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!
Fez said:
... 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.
Click to expand...

But Fez, the point being made by Obi, which I agree with, isn’t that a good union rep would have told them to ‘lie better’ at all. It’s that a good union rep would have told them to tell the truth in the first place because it’s the original lies which have caused the problems down the line
They should have been advised to tell the truth in the first place, and then either the rep would have set about proving they had permission to work that way in their contract, or that they believed that they did because they hadn’t had the changes in the new contract explained to them so they hadn’t realised they no longer had permission, I’d simply that they were very sorry and wouldn’t do it again.

May not have worked, but it would have played out far better in the tribunal if that had been the original stance...and most people need union support to talk through these things when **** happens...brother
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obadiah and Chazz Rheinhold
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...

I do find it rather strange that if SMC had apparently given him permission to work also for Hull FC, and that permission was never rescinded, then he wasn't stealing time from his employer. That is what I was referring to, when I said I can't understand why their lawyer didn't pick up on that point.
 
dennisboothstash said:
But Fez, the point being made by Obi, which I agree with, isn’t that a good union rep would have told them to ‘lie better’ at all. It’s that a good union rep would have told them to tell the truth in the first place because it’s the original lies which have caused the problems down the line
They should have been advised to tell the truth in the first place, and then either the rep would have set about proving they had permission to work that way in their contract, or that they believed that they did because they hadn’t had the changes in the new contract explained to them so they hadn’t realised they no longer had permission, I’d simply that they were very sorry and wouldn’t do it again.

May not have worked, but it would have played out far better in the tribunal if that had been the original stance...and most people need union support to talk through these things when **** happens...brother
Click to expand...

This pleading ignorance is bullshit. They knew the score and to deny that is a lie and to encourage them to deny that is perpetuating that lie.

This part of Chazz's post spells it out - proper procedure would have unearthed the truth and dismissal would have followed. Unions do not have a magic wand, Brother... :emoticon-0105-wink:

Chazz Rheinhold said:
l. It also considers there was a 100% chance the claimants would have been dismissed if a fair procedure had been followed on the dates they were dismissed (17 April 2017 for Mr Cook and 19 April 2017 for Mr Harrison). Accordingly no compensato award is made.
Click to expand...
 
dennisboothstash said:
But Fez, the point being made by Obi, which I agree with, isn’t that a good union rep would have told them to ‘lie better’ at all. It’s that a good union rep would have told them to tell the truth in the first place because it’s the original lies which have caused the problems down the line
They should have been advised to tell the truth in the first place, and then either the rep would have set about proving they had permission to work that way in their contract, or that they believed that they did because they hadn’t had the changes in the new contract explained to them so they hadn’t realised they no longer had permission, I’d simply that they were very sorry and wouldn’t do it again.

May not have worked, but it would have played out far better in the tribunal if that had been the original stance...and most people need union support to talk through these things when **** happens...brother
Click to expand...

People shouldn't have to be told to tell the truth!!
 
John Ex Aberdeen now E.R. said:
I do find it rather strange that if SMC had apparently given him permission to work also for Hull FC, and that permission was never rescinded, then he wasn't stealing time from his employer. That is what I was referring to, when I said I can't understand why their lawyer didn't pick up on that point.
Click to expand...

The permission was rescinded with his new contract of employment. He could have asked for the permission to be renewed but he probably knew it wouldn't be so he carried on regardless. His barrister (and his team) would not use a point that seems obvious but would prove extremely damning. I don't believe either set of legal professionals would have been too surprised at the outcome; they simply did their jobs the best way they could.
 
Fez said:
The permission was rescinded with his new contract of employment. He could have asked for the permission to be renewed but he probably knew it wouldn't be so he carried on regardless. His barrister (and his team) would not use a point that seems obvious but would prove extremely damning. I don't believe either set of legal professionals would have been too surprised at the outcome; they simply did their jobs the best way they could.
Click to expand...

Bollocks.
 
He was supposed to put the kit out the night before but didn’t, he put it out on the day of the games

There was no permission needed to work for FC as it was work done outside of his hours for the SMC and as none of it was supposed to be during the day, he had no reason to be near the changing rooms at anytime during the day.

Some of the statements about the lieu days were to clarify that on the days he was seen in the area he could not say it was lieu time that he was using.
 
Fez said:
So the tribunal judge and the groundsmen's legal team failed to do their jobs properly.; is that what you want us to believe?
Click to expand...

No.

The permission to work for Hull FC wasn't rescinded with the new contract unless it included an explicit clause saying he couldn't.

Because Mr Cook lied during the disciplinary hearing changing his evidence and telling the truth to the Tribunal would have made no difference to the outcome. As dennisboothstash makes abundantly clear, a trade union representative would have sat down with them and got them to tell the truth from day 1. In my opinion if they had of done that the outcome would have been totally different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Ex Aberdeen now E.R. and dennisboothstash
Obadiah said:
No.

The permission to work for Hull FC wasn't rescinded with the new contract unless it included an explicit clause saying he couldn't.

Because Mr Cook lied during the disciplinary hearing changing his evidence and telling the truth to the Tribunal would have made no difference to the outcome. As dennisboothstash makes abundantly clear, a trade union representative would have sat down with them and got them to tell the truth from day 1. In my opinion if they had of done that the outcome would have been totally different.
Click to expand...

Nobody to blame but themselfs then, nobody forced them to lie
 
howdentiger said:
People shouldn't have to be told to tell the truth!!
Click to expand...
Sometimes they should
If it was the case that someone was told that the work they were alleged to be doing wasn’t allowed and they might get sacked for it then a natural reaction of someone without quality representation would be to deny it. There’s no point in being holier than thou and pretending that life is perfect always. Realistically people tell lies, if happens and is sometimes understandable even when it’s foolish. Sometimes people do need to be told
 
Fez said:
This pleading ignorance is bullshit. They knew the score and to deny that is a lie and to encourage them to deny that is perpetuating that lie.

This part of Chazz's post spells it out - proper procedure would have unearthed the truth and dismissal would have followed. Unions do not have a magic wand, Brother... :emoticon-0105-wink:
Click to expand...
Not what I was saying
What I was saying was that they didn’t have anyone representing them early on that encouraged them to lie. If they did have a good rep they would have encouraged them to tell the truth knowing that was the best course of action regardless of how scared of being sacked that they were
 
dennisboothstash said:
Not what I was saying
What I was saying was that they didn’t have anyone representing them early on that encouraged them to lie. If they did have a good rep they would have encouraged them to tell the truth knowing that was the best course of action regardless of how scared of being sacked that they were
Click to expand...

I understand that, Dennis, and I understand that a union rep would have been involved earlier than a legal bod, but regardless of timing he continued to lie. Not great, but it is what it is, disappointing.

For one reason or another I've not been a member of a union since 1972, but, in general, I see them as an essential part of out democratic society. <ok>
 
  • Like
Reactions: dennisboothstash
I'm impressed with the legal team representing Hull City (Tigers) Ltd. They really did a number on the judge. To get their brand to be mentioned in the judgement, without actually being party to the tribunal, is an amazing feat!

If the club could extrapolate that advertising benefit whilst also extrapolating the cost borne, it would be a licence to print money that would make income from a name change look like chump change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back