Does anyone know what RE did to get sacked...that would bring some balance and interest for me.
Priceless! This from the person who a few minutes before wanted company to watch paint dry ie found the whole thread boring. I'm sure AB will inbox the details to you for your entertainment.
To be sacked, take legal proceedings and then actually be in a tribunal hearing is extremely stressfull. I doubt anyone not directly involved knows the full details (and the 'facts' will vary depending who you speak to) but as it is certain that there is a 'gagging' clause we will all have to guess. I think PL54 does some validity in the points he makes albeit I disagree with his/her wording.
Watching paint dry was a waiting comment...most would have got that.
ps. MB always smiles when he posts :-)
pps. I will also congratulate RE when it is made clear he didnt do anything wrong...until that moment I will remain sitting on the fence.
Does anyone know what RE did to get sacked...that would bring some balance and interest for me.
Priceless! This from the person who a few minutes before wanted company to watch paint dry ie found the whole thread boring. I'm sure AB will inbox the details to you for your entertainment.
To be sacked, take legal proceedings and then actually be in a tribunal hearing is extremely stressfull. I doubt anyone not directly involved knows the full details (and the 'facts' will vary depending who you speak to) but as it is certain that there is a 'gagging' clause we will all have to guess. I think PL54 does some validity in the points he makes albeit I disagree with his/her wording.
I have been a bit him / bit her all day to be fair (or dark)
Does anyone know what RE did to get sacked...that would bring some balance and interest for me.
Priceless! This from the person who a few minutes before wanted company to watch paint dry ie found the whole thread boring. I'm sure AB will inbox the details to you for your entertainment.
To be sacked, take legal proceedings and then actually be in a tribunal hearing is extremely stressfull. I doubt anyone not directly involved knows the full details (and the 'facts' will vary depending who you speak to) but as it is certain that there is a 'gagging' clause we will all have to guess. I think PL54 does some validity in the points he makes albeit I disagree with his/her wording.
I have been a bit him / bit her all day to be fair (or dark)
For anyone who is not familiar with the area where the Tribunal sits, it is a shithole down past West Croydon station. The only amusing diversion during the morning were the sounds emanating from the 'EasyGym' which (with Lidl) sits directly beneath the Tribunal. Judicial hearings were taking place to the sound of a heavy thudding beat and some woman screeching at overweight Nigelettes. On reflection the heavy thudding may have been the weight transfer from one mountainous leg to the other. I suspect that most cases get compromised just to avoid having to endure that noise and to have some residual hearing at the end of the case.
I had to attend a tribunal in that place for a few days. Hard to describe how low I felt. The walk from East Croydon gets progressively more depressing the closer you get. The building itself isn't much fun, the waiting room is a horrible place to be. Might be a little easier now that the enemies are separated, but still a room of moody tension. You really wouldn't have needed to have offered me much cash to settle and never come back!
PL54 'I have been a bit him / bit her all day to be fair (or dark)' Ha! ha! the scourge of not wanting to assume that every poster is male leads to his/her language. Still I hope that your gender reassignment goes well - whichever way:-)
ps. MB always smiles when he posts :-) Well MB it would have helped if you had indeed 'smiled' :-) but you didn't - hence my comment. And as for sitting on the fence, you'll be there a long while as there is no reaon why AB should (or is able) to satisfy you that he did nothing wrong. An employee may well have done 'something wrong' but that does not of itself justify dismissal.
Does anyone know what RE did to get sacked...that would bring some balance and interest for me.
Priceless! This from the person who a few minutes before wanted company to watch paint dry ie found the whole thread boring. I'm sure AB will inbox the details to you for your entertainment.
To be sacked, take legal proceedings and then actually be in a tribunal hearing is extremely stressfull. I doubt anyone not directly involved knows the full details (and the 'facts' will vary depending who you speak to) but as it is certain that there is a 'gagging' clause we will all have to guess. I think PL54 does some validity in the points he makes albeit I disagree with his/her wording.
