RoyMac5 Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 1 minute ago, ramit said: Uhm, so if he had accepted the new contract, he would not have been guilty of gross misconduct? Yes he would, but not sacked. The Scarlet Pimpernel and jono 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramit Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said: Yes he would, but not sacked. So he was sacked because he refused the new contract. No getting around that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 Just now, ramit said: So he was sacked because he refused the new contract. No getting around that. No he was sacked because he was found guilty of gross misconduct. He would have been offered the opportunity to stay under the terms of a new contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramit Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said: No he was sacked because he was found guilty of gross misconduct. He would have been offered the opportunity to stay under the terms of a new contract. He was offered a new contract, he refused that offer and was then sacked. Granted, the offer was made in spite of his gross misconduct, but because he refused it, that became the reason he was sacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamontheMoor Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 9 hours ago, Srg said: Awful, poorly written without a proper ending. Standard DET....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 25 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said: Yes he would, but not sacked. Correct Roy. All three guilty of gross misconduct. Only one rendered himself unfit for work as a result hence only one sacked after refusing a reduced contract. jono, RoyMac5, i-Ram and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 5 hours ago, Tyler Durden said: That's actually not true though. He has the same protected employment rights as any other worker. Not quite true. Although they have the same rights whilst employed, the length of the contract has specific implications when dealing with fair dismissals. The contractual situation makes a material difference where the employees ability to do the job has been impinged to a point where they cannot physically do their job to the end of the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jono Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 9 hours ago, ramit said: So he was sacked because he refused the new contract. No getting around that. No. He was guilty of misconduct. Instead of being sacked, he was punished by being offered a reduced terms because he was unable to play and thus fulfil his old contract . He chose not to accept that punishment. i-Ram, The Scarlet Pimpernel, Carnero and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 9 hours ago, ramit said: He was offered a new contract, he refused that offer and was then sacked. Granted, the offer was made in spite of his gross misconduct, but because he refused it, that became the reason he was sacked. It's the process that matters. So there was an investigation, he was found guilty of gross misconduct and could have been sacked straightaway. But he was offered a reduced contract which was refused, hence he was then sacked. The Scarlet Pimpernel 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewe Ram Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 He was offered the chance to give back to the club, get support with rehab and still get paid. The other two accepted that as a punishment, Keogh didn’t so out he goes. Fair enough to me. The Scarlet Pimpernel 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 7 minutes ago, Ewe Ram said: He was offered the chance to give back to the club, get support with rehab and still get paid. The other two accepted that as a punishment, Keogh didn’t so out he goes. Fair enough to me. The other two were not asked to take a wage reduction. I can only go on what's in the club statement, so their actual reasoning to Keogh may have been different, but I can't work out why they chose to go with the "gross misconduct" line. If they had been more honest and stipulated that the reduced salary or firing was due to him no longer being able to fulfill the terms of his contract, then fair enough. They didn't do that though. They have decided to fire one party for gross misconduct in an incident that involved three employees, treating the other two differently even though their conduct appears to have been worse than Keogh's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Anon said: I can only go on what's in the club statement, so their actual reasoning to Keogh may have been different, but I can't work out why they chose to go with the "gross misconduct" line. If they had been more honest and stipulated that the reduced salary or firing was due to him no longer being able to fulfill the terms of his contract, then fair enough. They didn't do that though. They have decided to fire one party for gross misconduct in an incident that involved three employees, treating the other two differently even though their conduct appears to have been worse than Keogh's. No, the gross misconduct for Keogh came from not being able to fulfil his contract, and his role as Captain, the other two still can. Edited November 8, 2019 by RoyMac5 LeedsCityRam 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 7 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said: No, the gross misconduct for Keogh came from not being able to fulfil his contract, and his role as Captain, the other two still can. We can only hope the employment tribunal will interpret the term "gross misconduct" in a similarly broad one eyed fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberram Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 Not sure if its been mentioned (too many posts to go back through), but what was the outcome to Keogh and the incident at Forests ground earlier in the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coneheadjohn Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 Derbys next club captain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheresOnlyWanChope Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 10 hours ago, RoyMac5 said: Yes he would, but not sacked. Gross misconduct almost always will result in sacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsbottom Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 I'm not sure this subject has warranted 80 odd pages... Steve How Hard?, GboroRam, RamontheMoor and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 I think people are presuming gross misconduct has to result in termination. That's at the discretion of the club. If they offered a way that Keogh could avoid that, he had an option. My experience was different but effectively I was brought in front of HR and told, your behaviour will be investigated and you could be found to have conduct resulting in gross misconduct. That has a potential result in termination. Alternatively you can take this money on offer and leave today. I could have stayed and fought for the role but that would have been down to me to have argued my case. I had little confidence it wasn't just a stitch-up, so I took the money. I'm sure any employer would have the right to offer something similar in terms of a different contract. Your conduct will be investigated and there is potential for it to be seen as gross misconduct, which may mean termination. Alternatively you can agree to new terms and we will not pursue the gross misconduct issue at all. Keogh chose the first option and, surprise surprise, it was a termination that resulted. RandomAccessMemory, The Scarlet Pimpernel and rammieib 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsbottom Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 21 minutes ago, Van Cone De Head said: Derbys next club captain. Paul 'The Wrecking' Crew is too good for this club... Coneheadjohn 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted November 8, 2019 Share Posted November 8, 2019 7 minutes ago, GboroRam said: My experience was different but effectively I was brought in front of HR and told, your behaviour will be investigated and you could be found to have conduct resulting in gross misconduct. That has a potential result in termination. Alternatively you can take this money on offer and leave today. I could have stayed and fought for the role but that would have been down to me to have argued my case. I had little confidence it wasn't just a stitch-up, so I took the money. Sticking with your example though, what if the incident being investigated also involved two colleagues committing a more serious offence who you knew weren't presented with the same ultimatum? Would you not have a case for constructive dismissal or unfair treatment? I am assuming that the gross misconduct involves the crash. If it involves a separate incident, then this doesn't apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account.
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now