[mish]

Re: Beswick : Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:11 am  

glow wrote:

Employment Law is never quite as cut and dried as people think and often things only become clear once someone has actually gone to an employment tribunal, but as most cases get settled out of court people think such and such must be right because they paid up, when often it’s just easier to pay them off and get shut. Allardyce as just walked away with an alleged £1 million from his employer did his employer do anything wrong or need to pay anything?

It is quite feasible that BB contracted duties not only included playing but community and commercial work, if he has been disciplined by the club for perhaps let’s say playing the wrong tunes in the changing rooms, then they could say we are suspending you from that aspect of your duties however you will continue to work for the company in the other roles and are free to train elsewhere or on your own. Even if he wasn’t contracted to do other duties the company could still put him on other duties if they feel he is unable to fulfil his original duties, in the same way as a company who employs a delivery driver but he then gets band or ill health stops him from driving they could offer he a role in packing, rather than sack him for not fulfilling his contracted duties, he could of course if he didn’t want to do those duties resign, but most take up the new role at least until they find alternative employment.

This.

Re: Beswick : Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:23 am  

Seems like people still like to go looking for a smoking gun as a result of Rowley's morals and ethics interview...

Re: Beswick : Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:37 am  

Seems Glows and Tipsters posts fit together quite well actually Mish, so you were probably a little harsh on Tipster. So I would say at this point nothing to see here and we move on, onwards and upwards.

[mish]

Re: Beswick : Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:36 pm  

DemonUK wrote:

Seems Glows and Tipsters posts fit together quite well actually Mish, so you were probably a little harsh on Tipster. So I would say at this point nothing to see here and we move on, onwards and upwards.

Don't be so patronising, Tricky was way off the mark (as usual) and Glow was bang on. The two posts are poles apart.

Now why don't you just run along.

Re: Beswick : Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:15 pm  

Then again, he may have been suffering an achilles injury? Who knows, eh?!

Re: Beswick : Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:31 pm  

glow wrote:

often things only become clear once someone has actually gone to an employment tribunal, but as most cases get settled out of court people think such and such must be right because they paid up, when often it’s just easier to pay them off and get shut.

& sometimes an employer or organisation do not want their dirty linen aired in public, especially if they are morally or in fact just plain corrupt.
I have known a guy who walked away with exactly what he wanted, given that he could have taken several managers diwn with him & exposed the organisations dirty tactics.

This is the whistle blower era we live in now, I wouldn't hesitate to go public if the need arose.

*nothing wrong with your post Glow* just another angle to consider from experience*

Re: Beswick : Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:35 pm  

mish wrote:

LOL you're just an idiot.

Cheers love, you forgot highly paid before the word idiot....

All the best

Re: Beswick : Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:11 pm  

mish wrote:

Don't be so patronising, Tricky was way off the mark (as usual) and Glow was bang on. The two posts are poles apart.

Now why don't you just run along.

I will not run along thank you very much. Nothing patronising. Just pointing out they both said similar things. Now stop trying to stir up trouble and run along dear. There is that patronising enough. Bye

Re: Beswick : Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:13 pm  

Alan wrote:

Then again, he may have been suffering an achilles injury? Who knows, eh?!

Take something at face value?! Don't be ridiculous!

Re: Beswick : Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:48 pm  

mish wrote:

I'm replying and responding to others - and just because I'm a lone voice doesn't mean I'm wrong.

In "1984", Orwell defines an idiot as a minority of one. Probably best not to paint others as idiots. Just a THOUGHT!