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!
originallambrettaman said:
Indeed, there's a bit of history rewriting going on here.

The reasons given for Harrison's sacking were the poor quality of the pitch and the giving of tickets to volunteer divoters, Cook working for FC on his watch was very much a footnote. The SMC conceded unfair dismissal, which allowed them to ignore the reasons given previously and switch the entire defence into the issue of Cook working for FC on his watch, as Cook was obviously the weak link (he was no doubt terrible during his disciplinary and they knew he'd been equally terrible giving evidence at the tribunal).

I still have a great deal of sympathy for Harrison, I think he was stitched up.

Less so for Cook, obviously, as he came out with a load of bollocks about what he did and didn't do.
Click to expand...
Have you read it? Seriously have you read it.
He wasn't a weak link. He was a liar and a bad one. In fact they both were. Harrison even made out his dad had wrote the letter for him. Both blaming anyone but themself. Offered they chance they still persisted and lied.

I often wonder how holocaust deniers can deny it. Reading this thread gives me an Insight into that mindset.
 
  • Like
Reactions: howdentiger
Chazz Rheinhold said:
Have you read it? Seriously have you read it.
He wasn't a weak link. He was a liar and a bad one. In fact they both were. Harrison even made out his dad had wrote the letter for him. Both blaming anyone but themself. Offered they chance they still persisted and lied.

I often wonder how holocaust deniers can deny it. Reading this thread gives me an Insight into that mindset.
Click to expand...
Hey Chazz, HowdenTiger liked your post <laugh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: Walter Sobchak
I have now read through the full judgment. It is clear from the evidence that the SMC, despite the procedural irregularities, unfairly sacked the two groundsmen and they should have been paid compensation.

Unfortunately for the groundsmen they lied in the investigation and they stuck to that story in the Tribunal despite the overwhelming evidence that Mr Cook worked for Hull FC on the day in question. Most of us have been in situations where our natural reaction to being accused of something is to deny it. As a result they came across as untrustworthy and dishonest in the Tribunal when they didn't really need to.

The SMC gave Mr Cook permission to work for Hull FC from the first day of his employment. A permission that was never rescinded. A good shop steward would have ensured he didn't lie during the investigation and would have pointed out he had permission to work for Hull FC.

A sad story which shows why employees should be a member of a trade union.

As to the SMC and the Allams. After being shown up on national television somebody had to pay. So Ehab called for an investigation and sacked the groundsmen.
 
Obadiah said:
I have now read through the full judgment. It is clear from the evidence that the SMC, despite the procedural irregularities, unfairly sacked the two groundsmen and they should have been paid compensation.

Unfortunately for the groundsmen they lied in the investigation and they stuck to that story in the Tribunal despite the overwhelming evidence that Mr Cook worked for Hull FC on the day in question. Most of us have been in situations where our natural reaction to being accused of something is to deny it. As a result they came across as untrustworthy and dishonest in the Tribunal when they didn't really need to.

The SMC gave Mr Cook permission to work for Hull FC from the first day of his employment. A permission that was never rescinded. A good shop steward would have ensured he didn't lie during the investigation and would have pointed out he had permission to work for Hull FC.

A sad story which shows why employees should be a member of a trade union.

As to the SMC and the Allams. After being shown up on national television somebody had to pay. So Ehab called for an investigation and sacked the groundsmen.
Click to expand...

I wonder why their lawyer didn't pick on the fact that he had permission to work, which had never been rescinded, surely that was game set and match. In that case there was no need to lie?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dennisboothstash
Obadiah said:
I have now read through the full judgment. It is clear from the evidence that the SMC, despite the procedural irregularities, unfairly sacked the two groundsmen and they should have been paid compensation.

Unfortunately for the groundsmen they lied in the investigation and they stuck to that story in the Tribunal despite the overwhelming evidence that Mr Cook worked for Hull FC on the day in question. Most of us have been in situations where our natural reaction to being accused of something is to deny it. As a result they came across as untrustworthy and dishonest in the Tribunal when they didn't really need to.

The SMC gave Mr Cook permission to work for Hull FC from the first day of his employment. A permission that was never rescinded. A good shop steward would have ensured he didn't lie during the investigation and would have pointed out he had permission to work for Hull FC.

A sad story which shows why employees should be a member of a trade union.

As to the SMC and the Allams. After being shown up on national television somebody had to pay. So Ehab called for an investigation and sacked the groundsmen.
Click to expand...
Ehab didn't call for an investigation, Burnley and Swansea both reported the club to the Premier League about the poor state of the pitch and the investigation came from those complaints.
The Judge's report is as damning as I have ever seen and the claim for compensation was laughable.
And we move on...................
 
Chazz Rheinhold said:
Have you read it? Seriously have you read it.
He wasn't a weak link. He was a liar and a bad one. In fact they both were. Harrison even made out his dad had wrote the letter for him. Both blaming anyone but themself. Offered they chance they still persisted and lied.

I often wonder how holocaust deniers can deny it. Reading this thread gives me an Insight into that mindset.
Click to expand...

So thinking Harrison was slightly hard done by and believing the allams have acted like ****s in this is a kin to denying the holocaust?

Christ.
 
Phil West-Upper. said:
Ehab didn't call for an investigation, Burnley and Swansea both reported the club to the Premier League about the poor state of the pitch and the investigation came from those complaints.
The Judge's report is as damning as I have ever seen and the claim for compensation was laughable.
And we move on...................
Click to expand...

Please can you put a disclaimer/signature on your posts explaining your Ehab's mate? It would enable people to realise your impartiality regarding the owners and not add any weight to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PLT
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back