It said unfairly sacked, I was say that is more wrongful dismissal, rather than dismissed wrongfully.
You must be thinking of the UK bridge association taking their case to the European courts to have bridge declared a sport. Now that was a waste of money.
I may be wrong but this is how I see it. Ehab made the original compliant against the groundsmen which was then investigated resulting in them being sacked. Ehab then heard their appeal against unfair dismissal. As he'd made the original compliant he wasn't in a position to hear the appeal impartially. Before 2010 that would have resulted in the groundsmen winning the Tribunal and getting compensation and their jobs back. After 2010 that becomes largely irrelevant. The question the Tribunal has to decide is how much money should they get. If the Tribunal decides they would have been sacked had the procedure been properly followed they'll get nothing or next to nothing. If it decides they would have kept their jobs they get compensation. Angus Young's tweet on Mark Harrison's cross examination implies their case isn't going well. I may have that wrong as I wasn't there.
I think AY was simply expressing his own feeling of discomfort at watching a decent man being subjected to harsh cross examination over a silliness undeserving of such proceedings.
That's precisely what I meant when I said the sacking obviously wouldn't stand up to scrutiny at a tribunal.
I don't see much point in speculating over who meant what, none of us where there and the outcome will be known in a matter of hours anyway.
Of course it's relevant, the SMC had to concede that the men were wrongfully dismissed, as the correct procedures weren't followed. It couldn't be more relevant.
It's not like like taking legal action in the courts, you don't normally get an award for costs at an employment tribunal.
Do i need to? You do know what the use of the word think implies, do you? Do you think I'm wrong. I stopped posting last night as I had moved onto Newcastle Brown with large Whyte & Mackey chasers - you should start drinking...
Its relevant to you but not the Tribunal. The Tribunal is ignoring Ehab chairing the appeal and deciding whether the men should have been sacked. If they agree they should have been sacked they will get nothing.
The tribunal obviously don't have to consider Ehab's bent appeals process, as the SMC admitted it was wrong before the tribunal even started. You seem very keen for them to get nothing.
That would make his Tweets pointless and I believe they are not, as he appears to use his words thoughtfully.
I was wondering about this the other day. For the sacked employee it's obviously going to be difficult to afford to push the case forward, surely there must be some sort of provision?
His tweets were obviously not pointless, he kept everyone informed about what was going on, it's just one particular tweet that people are speculating about. If people really want to know what he meant by that tweet, they should simply ask him.
Why? He put a tweet out in public view to be read and discussed. Why do you think a media man used the word tough?
