of the whole tour'. The PGA fined him $50 for his outburst, quite a lot of money in the 1950s. Tommy wrote a cheque for $100 and handed it over and said "I can't see them improving by tomorrow".


The point is you can't join an association of architects and slag one off, you cant slag of the manager for not getting picked and you should not rant about the greenkeepers pin positions, the meat's too tough or the grass is not cut. If you work for a company and say their machines don't work you can get sacked in the UK same as anywhere.


Its a simple code of conduct that you are expected to adhere.

[Jon Wiggett]

Brian, Daryl,


if you work for a company and say that you do not like their product they cannot fire you for that because you have the right to express an opinion. If however you say the product is unsafe but have no proof of this then you will probably not be so surprised if the company do not require your services anymore and they would be perfectly within their rights to fire you.


Adrian,


have to notice that you have not addressed my question which kind of suggests you know I am right. Oh, Wentworth is in the UK where as your poor example of Mr. Bolt was along the PGA tour are USA. Talk about getting your apples mixed up with your pears


Jon

[BHoover]

Brian, Daryl,


if you work for a company and say that you do not like their product they cannot fire you for that because you have the right to express an opinion. If however you say the product is unsafe but have no proof of this then you will probably not be so surprised if the company do not require your services anymore and they would be perfectly within their rights to fire you.

With all due respect, this is just not true. My employer can end my employment for any reason, and at any time, because I am an at-will employee. As long as the reason is not based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc., my company absolutely could get rid of me for expressing an opinion it does not like.

[Thomas Dai]

As I mentioned above, there is also the issue of how the matter would be dealt with if the 'naughty person' is a member/shareholder at a private members club? Not so simple as 'The Committee' wearing bowler hats and saying "Bye, bye" I suggest.
Atb

[Jon Wiggett]

Brian,


you can terminate a contract in accordance with the contract but if you state it is because you do not agree with someone not liking a product then good luck. However, this is not what my original point was about which is the case at Wentworth. Were you correct in this case then the owner would have gotten rid of the membership as he tried and not have been told he could not by a judge when he tried. Between you, Adrian and the judge I will take the latter's opinion as been the correct one.


Oh, there is no such thing as an 'at-will' employee in the UK.


Jon

[BHoover]

Brian,


you can terminate a contract in accordance with the contract but if you state it is because you do not agree with someone not liking a product then good luck. However, this is not what my original point was about which is the case at Wentworth. Were you correct in this case then the owner would have gotten rid of the membership as he tried and not have been told he could not by a judge when he tried. Between you, Adrian and the judge I will take the latter's opinion as been the correct one.


Oh, there is no such thing as an 'at-will' employee in the UK.


Jon

I'm referring to US law.

[Jon Wiggett]

Brian,


you can terminate a contract in accordance with the contract but if you state it is because you do not agree with someone not liking a product then good luck. However, this is not what my original point was about which is the case at Wentworth. Were you correct in this case then the owner would have gotten rid of the membership as he tried and not have been told he could not by a judge when he tried. Between you, Adrian and the judge I will take the latter's opinion as been the correct one.


Oh, there is no such thing as an 'at-will' employee in the UK.


Jon

I'm referring to US law.

So not really relevant in this case then

[Adrian_Stiff]

Brian, Daryl,


if you work for a company and say that you do not like their product they cannot fire you for that because you have the right to express an opinion. If however you say the product is unsafe but have no proof of this then you will probably not be so surprised if the company do not require your services anymore and they would be perfectly within their rights to fire you.


Adrian,


have to notice that you have not addressed my question which kind of suggests you know I am right. Oh, Wentworth is in the UK where as your poor example of Mr. Bolt was along the PGA tour are USA. Talk about getting your apples mixed up with your pears


Jon

I prefer not to waste my time talking to idiots.

