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!
Chazz Rheinhold said:
. Having considered all of the evidence and particularly the credibility of Mr Cook's evidence at this hearing I find that Mr Cook was carrying out Hull FC duties during his working time. He had been dishonest in his explanations to the employer at the time and in his evidence to me. Had this matter not come to light when it did, I have no doubt Mr Cook would have continued using his work time to serve another employer, being paid by Hull FC and Hull City for the same time to the detriment of Hull City and the Respondent. In effect he was stealing work time from his employer for his own purposes. This was in breach of the express prohibition of the 'other employment' term and the term requiring him to devote all his working time to his groundsman duties. The Respondent was entitled to conclude that not only were his actions serious express breaches of contract, but also a breach of the fundamental implied term of trust and confidence. That term is referred to in the dismissal letter, and was also relied upon as pa of Mr Allam's rationale at the

Appeal Hearing. Instead of 'coming clean' at the Appeal hearing Mr Cook continued to lie which left Mr Allam with no choice but to confirm the dismissal.
Click to expand...

He wasn't paid by Hull City was he? Shows how much attention the Judge paid to the case. In fact he wasn't paid by the SMC for working that Saturday either. As per his contract of employment he had to take the time off he worked that Saturday on the following Monday. Do you know how many hours he took off that day?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImperialTiger
Obadiah said:
He wasn't paid by Hull City was he? Shows how much attention the Judge paid to the case. In fact he wasn't paid by the SMC for working that Saturday either. As per his contract of employment he had to take the time off he worked that Saturday on the following Monday. Do you know how many hours he took off that day?
Click to expand...
they got hammered because they lied, repeatedly lied, changed their statements and couldn't provide reasons for any of it. You aren't trying this case on here and questioning me. The decisiOn has been made by an independent judge and her reasons given. That you choose to ignoreall,what she has put says it all.
But carry on it's funny as ****.
 
Chazz Rheinhold said:
they got hammered because they lied, repeatedly lied, changed their statements and couldn't provide reasons for any of it. You aren't trying this case on here and questioning me. The decisiOn has been made by an independent judge and her reasons given. That you choose to ignoreall,what she has put says it all.
But carry on it's boring as ****.
Click to expand...
 
Chazz Rheinhold said:
they got hammered because they lied, repeatedly lied, changed their statements and couldn't provide reasons for any of it. You aren't trying this case on here and questioning me. The decisiOn has been made by an independent judge and her reasons given. That you choose to ignoreall,what she has put says it all.
But carry on it's funny as ****.
Click to expand...

I find it funny that an independent Judge doesn't know who employed him or what the terms of his contract were for the day in question. As you say largely irrelevant because they got hammered for their lies. The question of whether he had permission to work for Hull FC wasn't tested because he denied working for them on that day. Based on the evidence in the judgment I concluded he did have permission, he didn't get paid by the SMC for working that Saturday and if he'd said he had permission to work for Hull FC in the initial investigation meeting the outcome would have been different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: howdentiger and ImperialTiger
Obadiah said:
I find it funny that an independent Judge doesn't know who employed him or what the terms of his contract were for the day in question. As you say largely irrelevant because they got hammered for their lies. The question of whether he had permission to work for Hull FC wasn't tested because he denied working for them on that day. Based on the evidence in the judgment I concluded he did have permission, he didn't get paid by the SMC for working that Saturday and if he'd said he had permission to work for Hull FC in the initial investigation meeting the outcome would have been different.
Click to expand...
****ing hell. No it wouldn't. It was a Friday for one thing. So you conclude wrong.
 
I believe that Cooke was paid to put the kit out the night before Hull FC played and he put the kit out on the day they played.

He even used carrying a F.C. shirt as an excuse as he said he was going to put it on as F.C. were playing that day.

I also do not think that any union would be able to present a better case than a leading barrister.
 
I strongly believe in union support, but find it's use of this case a rather disappoining thing. These guys were guilty and the fact a union rep would have told them to lie in a better way is just way beyond my cynical threshold.

Chazz is posting alot of good common sense and also reminding everyone that this whole thing was fairly judged.

Obi needs to tackle the dragons in the kitchen.

There does come a point where Allam detractors need to stick with truth and reality; just as they (I) ask of the Allams.
 
Obadiah said:
That's what one barrister thought when he came across me. He was sadly mistaken and the person I represented was well chuffed.
Click to expand...

You do realise that win/lose is their reality and he probably wasn't that surprised. That's a remarkably pompous post, Obi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back