Was just about to ask the same Obi is spot on about the importance of being in a Union (Brothers and Sisters...although I’ll admit to being a regional rep for my union so I’m biased) but as you say the fact that the lawyer, or whatever they were, didn’t pick up on exactly the same thing is bizarre
Please can you put a disclaimer/signature on your posts explaining your impartiality against the owners when replying to any posts you don't agree with ? He is not 'my mate'.
They didn't come across as untrustworthy, they were. They had to lie as they shouldn't have been doing the work for the scum at that time. Something they would have continued doing. The most one sided case ever. As pointed out by the judge.
I thought you said you'd read the judgment. Perhaps you should read it again. The payment was for any financial loss incurred as a result of the changes to the way lieu time was to be taken.
They didn't have to lie because Mr Cook was legally entitled to work for Hull FC at the time. It was so one-sided because he denied he was working for Hull FC in the investigation meeting.
The Tribunal had already found they had been unfairly dismissed. The remaining question to be considered by the Tribunal was how much compensation they were due. If somebody said they were sacked for telling lies in a disciplinary process about something they were legally entitled to do how much compensation do you think they would have got? I think next to nothing. The damage was done in the investigation meeting when they first denied he was working for Hull FC in the investigation.
I read it as they were given £1000 for signing the new contract and that the new system compensated them with time in lieu. But take your point.
He could work for the scum Outside of his working hours for the smc. So he did have to lie as he was in. The wrong. He was moonlighting. It's not hard.
The respondent concedes that the claimants were unfairly dismissed, because of admitted procedural unfairness in the appeal process. Accordingly the complaint of unfair dismissal succeeds. In relation to remedy both claimants seek an award of compensation for the unfair dismissal. For both claimants the tribunal makes no basic award, because it considers that it is just and equitable to reduce the basic award by 100% because of their conduct before the dismissal. It also considers there was a 100% chance the claimants would have been dismissed if a fair procedure had been followed on the dates they were dismissed (17 April 2017 for Mr Cook and 19 April 2017 for Mr Harrison). Accordingly no compensato award is made. Alternatively, if any compensatory award had been made both claimants were guilty of culpable and blamewo hy conduct such that a reduction of 100% would have been appropriate. The complaint of wrongful dismissal fails and is dismissed. Unfairly dismissed due to procedure unfairness. Wrongfully dismissed??? No. If the procedure was fair a 100% chance they would still have a been dismissed. That's not 50/50 could go either way bollocks. That's as clear as clear can be.
. Having considered all of the evidence and particularly the credibility of Mr Cook's evidence at this hearing I find that Mr Cook was carrying out Hull FC duties during his working time. He had been dishonest in his explanations to the employer at the time and in his evidence to me. Had this matter not come to light when it did, I have no doubt Mr Cook would have continued using his work time to serve another employer, being paid by Hull FC and Hull City for the same time to the detriment of Hull City and the Respondent. In effect he was stealing work time from his employer for his own purposes. This was in breach of the express prohibition of the 'other employment' term and the term requiring him to devote all his working time to his groundsman duties. The Respondent was entitled to conclude that not only were his actions serious express breaches of contract, but also a breach of the fundamental implied term of trust and confidence. That term is referred to in the dismissal letter, and was also relied upon as pa of Mr Allam's rationale at the Appeal Hearing. Instead of 'coming clean' at the Appeal hearing Mr Cook continued to lie which left Mr Allam with no choice but to confirm the dismissal.