[BHoover]

Brian,


you can terminate a contract in accordance with the contract but if you state it is because you do not agree with someone not liking a product then good luck. However, this is not what my original point was about which is the case at Wentworth. Were you correct in this case then the owner would have gotten rid of the membership as he tried and not have been told he could not by a judge when he tried. Between you, Adrian and the judge I will take the latter's opinion as been the correct one.


Oh, there is no such thing as an 'at-will' employee in the UK.


Jon

I'm referring to US law.

So not really relevant in this case then

Oh, okay

[Tom_Doak]

Jon:


From your description, the UK must be different than anyplace else I know of.


So, if you are a gardner at Windsor Castle, and you tell the Fleet Street press that the Queen is an old gasbag who no longer knows the difference between an azalea and a peony, you can't be fired for that?  Really?


Or can you only be re-assigned to guillotine testing?

[Jon Wiggett]

Adrian,


I'll take that as a yes then.


Tom,


if you were employing someone under UK law and after constructing a course they commented that they didn't like the 14th hole for which you fired them then you would possible end up in court. If however you terminated the contract in accordance with the contract then that wold be lawful. What Adrian Stiff and some others would like to be true but is not is that just by putting something in a contract does not give it precedence over UK law.


As to your rather odd example, it would depend if the Royal Estate could show any real lasting negative or detrimental effect to the Estate either image wise or monetary. Most employers would probably deal with this through a verbal warning. If the EU has had one really positive effect it has been to drag employment laws out of the dark ages where the employee was little more than a slave who had to gratefully tug on his forelock as Lord Muck the employer treated them with contempt.


Jon

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian,


I'll take that as a yes then.


Tom,


if you were employing someone under UK law and after constructing a course they commented that they didn't like the 14th hole for which you fired them then you would possible end up in court. If however you terminated the contract in accordance with the contract then that wold be lawful. What Adrian Stiff and some others would like to be true but is not is that just by putting something in a contract does not give it precedence over UK law.


As to your rather odd example, it would depend if the Royal Estate could show any real lasting negative or detrimental effect to the Estate either image wise or monetary. Most employers would probably deal with this through a verbal warning. If the EU has had one really positive effect it has been to drag employment laws out of the dark ages where the employee was little more than a slave who had to gratefully tug on his forelock as Lord Muck the employer treated them with contempt.


Jon

Jon - it is not about a precedence over UK law. It is a code of conduct or a term and condition that you sign up to when you join the club or association. If you tweet the new 14th is shit and you are a member then yes you can be expelled from xxx Golf Club, provided that they have displayed that code of conduct properly.


This is a pretty standard social media policy and the contents are widely used throughout the sporting world and applicable to the UK. Plenty of UK sportsmen have been fined for comments on social media for not zipping their gob/fingers.

[Daryl David]

From the International Bar Association concerning UK/EU labor law:



Social media misconduct may – as with any other form of misconduct – lead to disciplinary actions by the employer against the employee who has committed such misconduct. In the event of an employee’s social media misconduct, for example, the employee’s disloyal comments about the employer or the employer’s products/services, or revealing confidential information, such actions will as a starting point be considered equally severe whether they are made on social media or otherwise made public. The issue will therefore often be whether comments via social media are considered public or not, and whether they are severe enough to constitute grounds for dismissal with or without notice.





Here is the link.
https://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=78137209-857a-48c6-a068-33454f18611b


Doesn't appear that an employee disparaging their organization is considered "protected speech"

[SL_Solow]

Jon,  I am not a UK lawyer, only licensed in the USA but a fair student of English legal history.  Let's make this simple; cite a case or statute that suggests that a private voluntary association cannot require as a condition of membership that members refrain from disparaging remarks about the institution or other members.  Then we can move to similar contractual requirements in the employment context.  If we get to government or organizations that directly benefit from governmental activities trying to limit political speech, I suspect that you will have no trouble finding authority but that is precisely what we are not considering.  Incidentally, whether I might end up in court is of little concern.  I am more interested in the probable outcome of the litigation.