|
Post by Lobster on Mar 21, 2018 10:17:26 GMT
Unfair dismissal? The bloke was completely incompetant and was killing the club! Being incompetent is not grounds for immediate dismissal without pay. The club would have to deem him to have committed gross misconduct. You could argue the case if you want, but it seems a tenuous one and I think the last thing the club needs at the moment is a legal wrangle over employee payments.
|
|
|
Post by Lobster on Mar 21, 2018 10:19:12 GMT
Personally, I saw exactly why the position of CEO was required at the time, it made complete sense to have a central full time figurehead for the business. We however, just got the completely wrong man. As well as that, I feel he was also given far too much free rein and the board did not seem to be reviewing what he did or holding him to any account. The 'wrong man' wouldn't have been the problem it was if others had been a little more proactive and diligent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2018 12:17:57 GMT
Maybe that bully actually was the only one who wanted to stand up to him and question him over his commitment of CEO
if i was in that position MM was in i'd be out looking to bring some sort of revenue in not sit at the desk all day waiting for a phone call to go out to meetings
once he's fully been paid then this line with him has to be drawn to an end he's left now he's done the damage and it's our job to restore the cracks
|
|
|
Post by billyw on Mar 21, 2018 16:10:23 GMT
Please explain how the club could have been 'facing a claim of unfair dismissal ' when a) the post was made redundant and b) McGuire had not been employed for 2 years so could not pursue an unfair dismissal claim in any case. He'd not been employed for two years hence he was not entitled to any statuary redundancy pay, he has, however served his notice. The poster above suggested that he would have got rid of him without paying him his notice period, to which he is entitled, unless you want to effectively sack the bloke. Sorry but you said the club could have been facing a claim for unfair dismissal, I'm saying a claim for unfair dismissal couldnt have been brought as Maguire hadn't been here for two years. I appreciate he is entitled to his contracted period of notice but to claim we could have been facing a claim for unfair dismissal is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jb on Mar 21, 2018 16:59:18 GMT
He'd not been employed for two years hence he was not entitled to any statuary redundancy pay, he has, however served his notice. The poster above suggested that he would have got rid of him without paying him his notice period, to which he is entitled, unless you want to effectively sack the bloke. Sorry but you said the club could have been facing a claim for unfair dismissal, I'm saying a claim for unfair dismissal couldnt have been brought as Maguire hadn't been here for two years. I appreciate he is entitled to his contracted period of notice but to claim we could have been facing a claim for unfair dismissal is wrong. Yes, we should’ve sacked him on the grounds of incompetency and he’d have had no recourse at a Tribunal because he’d not got the two year statutory period. In fact why wasn’t this done? Was a Settlement Agreement drafted and thus meaning we didn’t have to pay the full 13 weeks plus accrued holidays? That can be the only reason. Thirteen grand on a shower of shite like Maguire is such a waste of precious money in these hard times A full enquiry should be carried out regarding the Maguire debacle is needed if we are to learn from his reign of absolute incompetent destruction. A report is needed for all fans to see and lessons can be learned.
|
|
|
Post by Al on Mar 21, 2018 17:16:28 GMT
He'd not been employed for two years hence he was not entitled to any statuary redundancy pay, he has, however served his notice. The poster above suggested that he would have got rid of him without paying him his notice period, to which he is entitled, unless you want to effectively sack the bloke. Sorry but you said the club could have been facing a claim for unfair dismissal, I'm saying a claim for unfair dismissal couldnt have been brought as Maguire hadn't been here for two years. I appreciate he is entitled to his contracted period of notice but to claim we could have been facing a claim for unfair dismissal is wrong. My post was in response to Oaks Blue who said he would have just got rid of him without any pay. Which would mean getting rid and not paying his statuary notice, which you can't do unless you sack him and then risk taking the club into the courts for unfair dismissal. Quite how that would work though, would criticism of the bloke by CFU members (the owners) class as a case for constructive dismissal?
|
|
|
Post by Al on Mar 21, 2018 17:24:49 GMT
Either way hes not been at the club for the past six weeks.
