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!
Julian Edelman said:
I always do take a neutral view on things.
I know I don't need to where the Allams are concerned because of their blatant disregard for everyone but themselves.
And I know people that have had to deal with their nasty disrespectful attitude.
Click to expand...
You mean you always take a neutral view on things unless it involves the Allams.

Which is another way of saying you do not always take a neutral view of things.

Or you don't understand what neutral actually means.
 
Happy Tiger said:
You mean you always take a neutral view on things unless it involves the Allams.

Which is another way of saying you do not always take a neutral view of things.

Or you don't understand what neutral actually means.
Click to expand...

I find it incredible that anyone could read that submission and not think that there were serious issues with the running of the organisation, regardless of what counter evidence the club puts forward. Everything about that submission screams unprofessional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: look_back_in_amber
originallambrettaman said:
I find it incredible that anyone could read that submission and not think that there were serious issues with the running of the organisation, regardless of what counter evidence the club puts forward. Everything about that submission screams unprofessional.
Click to expand...
**** me. Does it? No way. I'm shocked. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
originallambrettaman said:
I find it incredible that anyone could read that submission and not think that there were serious issues with the running of the organisation, regardless of what counter evidence the club puts forward. Everything about that submission screams unprofessional.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything seriously wrong with what the SMC did. They investigated the potential misconduct, they held a disciplinary hearing and then held the appeal. All three meetings were chaired by a different person with what appears to be the appropriate level of responsibility. They presented the evidence, some of which came from admissions by the groundsmen, and sacked them. Legally the crux of the SMC's case will resolve around how much the SMC was paying to Taylor Rigby, whether that was too much, who was responsible for making the orders and whether Darrell Cook should have being working for the SMC on the day of the Hull FC match. These issues may be covered in the contracts of employment but were put to the groundsmen at the disciplinary hearing and the appeal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: howdentiger and Chazz Rheinhold
Obadiah said:
I don't see anything seriously wrong with what the SMC did. They investigated the potential misconduct, they held a disciplinary hearing and then held the appeal. All three meetings were chaired by a different person with what appears to be the appropriate level of responsibility. They presented the evidence, some of which came from admissions by the groundsmen, and sacked them. Legally the crux of the SMC's case will resolve around how much the SMC was paying to Taylor Rigby, whether that was too much, who was responsible for making the orders and whether Darrell Cook should have being working for the SMC on the day of the Hull FC match. These issues may be covered in the contracts of employment but were put to the groundsmen at the disciplinary hearing and the appeal.
Click to expand...

I see a kangaroo court with the wrong evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brownbagtiger and look_back_in_amber
Obadiah said:
I don't see anything seriously wrong with what the SMC did. They investigated the potential misconduct, they held a disciplinary hearing and then held the appeal. All three meetings were chaired by a different person with what appears to be the appropriate level of responsibility. They presented the evidence, some of which came from admissions by the groundsmen, and sacked them. Legally the crux of the SMC's case will resolve around how much the SMC was paying to Taylor Rigby, whether that was too much, who was responsible for making the orders and whether Darrell Cook should have being working for the SMC on the day of the Hull FC match. These issues may be covered in the contracts of employment but were put to the groundsmen at the disciplinary hearing and the appeal.
Click to expand...
Yep
originallambrettaman said:
I see a kangaroo court with the wrong evidence.
Click to expand...
you and others only see what they want to see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: howdentiger
originallambrettaman said:
I see a kangaroo court with the wrong evidence.
Click to expand...

We all know he's a tool.... Fortunately or unfortunately the tribunal will only look at whether or not employment law was followed and the correct processes where done, and looking at it in an unbiased way I'd say they where.

Have they been harshly treated....yes

Have they been unfairly treated..... Possibly

Has employment law been broken.... Probably not
 
  • Like
Reactions: Happy Tiger
Depends also wether or not the sackings were within bounds of reasonableness (not just about following process)
 
Obadiah said:
I don't see anything seriously wrong with what the SMC did. They investigated the potential misconduct, they held a disciplinary hearing and then held the appeal. All three meetings were chaired by a different person with what appears to be the appropriate level of responsibility. They presented the evidence, some of which came from admissions by the groundsmen, and sacked them. Legally the crux of the SMC's case will resolve around how much the SMC was paying to Taylor Rigby, whether that was too much, who was responsible for making the orders and whether Darrell Cook should have being working for the SMC on the day of the Hull FC match. These issues may be covered in the contracts of employment but were put to the groundsmen at the disciplinary hearing and the appeal.
Click to expand...

Re the products bought from Taylor Rigby

Didn't the groundsmen claim all orders were signed off by more senior management?

And if part of the dismissal was because the SMC were paying £20 more per unit then an online price that's also a very weak argument.
 
howdentiger said:
We all know he's a tool.... Fortunately or unfortunately the tribunal will only look at whether or not employment law was followed and the correct processes where done, and looking at it in an unbiased way I'd say they where.

Have they been harshly treated....yes

Have they been unfairly treated..... Possibly

Has employment law been broken.... Probably not
Click to expand...

How can you make that claim without knowing what's in the defence?

If everything in their claim is proven, they'll obviously win, they'll only lose if they prove the details in the claim are inaccurate.
 
Happy Tiger said:
You mean you always take a neutral view on things unless it involves the Allams.

Which is another way of saying you do not always take a neutral view of things.

Or you don't understand what neutral actually means.
Click to expand...
Unlike you i haven't stuck my flag on the good island of Allam then blindly defended them.
Everything they do contradicts your unstinting support.
And like I say there's people that I know that have been treat like shoe scrapping.
If that's how you think people should be treat more fool you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PLT
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back