angus young@angus_young61 Mark Harrison of @groundsmenhull now giving evidence. Says ex-SMC MD James Deacon said new contract "was not worth paper it was written on" angus young@angus_young61 New contract for SMC staff removed overtime pay and lieu time. "It was either sign it or you were out" says @groundsmenhull Mark Harrison.
angus young @angus_young61 Barrister for SMC accuses Mark Harrison of knowing Darrell Cook was carrying out Hull FC duties in SMC time. "Not at all," he replies.
Given they've conceded that the groundsmen shouldn't have been sacked, is the current questioning aimed at setting the compensation or for something else?
angus young @angus_young61 Worth noting SMC concession of unfair dismissal submitted Friday, additional evidence against Cook submitted Mon - 48 hrs before tribunal.
"Mr Allam, who oversaw the appeal process. acknowledged he had initially instigated the disciplinary investigation into the two men following concerns about the state of the pitch at the stadium. Mr Siddal told the tribunal that letters sent to the two men by the SMC informing them of their appeal hearings stated they would be chaired by Mr Allam because he was “independent of the process with no previous knowledge” of the issues." That snipper shows what dodgy people the Allams really are. That isn't "just business" as their defenders regularly inform us, it's a straight up sham.
angus young @angus_young61 SMC barrister Melanie Teather now pressing Mark Harrison hard over Darrell Cook's kitman duties. It's tough viewing.
I'm no doubt showing my ignorance, but as amusing as it is to read, how does it determine compensation? I'd assume that was based on what they'd lost as a consequence. Are they trying to prove how much the staff suffered while working for them, and if so, can the Allams be forced to compensate others that suffered the same, but didn't get sacked?
angus young @angus_young61 Important to stress although SMC has conceded unfair dismissal, the case is not over. Pay-out being disputed and still not guaranteed.
I'd guess they admitted unfair dismissal in that the process used to sack them was improper and unfair but they will try to prove that they should have been sacked and would have been sacked under a fair process. Should that be the case then there wouldn't be any compo as the groundsmen haven't lost anything.
Yes, I believe there can be a token payment, if it is deemed that their actions were in some way a contributing factor - my guess is that Allam is expecting to pay compensation but that it will be peppercorn in size. This principle is often seen in libel cases.
angus young @angus_young61 SMC barrister: "How often do you attend at the stadium?" Ehab: "I'm there every day. That's my normal place of work."
angus young @angus_young61 We're finished for the day here. Resumes again tomorrow morning. I'll be giving more updates then. Poor Angus, it must be like watching paint dry.
What a complete waste of time and money this all is for everyone. Except the barristers and the court.
Yes, the coalition government changed the rules to make it easier for employers. A breach of procedure would have resulted in reinstatement or compensation under the old rules. Now it only means they can win the case but get nothing, no compensation, no reinstatement. What the groundsmen have to show is that if the procedure had been fair they wouldn't have been sacked. This afternoon is all about trying to show that.