That's worth a drink
|
|
|
Post by billyw on Mar 21, 2018 19:10:50 GMT
Sorry but you said the club could have been facing a claim for unfair dismissal, I'm saying a claim for unfair dismissal couldnt have been brought as Maguire hadn't been here for two years. I appreciate he is entitled to his contracted period of notice but to claim we could have been facing a claim for unfair dismissal is wrong. Yes, we should’ve sacked him on the grounds of incompetency and he’d have had no recourse at a Tribunal because he’d not got the two year statutory period. In fact why wasn’t this done? Was a Settlement Agreement drafted and thus meaning we didn’t have to pay the full 13 weeks plus accrued holidays? That can be the only reason. Thirteen grand on a shower of shite like Maguire is such a waste of precious money in these hard times A full enquiry should be carried out regarding the Maguire debacle is needed if we are to learn from his reign of absolute incompetent destruction. A report is needed for all fans to see and lessons can be learned. I agree. The responses on this thread suggest there is a lack of knowledge on employment law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2018 21:52:40 GMT
We had to give him a weeks notice, and any accrued holidays owed to him . So lets be pragmatic and reasonable and offer him 2 week wages and our best wishes. 13 weeks pay is ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by billyw on Mar 21, 2018 21:57:58 GMT
We had to give him a weeks notice, and any accrued holidays owed to him . So lets be pragmatic and reasonable and offer him 2 week wages and our best wishes. 13 weeks pay is ludicrous. as with many senior appointments he probably had a 3 months notice of termination in his contract of employment, so unless we were dismissing him for gross misconduct, we were duty bound to honour it or be sued for breach of contract.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2018 22:04:11 GMT
You could well be right Billy, the one week is the minimum for an employee with more than one month, but less that 24 months. But as you say he may well have had terms and conditions above and beyond that. Either way its either a lesson for the new board, make any new contracts performance related, or don't write in 3 month notice periods prior to 2 years service.
|
|
|
Post by peterkaysock on Mar 22, 2018 13:01:13 GMT
I think questions should of been asked about his appointment in the first place, the bloke left a trail of destruction where ever he has been. Who appointed him given his previous history I would like to ask.
I don't understand why we actually appointed him.
|
|
|
Post by Hannibal on Mar 22, 2018 13:26:04 GMT
I think questions should of been asked about his appointment in the first place, the bloke left a trail of destruction where ever he has been. Who appointed him given his previous history I would like to ask. I don't understand why we actually appointed him. He was brought in to increase our income, probably at a cost of £100k in wages and perks, so he would have had to bring in more than that to justify his existence. Maybe he did, but I doubt it. Not sure what his input to the McCarthy contract extension was, but I believe it was significant and that brought us to the brink. He did, however, bring the circus to the Deva.
|
|
|
Post by Hannibal on Mar 22, 2018 13:29:11 GMT
Sorry but you said the club could have been facing a claim for unfair dismissal, I'm saying a claim for unfair dismissal couldnt have been brought as Maguire hadn't been here for two years. I appreciate he is entitled to his contracted period of notice but to claim we could have been facing a claim for unfair dismissal is wrong. Yes, we should’ve sacked him on the grounds of incompetency and he’d have had no recourse at a Tribunal because he’d not got the two year statutory period. In fact why wasn’t this done? Was a Settlement Agreement drafted and thus meaning we didn’t have to pay the full 13 weeks plus accrued holidays? That can be the only reason. Thirteen grand on a shower of shite like Maguire is such a waste of precious money in these hard times A full enquiry should be carried out regarding the Maguire debacle is needed if we are to learn from his reign of absolute incompetent destruction. A report is needed for all fans to see and lessons can be learned. We got rid of Pat McCluskey without any bother, but was never really sure why we did.