Watching paint dry was a waiting comment...most would have got that.
ps. MB always smiles when he posts :-)
pps. I will also congratulate RE when it is made clear he didnt do anything wrong...until that moment I will remain sitting on the fence.
You (should) know that the 'confidentiality' clause in the settlement won't allow Rick to 'make clear that he didn't do anything wrong'.
So do you believe that the club - having engaged the services of an expensive Queens Counsel like Caspar Glyn - would have made a last minute offer to settle with an employee representing himself (and an offer probably at a higher level than would have been awarded had the case gone ahead and Rick won - as Richard J said) if Rick had 'done something wrong' i.e. that there were good grounds to prove that his dismissal was 'fair'?
ps. MB always smiles when he posts :-) Well MB it would have helped if you had indeed 'smiled' :-) but you didn't - hence my comment. And as for sitting on the fence, you'll be there a long while as there is no reaon why AB should (or is able) to satisfy you that he did nothing wrong. An employee may well have done 'something wrong' but that does not of itself justify dismissal.
Apologies...the only one I've missed out since joining.
Stepping aside from this particular case. My understanding of most employment disciplinary processes is;
Informal verbal warning. Formal verbal warning. Written warning. Final written warning. Dismissal.
I suppose an employer may well start higher up the process depending on the issue. I don't reckon an informal verbal warning would do if you chinned your manager for example. I also expect such processes have time constraints, either in bringing matters to book, or for warnings to remain on an employees file. All stages can be contested, ought to follow due process using natural justice, and can be further complicated by grievance procedures the other way.
Seth is correct and always the entry point will depend on the perceived level of misconduct. Clearly the higher up the scale the employer deems the misconduct, the surer they must be of their ground to have bypassed the lower levels.
Does anyone know what RE did to get sacked...that would bring some balance and interest for me.
Priceless! This from the person who a few minutes before wanted company to watch paint dry ie found the whole thread boring. I'm sure AB will inbox the details to you for your entertainment.
To be sacked, take legal proceedings and then actually be in a tribunal hearing is extremely stressfull. I doubt anyone not directly involved knows the full details (and the 'facts' will vary depending who you speak to) but as it is certain that there is a 'gagging' clause we will all have to guess. I think PL54 does some validity in the points he makes albeit I disagree with his/her wording.
Watching paint dry was a waiting comment...most would have got that.
ps. MB always smiles when he posts :-)
pps. I will also congratulate RE when it is made clear he didnt do anything wrong...until that moment I will remain sitting on the fence.
You (should) know that the 'confidentiality' clause in the settlement won't allow Rick to 'make clear that he didn't do anything wrong'.
So do you believe that the club - having engaged the services of an expensive Queens Counsel like Caspar Glyn - would have made a last minute offer to settle with an employee representing himself (and an offer probably at a higher level than would have been awarded had the case gone ahead and Rick won - as Richard J said) if Rick had 'done something wrong' i.e. that there were good grounds to prove that his dismissal was 'fair'?
Current Board 0 Aggrieved Former Directors and Employees 2 (2 own goals)
Is it really though? Is there a possibility that the club's owners have deliberately engineered these situations so that they get the confidentially agreements they want and effectively gag people from telling something else? A conspiracy theory, I know and I have nothing to back it up but it does seem to be a possibly.
I dunno, call me a stupid old fart, I just feel that what I should be reading about on Transfer Deadline Day is CAFC's exciting new signings, not their latest game of bluff and cloak and dagger, the main beneficiaries of which are the lawyers. (To make myself clear, I hold AB blameless for this bout of disappointment.)
Lancs must have meant let down "for" Rick, not 'by him'!? Wise words indeed Swords. Rick will probably get his most restful nights sleep tonight for many nights - Well done Rick and i'm sure we would all like to see you back working for our club sometime in the future.
