But Fez, the point being made by Obi, which I agree with, isn’t that a good union rep would have told them to ‘lie better’ at all. It’s that a good union rep would have told them to tell the truth in the first place because it’s the original lies which have caused the problems down the line They should have been advised to tell the truth in the first place, and then either the rep would have set about proving they had permission to work that way in their contract, or that they believed that they did because they hadn’t had the changes in the new contract explained to them so they hadn’t realised they no longer had permission, I’d simply that they were very sorry and wouldn’t do it again. May not have worked, but it would have played out far better in the tribunal if that had been the original stance...and most people need union support to talk through these things when **** happens...brother
I do find it rather strange that if SMC had apparently given him permission to work also for Hull FC, and that permission was never rescinded, then he wasn't stealing time from his employer. That is what I was referring to, when I said I can't understand why their lawyer didn't pick up on that point.
This pleading ignorance is bullshit. They knew the score and to deny that is a lie and to encourage them to deny that is perpetuating that lie. This part of Chazz's post spells it out - proper procedure would have unearthed the truth and dismissal would have followed. Unions do not have a magic wand, Brother...
The permission was rescinded with his new contract of employment. He could have asked for the permission to be renewed but he probably knew it wouldn't be so he carried on regardless. His barrister (and his team) would not use a point that seems obvious but would prove extremely damning. I don't believe either set of legal professionals would have been too surprised at the outcome; they simply did their jobs the best way they could.
So the tribunal judge and the groundsmen's legal team failed to do their jobs properly.; is that what you want us to believe?
He was supposed to put the kit out the night before but didn’t, he put it out on the day of the games There was no permission needed to work for FC as it was work done outside of his hours for the SMC and as none of it was supposed to be during the day, he had no reason to be near the changing rooms at anytime during the day. Some of the statements about the lieu days were to clarify that on the days he was seen in the area he could not say it was lieu time that he was using.
No. The permission to work for Hull FC wasn't rescinded with the new contract unless it included an explicit clause saying he couldn't. Because Mr Cook lied during the disciplinary hearing changing his evidence and telling the truth to the Tribunal would have made no difference to the outcome. As dennisboothstash makes abundantly clear, a trade union representative would have sat down with them and got them to tell the truth from day 1. In my opinion if they had of done that the outcome would have been totally different.
Sometimes they should If it was the case that someone was told that the work they were alleged to be doing wasn’t allowed and they might get sacked for it then a natural reaction of someone without quality representation would be to deny it. There’s no point in being holier than thou and pretending that life is perfect always. Realistically people tell lies, if happens and is sometimes understandable even when it’s foolish. Sometimes people do need to be told
Not what I was saying What I was saying was that they didn’t have anyone representing them early on that encouraged them to lie. If they did have a good rep they would have encouraged them to tell the truth knowing that was the best course of action regardless of how scared of being sacked that they were
I understand that, Dennis, and I understand that a union rep would have been involved earlier than a legal bod, but regardless of timing he continued to lie. Not great, but it is what it is, disappointing. For one reason or another I've not been a member of a union since 1972, but, in general, I see them as an essential part of out democratic society.
Ehabs Barnet needs taking to a tribunal. In fact it needs taking to crown court. It’s criminal. Shave it off dickhead.
I'm impressed with the legal team representing Hull City (Tigers) Ltd. They really did a number on the judge. To get their brand to be mentioned in the judgement, without actually being party to the tribunal, is an amazing feat! If the club could extrapolate that advertising benefit whilst also extrapolating the cost borne, it would be a licence to print money that would make income from a name change look like chump change.
