Official Statement regarding Gus Poyet on Website NOW *merged*

[SIMMO SAYS]

But the Albion isn't Gus's house, as the current proceedings make very clear.

Too much bad blood now whether he turns up or not----only one outcome---money will change hands one way or the other.

 

[itszamora]

I was flamed on another thread by saying that Poyet would do all he could to f*ck the club up. I was proved to be right. The thing is when you call it right those people melt into the background and do not have the decency to admit you may have had a point. That is NSC always ready to flame but never with the good grace to admit it when you called something right. I stand by my earlier post and think I nailed it in that post. Feel free to believe what you want.

Where have you been proved right? How is contesting a disciplinary action (as I think it's reasonable to infer that Gus is doing) "doing all he can to f*ck up the club?"

 

[Man of Harveys]

As someone else has posted - the club aren't even following their own procedures.

My admittedly-limited understanding of employment law and procedure is that, unless the employer follows the very strictly laid-down procedures correctly when disciplining an employee, then the employer has absolutely no case.

 

[B.W.]

Let's look at the FACTS.

The Club concluded its internal investigations on 13 June. Gus Poyet has now been presented with the Club's conclusions. This does not mean that the investigation has been completed. That will only be the case, once the employee has had the opportunity to consider the Club's case and respond. The conclusion of the investigations will therefore be after the end of the meeting that will take place on 20 June. In other words, the meeting on 20 June is part of the investigation.

It will then be up to whoever is conducting the Disciplinary Meeting to reach those conclusions and decide what action is appropriate. This might be dismissal. Or it might be something else.

If the decision is taken to dismiss, the employee has a right to appeal against the decision and the appeal must be considered by a panel that does not include the individual who has taken the decision. Sufficient time needs to be provided to allow for the preparation of an appeal. Only once the Appeal Meeting has been held can dismissal be confirmed.

Anyone who imagines that the whole issue can be resolved with a dismissal confirmed by Friday is, quite simply, WRONG.

Failure to follow this procedure will result in an Employment Tribunal concluding that wrongful dismissal has occurred - even if it finds that the dismissal is fair.

Now that DOES make sense. Thank you for that LB.

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

Yes, that's obviously exactly the same as a dispute with one's employer.

So you agree with me then

 

[kevtherev]

You would have thought Poyet would send an e-mail to everyone at his club, telling them what time is convenient for himself to have the meeting. Not the board telling him, how inconsiderate of them. Did they not know he was on the box last night telling everyone he has done no wrong and that's the way he is......word to Gus,,,"if I was you i'd stop telling everyone what your like and how honest you are. If you want another job in this country".

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I was flamed on another thread by saying that Poyet would do all he could to f*ck the club up. I was proved to be right.

My hope is that the Club won't be found to have failed to deliver a fairly conducted dismissal process. That WOULD f*ck the Club up. Expensively.

 

[joeinbrighton]

Whatever Poyet has or has not done, he is 100% well within rights to request adjournment to his hearing in this situation. The club only concluded their investigation at the end of last week and have subsequently written to him explaining their findings and the context of the disciplinary charges against him. Poyet has supposedly only returned from holiday yesterday (when he promptly headed up to Salford) and if the LMA's statement is to be believed, the findings run to nearly 500 pages. Poyet and his representatives clearly dispute the findings and so need some time to sit down and read through them and to possibly prepare a response ahead of the meeting.

As understandable as it is that Brighton wanted business concluded ASAP and what seems, one way or another, an inevitable outcome, expecting Poyet and his representative to attend a hearing one working day after the report has been completed and while the accused has been on holiday and the representative has been out of the office is optimistic to say the least. In any disciplinary proceeding, the person who has been suspended is always told in writing that they are allowed to bring a representative to support them (usually, as in this case, a steward from their trade union) and if that representative is not available on the date set, it is perfectly acceptable to request an adjournment so long as the intended rep can attend on another date within one week.

Given that Poyet will be answering in what is not his native tongue, it will be all the more important that he has representation when his hearing takes place otherwise it is unlikely that a fair hearing will take place. His representative I think was the CEO of the League Managers' Association and so they will be well used to cases of this nature and by the sound of it, he is available to attend on Thursday, so the hearing can then take place and once that happens, Brighton will be able to make their decision on any wrongdoing later that day or by the end of the following day.

 

[bristolseagull]

My hope is that the Club won't be found to have failed to deliver a fairly conducted dismissal process. That WOULD f*ck the Club up. Expensively.

Well not really, unfair dismissal damages are capped...

https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-staff/unfair-dismissals

 

[bristolseagull]

In the ET I might add, no cap in the county court.

 

[kevtherev]

My hope is that the Club won't be found to have failed to deliver a fairly conducted dismissal process. That WOULD f*ck the Club up. Expensively.

I would be amazed if a man as professional as Paul Barber, with his track record and history hasn't delivered a 100% water tight case.

 

[El Sid]

Is it possible to have a reasoned debate without pathetic swipes ? I thought not.

