SMC groundsmen gone

[John Ex Aberdeen now E.R.]

I think they’ve conceded that the process they used to dismiss the two was wrongful. But they are claiming that if they had followed the right procedure, the SMC would still have come to the same outcome, which affects the compo on offer. It’s all about the money now. They are effectively having a second bite at the cherry.

Ive read it as dismissed wrongly rather than wrongful dismissal, if that makes sense.

Ah yeah like Als said.

It said unfairly sacked, I was say that is more wrongful dismissal, rather than dismissed wrongfully.

 

[Evington]

But it is. How much money getting pissed to the courts over technicalities and the sake of a piss pot sum of money to keep the pit quiet.

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.

 

[Obadiah]

It said unfairly sacked, I was say that is more wrongful dismissal, rather than dismissed wrongfully.

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.

 

[Fez]

My opinion may be flawed but it's a statement of fact that its my opinion.

Depending on what Angus Young meant when he said it was "tough viewing" watching the cross examination the tribunal may well come down on the side of the SMC.

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.

 

[originallambrettaman]

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.

That's precisely what I meant when I said the sacking obviously wouldn't stand up to scrutiny at a tribunal.

 

[Obadiah]

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.

Do you know Angus well enough to make that assumption?

 

[Fez]

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.

Costs also have to be decided.

 

[Obadiah]

That's precisely what I meant when I said the sacking obviously wouldn't stand up to scrutiny at a tribunal.

After 2010 whether the correct procedure was followed is irrelevant, as we saw yesterday.

 

[originallambrettaman]

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.

 

[originallambrettaman]

After 2010 whether the correct procedure was followed is irrelevant, as we saw yesterday.

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.

 

[originallambrettaman]

Costs also have to be decided.

It's not like like taking legal action in the courts, you don't normally get an award for costs at an employment tribunal.

 

[Fez]

Do you know Angus well enough to make that assumption?

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...

 

[Obadiah]

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.

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.

 

[originallambrettaman]

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.

 

[Fez]

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.

That would make his Tweets pointless and I believe they are not, as he appears to use his words thoughtfully.

 

[Fez]

It's not like like taking legal action in the courts, you don't normally get an award for costs at an employment tribunal.

Normally? Either party can ask for costs. No Win - No Pay?

 

[Amin Arrears]

It's not like like taking legal action in the courts, you don't normally get an award for costs at an employment tribunal.

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?

 

[originallambrettaman]

That would make his Tweets pointless and I believe they are not, as he appears to use his words thoughtfully.

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.

 

[Amin Arrears]

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.

What he meant by it was it was so boring he was struggling to stay awake and focused.

 

[Fez]

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?