ETs can be extremely stressful whether you have a strong case or not. You plan your approach, think through all the scenarios and organise your evidence (mulitple copies). Frequently sleepless nights over several months and financial hardship along the way during which you will likely find out who your real friends are too. Unions increasingly don't offer support unless the case fits a very neat profile. And even if you have support or a paid lawyer you have to instruct them in the finest detail and watch over them every step of the way. If the buggers settle you still have to abide by the compromise agreement and that means wondering what you can and can't say if anything and if you can't fully get it off your chest you still live with the anger despite the financial settlement. They will now be monitoring Rick (his printed word that is) especially if it's a large sum, as they can claw it back if he breaches the terms. Even if Rick gives evidence in another case against CAFC he will have to be careful and get clearance from the Judge.
I wonder if once new owners come in it might be easier to spill some beans but the agreement is probably with the corporate identity that is CAFC, so again care needed. It will likely be a long long time if at all before most of us get to hear any juicy details, and even then they are likely to be rumour and word of mouth. Rick will be judge of that of course, but we shouldn't expect any further details now and i hope people will give Rick a break and respect his situation. For the meantime, very well done Rick for getting the settlement and I hope you can get back to enjoying the football and all that goes with it now this stage of the case is out the way.
I think we can be sure of Airman Brown's integrity. It's lasted 25 years to my knowledge. Er, also, can someone introduce me to Richard J? And how interesting, to someone interested in football, was Mr Powell's 3-5-2 on Saturday? Surprising. Invigorating. Brilliant.
None of us knows the reason for Rick's dismissal, or the details of the case. He felt sufficiently aggrieved to bring an action against his former employers, who offered to settle before the Tribunal; Rick accepted and is presumably satisfied with the settlement. We are disappointed that a gagging order almost certainly prevents revelations about the club.
If we're taking sides, I know instinctively whose side I am on. I congratulate and support the man who, with Steve Dixon in 1988, launched VOTV as a campaigning voice for us, the fans. I don't believe Rick has altered his vision or ideals, and neither have I.
Comments
ps. MB always smiles when he posts :-)
pps. I will also congratulate RE when it is made clear he didnt do anything wrong...until that moment I will remain sitting on the fence.
Ha! ha! the scourge of not wanting to assume that every poster is male leads to his/her language. Still I hope that your gender reassignment goes well - whichever way:-)
ps. MB always smiles when he posts :-)
Well MB it would have helped if you had indeed 'smiled' :-) but you didn't - hence my comment. And as for sitting on the fence, you'll be there a long while as there is no reaon why AB should (or is able) to satisfy you that he did nothing wrong. An employee may well have done 'something wrong' but that does not of itself justify dismissal.
So do you believe that the club - having engaged the services of an expensive Queens Counsel like Caspar Glyn - would have made a last minute offer to settle with an employee representing himself (and an offer probably at a higher level than would have been awarded had the case gone ahead and Rick won - as Richard J said) if Rick had 'done something wrong' i.e. that there were good grounds to prove that his dismissal was 'fair'?
Why not just be gracious and congratulate him?
Informal verbal warning.
Formal verbal warning.
Written warning.
Final written warning.
Dismissal.
I suppose an employer may well start higher up the process depending on the issue. I don't reckon an informal verbal warning would do if you chinned your manager for example.
I also expect such processes have time constraints, either in bringing matters to book, or for warnings to remain on an employees file.
All stages can be contested, ought to follow due process using natural justice, and can be further complicated by grievance procedures the other way.
Seth is correct and always the entry point will depend on the perceived level of misconduct. Clearly the higher up the scale the employer deems the misconduct, the surer they must be of their ground to have bypassed the lower levels.
Didn't he work for the CIA in the States and tell all their naughty little secrets to the press??
If we're taking sides, I know instinctively whose side I am on. I congratulate and support the man who, with Steve Dixon in 1988, launched VOTV as a campaigning voice for us, the fans. I don't believe Rick has altered his vision or ideals, and neither have I.
Maybe we can't handle the truth ?
The plot thickens.