Re: Francis Cummings : Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:40 am  

Bulliac wrote:

Yeah, I know that in law a verbal contract is worth the same as a written one, but proving you had one is the difficult bit if it goes to court...especially if the other lot deny it

I know, we should definitely all just thank our lucky stars that there are lawyers to fearlessly fight for truth and justice in such cases

[Bulliac]

Re: Francis Cummings : Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:24 pm  

If I'm honest FA, I feel that any 'proper' business man who leaves big loopholes, like not having the specific exit points properly written, line by line, into the contact, is a bit of a muppet and deserves what he gets. It's unfortunate when the resulting problem fall on his successors. That said, I still have enormous sympathy for FC, who was the victim of circumstances, not of his making, in so many ways.

Re: Francis Cummings : Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:40 pm  

FA can you please help my understanding of this by explaining why the High Court claim is for unfair dismissal, rather than breach of contract? Or have the media ( oh surely they never do that...) misrepresented FC's case? If there was a contract, then wouldnt the claim be for that, as that is the simplest easiest thing to demonstrate to a judge? - even a verbal one, as you point out. But it is unfair dismissal, which I thought was an issue for Employment Tribunals?

Re: Francis Cummings : Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:57 pm  

martinwildbull wrote:

FA can you please help my understanding of this by explaining why the High Court claim is for unfair dismissal, rather than breach of contract? Or have the media ( oh surely they never do that...) misrepresented FC's case? If there was a contract, then wouldnt the claim be for that, as that is the simplest easiest thing to demonstrate to a judge? - even a verbal one, as you point out. But it is unfair dismissal, which I thought was an issue for Employment Tribunals?

It isn't for unfair dismissal, which is a statutory breach. It's for wrongful dismissal, which is a breach of contract.

Wrongful dismissal claims can be heard in a Tribunal, but also in the County Court or High Court, depending on the amount being claimed. Franny's solicitors reportedly said his case is heading for the High Court, which means it is over £25K.

To be "wrongful", the employee must prove that the employer acted in breach of their contractual obligations in ending the employment, and that as a result the employee has suffered a loss.

In unfair dismissal cases the tribunal can award compensation, but that is not the case for wrongful dismissal, which is a simple question of what the employee lost. That would be whatever he was due under his contract. Including wages, perks, bonuses, pension contributions etc. But no compo.

I haven't checked the dates, but frommemory his contract was due to expire afer 3 years in Sept 2015. If that is so, then my fingers and toes suggest he was sacked less than 2 years from start of employment and so wouldn't be eligible for unfair dismissal anyway, but there's no qualifying period for wrongful dismissal.

Re: Francis Cummings : Fri Sep 19, 2014 7:46 am  

I think FC would have started his employment with the Bulls before April 2012 - so just needed one year to have the right to pursue unfair dismissal.

However putting aside the legal details I think most would agree that while in the end FC was not able to get the results from the team required he had stood by the club in some of the most difficult years in its history - and for this if nothing else deserves to be treated fairly by his former employer

[Bulliac]

Re: Francis Cummings : Fri Sep 19, 2014 9:44 am  

Neither was he responsible for the fact that a number of his key players cut and ran rather than be 'tuped'. It's sad it's come to all this, in truth.

Re: Francis Cummings : Fri Sep 19, 2014 9:49 am  

Bulliac wrote:

Neither was he responsible for the fact that a number of his key players cut and ran rather than be 'tuped'. It's sad it's come to all this, in truth.

Who knows? With a 'better' coach they might have stayed.

[Bulliac]

Re: Francis Cummings : Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:00 am  

tigertot wrote:

Who knows? With a 'better' coach they might have stayed.

Well, Carvell and Winterstein were two Franny brought to the club, so that argument doesn't really stack up there. They, and the others, quoted worries about finances going forward, their families coming first etc, of course they may have been being somewhat disingenuous..

Re: Francis Cummings : Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:18 am  

Northernrelic wrote:

I think FC would have started his employment with the Bulls before April 2012 - so just needed one year to have the right to pursue unfair dismissal.

Cummins was appointed head coach in September 2012 so I reckon it's 2 years.

I'm no employment law expert so don't claim it as gospel, but it was reported that Cummins had rejected a fresh contract offered by the new owners, and was there working for free, wasn't he? I suppose there are very interesting legal arguments possible, but on the face of it I'd say that there had been a clean break in his former employment.

Northernrelic wrote:

However putting aside the legal details I think most would agree that while in the end FC was not able to get the results from the team required he had stood by the club in some of the most difficult years in its history - and for this if nothing else deserves to be treated fairly by his former employer

I think we're all agreed on that up to a point, but playing devil's advocate, if contractually he isn't entitled to £50K (or whatever the figure claimed is) and if you were Marc Green, would you personally nevertheless reach for your chequebook and write him a cheque for fifty grand?

I have no clue who is right and who is wrong about the alleged early termination clause, but *IF* there is one, which he and the club agreed to, where is the unfairness?

Re: Francis Cummings : Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:53 am  

His employment rights would accrue from when he first went on the payroll as assistant coach which was I think before April 2012 when the entitlement period moved from one to two years.

Clearly I haven't seen his contract to know what the disputed clauses were, but even as a hard arsed accountant it does on occasion help the "brand" to be seen to be dealing fairly with your staff and ex-staff. I should add that I would not extend such generosity to Oz gits called Orford:)