|
|
|
Post by everhopeful on Mar 23, 2018 1:03:06 GMT
I still think that all those who were on the Board at the time of his employment should be dispensed with forthwith.
|
|
|
Post by Lobster on Mar 23, 2018 8:19:58 GMT
Yes, we should’ve sacked him on the grounds of incompetency and he’d have had no recourse at a Tribunal because he’d not got the two year statutory period. In fact why wasn’t this done? Was a Settlement Agreement drafted and thus meaning we didn’t have to pay the full 13 weeks plus accrued holidays? That can be the only reason. Thirteen grand on a shower of shite like Maguire is such a waste of precious money in these hard times A full enquiry should be carried out regarding the Maguire debacle is needed if we are to learn from his reign of absolute incompetent destruction. A report is needed for all fans to see and lessons can be learned. I agree. The responses on this thread suggest there is a lack of knowledge on employment law. You can't sack somebody on a contract, immediately and without pay, simply because they weren't very good at their job. That's classed as the employee and the role not being suitable. If everyone could be sacked instantly because their employer didn't think they were performing well, this would be completely abused and hundreds of thousands of people would have a real stain on their CV. He wasn't someone on a zero hours contract at Sports Direct, he was CEO of a semi-professional football club. A position like that will likely come with a three-month notice period (and that will work both ways, he'd have had to give three months' notice to the club if he'd wanted to leave). Also, bear in mind that we haven't made HIM redundant, we've made his position redundant. I believe that if you do that, not only do you have to pay their notice as per their contract, but you have to demonstrate that you have tried to offer them a suitable alternative role within the company. You can't sack somebody "on the grounds of incompetency". You've given them a job and it's down to you to get the best out of them. You can only sack someone without pay if they are guilty of gross misconduct - things like theft, violence, gross negligence. This is pretty serious and you would have to have solid, clear grounds on which to do it. You can't just say "well we're doing crap on the pitch and have lost money, so you're clearly guilty of gross misconduct." If we had done that, I'm pretty sure Maguire would have fought it, and as I said, do we really want a court case on our hands at the moment? Just pay the guy off and accept it as a bad decision.
|
|
|
Post by jb on Mar 23, 2018 11:33:26 GMT
I agree. The responses on this thread suggest there is a lack of knowledge on employment law. You can't sack somebody on a contract, immediately and without pay, simply because they weren't very good at their job. That's classed as the employee and the role not being suitable. If everyone could be sacked instantly because their employer didn't think they were performing well, this would be completely abused and hundreds of thousands of people would have a real stain on their CV. He wasn't someone on a zero hours contract at Sports Direct, he was CEO of a semi-professional football club. A position like that will likely come with a three-month notice period (and that will work both ways, he'd have had to give three months' notice to the club if he'd wanted to leave). Also, bear in mind that we haven't made HIM redundant, we've made his position redundant. I believe that if you do that, not only do you have to pay their notice as per their contract, but you have to demonstrate that you have tried to offer them a suitable alternative role within the company. You can't sack somebody "on the grounds of incompetency". You've given them a job and it's down to you to get the best out of them. You can only sack someone without pay if they are guilty of gross misconduct - things like theft, violence, gross negligence. This is pretty serious and you would have to have solid, clear grounds on which to do it. You can't just say "well we're doing crap on the pitch and have lost money, so you're clearly guilty of gross misconduct." If we had done that, I'm pretty sure Maguire would have fought it, and as I said, do we really want a court case on our hands at the moment? Just pay the guy off and accept it as a bad decision. You can sack someone on the grounds of incompentcy if they’ve got less than two years service. Thanks to the likes of “Dave” Cameron people who take a new job are working a two year probation period. Pay them notice and holidays and that’s it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 11:43:25 GMT
"You can't sack somebody "on the grounds of incompetency". You've given them a job and it's down to you to get the best out of them. You can only sack someone without pay if they are guilty of gross misconduct - things like theft, violence, gross negligence. "Yes you can, and it happens all the time. You are perfectly entitled to sack someone if they’re incapable of doing their job to the required standard, or unwilling to do their job properly and to the required standard.
