SMC groundsmen gone

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
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?
 
"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.
 
DMD said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes, although it appears Ehab's hope is that it should be none at all.
 
PLT said:
Yes, although it appears Ehab's hope is that it should be none at all.
Click to expand...

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?
 
PLT said:
Can there be a scenario where having admitted unfair dismissal there's no punishment? Weird.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Howden Tigress, Fez and DMD
PLT said:
Can there be a scenario where having admitted unfair dismissal there's no punishment? Weird.
Click to expand...

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.
 
PLT said:
Can there be a scenario where having admitted unfair dismissal there's no punishment? Weird.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Howden Tigress and DMD
Obadiah said:
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.
Click to expand...

I guess all the legal fees will be down to the Allams (SMC) though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back