|
|
|
Post by Lobster on Mar 23, 2018 11:53:02 GMT
You can't sack somebody on a contract, immediately and without pay, simply because they weren't very good at their job. That's classed as the employee and the role not being suitable. If everyone could be sacked instantly because their employer didn't think they were performing well, this would be completely abused and hundreds of thousands of people would have a real stain on their CV. He wasn't someone on a zero hours contract at Sports Direct, he was CEO of a semi-professional football club. A position like that will likely come with a three-month notice period (and that will work both ways, he'd have had to give three months' notice to the club if he'd wanted to leave). Also, bear in mind that we haven't made HIM redundant, we've made his position redundant. I believe that if you do that, not only do you have to pay their notice as per their contract, but you have to demonstrate that you have tried to offer them a suitable alternative role within the company. You can't sack somebody "on the grounds of incompetency". You've given them a job and it's down to you to get the best out of them. You can only sack someone without pay if they are guilty of gross misconduct - things like theft, violence, gross negligence. This is pretty serious and you would have to have solid, clear grounds on which to do it. You can't just say "well we're doing crap on the pitch and have lost money, so you're clearly guilty of gross misconduct." If we had done that, I'm pretty sure Maguire would have fought it, and as I said, do we really want a court case on our hands at the moment? Just pay the guy off and accept it as a bad decision. You can sack someone on the grounds of incompentcy if they’ve got less than two years service. Thanks to the likes of “Dave” Cameron people who take a new job are working a two year probation period. Pay them notice and holidays and that’s it. Three months is his notice. That's what I'm trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by poolepirate on Mar 23, 2018 13:28:23 GMT
not sure why JB but when you mentioned dave cameron in your post didnt think of the PM thought of the centre forward who used to play for the blues many years ago you would have to be of a certain age to remember him (in the compo/cleggy foggy age group)
|
|
|
Post by billyw on Mar 23, 2018 14:50:18 GMT
I agree. The responses on this thread suggest there is a lack of knowledge on employment law. You can't sack somebody on a contract, immediately and without pay, simply because they weren't very good at their job. That's classed as the employee and the role not being suitable. If everyone could be sacked instantly because their employer didn't think they were performing well, this would be completely abused and hundreds of thousands of people would have a real stain on their CV. He wasn't someone on a zero hours contract at Sports Direct, he was CEO of a semi-professional football club. A position like that will likely come with a three-month notice period (and that will work both ways, he'd have had to give three months' notice to the club if he'd wanted to leave). Also, bear in mind that we haven't made HIM redundant, we've made his position redundant. I believe that if you do that, not only do you have to pay their notice as per their contract, but you have to demonstrate that you have tried to offer them a suitable alternative role within the company. You can't sack somebody "on the grounds of incompetency". You've given them a job and it's down to you to get the best out of them. You can only sack someone without pay if they are guilty of gross misconduct - things like theft, violence, gross negligence. This is pretty serious and you would have to have solid, clear grounds on which to do it. You can't just say "well we're doing crap on the pitch and have lost money, so you're clearly guilty of gross misconduct." If we had done that, I'm pretty sure Maguire would have fought it, and as I said, do we really want a court case on our hands at the moment? Just pay the guy off and accept it as a bad decision. Of course you can sack someone for being incompetent although there are stages which an employer has to go through. As regards redundancy, it is always the position that is declared redundant although obviously the person in that position becomes redundant as a consequence. As far as Maguire is concerned his position has been made redundant so he is clearly entitled to his notice period as stated in his contract. Had he been sacked for incompetence, the club would have had to give him warnings and chance to improve and he still would have been entitled to notice. He would not have been unable to claim unfair dismissal because he had less than two years service. You are right about gross misconduct where an employee can be summarily dismissed without notice.
|
|