No point in debating drivel. You talk a lot of it.
The facts are clear - there are few - except those stated by the club and the LMA.
Everything else is pure conjecture. Something which you like to indulge in regularly.
If and when we know all the facts I'll happily debate them with you and anybody else.

 

[supaseagull]

Why are people automatically believing what the club are publishing and being judge, jury and executioner...Have some of you not learnt from the past with the likes of Bellotti and his spin machine?

I'm not defending Poyet, however, I do not believe this is as black and white as the club have led us to believe.

If your employers were finding ways to get rid of you and had suspended you for reasons you do not believe to be accurate and that were not in line with company policy, or employees rights then you would seek representation from either a union or you would seek legal advice, which clearly Poyet has done and all in line with his rights as an employee within the EU.

The employers MUST give reasonable time in which for the employee to provide satisfactory representation to defend his or her rights in the event that a possible termination of contract is going to take place. Again, basic employee rights.

It's all very well a club statement being issued to intimate that Poyet did not appear at the hearing. However, it's clear from the statement from the LMA that they feel that Poyet has a good case to defend himself and its also clear that Poyet and his representatives informed the club that due to annual leave, their client did not have satisfactory time to defend himself of the charges.

 

[abc]

Let's look at the FACTS.

The Club concluded its internal investigations on 13 June. Gus Poyet has now been presented with the Club's conclusions. This does not mean that the investigation has been completed. That will only be the case, once the employee has had the opportunity to consider the Club's case and respond. The conclusion of the investigations will therefore be after the end of the meeting that will take place on 20 June. In other words, the meeting on 20 June is part of the investigation.

It will then be up to whoever is conducting the Disciplinary Meeting to reach those conclusions and decide what action is appropriate. This might be dismissal. Or it might be something else.

If the decision is taken to dismiss, the employee has a right to appeal against the decision and the appeal must be considered by a panel that does not include the individual who has taken the decision. Sufficient time needs to be provided to allow for the preparation of an appeal. Only once the Appeal Meeting has been held can dismissal be confirmed.

Anyone who imagines that the whole issue can be resolved with a dismissal confirmed by Friday is, quite simply, WRONG.

Failure to follow this procedure will result in an Employment Tribunal concluding that wrongful dismissal has occurred - even if it finds that the dismissal is fair.

This is quite correct.

If an employee wants to leave a job, for whatever reason, all he/she has to do is to give the requisite notice in their contract of employment. However if the employer wants them to leave then all the above procedures which are not only incredibly lengthy but are a minefield in which only the employer can get blown up in, have to be followed.

 

[B.W.]

But the disciplinary committee potentially can immediately consider the findings, with an announcement within 24 hours I would suggest. As you say it's the appeals process that may take longer, though presumably an employee could be on 'gardening leave' during that time?

I presume this is what will happen. Gus found guilty of misconduct. He'll appeal, but meanwhile we will be moving forward as a club again (finally).

 

[Bob!]

I would give it a higher priority than Gus has. Wouldn't you?

Not if I thought the only aim of the whole process was to sack me!

 

[Gordon Smith's Paperboy]

Whatever Poyet has or has not done, he is 100% well within rights to request adjournment to his hearing in this situation. The club only concluded their investigation at the end of last week and have subsequently written to him explaining their findings and the context of the disciplinary charges against him. Poyet has supposedly only returned from holiday yesterday (when he promptly headed up to Salford) and if the LMA's statement is to be believed, the findings run to nearly 500 pages. Poyet and his representatives clearly dispute the findings and so need some time to sit down and read through them and to possibly prepare a response ahead of the meeting.

As understandable as it is that Brighton wanted business concluded ASAP and what seems, one way or another, an inevitable outcome, expecting Poyet and his representative to attend a hearing one working day after the report has been completed and while the accused has been on holiday and the representative has been out of the office is optimistic to say the least. In any disciplinary proceeding, the person who has been suspended is always told in writing that they are allowed to bring a representative to support them (usually, as in this case, a steward from their trade union) and if that representative is not available on the date set, it is perfectly acceptable to request an adjournment so long as the intended rep can attend on another date within one week.

Given that Poyet will be answering in what is not his native tongue, it will be all the more important that he has representation when his hearing takes place otherwise it is unlikely that a fair hearing will take place. His representative I think was the CEO of the League Managers' Association and so they will be well used to cases of this nature and by the sound of it, he is available to attend on Thursday, so the hearing can then take place and once that happens, Brighton will be able to make their decision on any wrongdoing later that day or by the end of the following day.

The club was also well within its right to call a meeting on the employee's first day back at work. If they had waited and called it for Thursday the date could have been put back another five days

 

[Lady Bracknell]

I was flamed on another thread by saying that Poyet would do all he could to f*ck the club up. I was proved to be right.

Expecting the club to follow proper procedures is not evidence of anyone trying to "**** the club up". Wouldn't you expect to get a fair hearing if you were in the same circumstances?

 

[bristolseagull]

I would be amazed if a man as professional as Paul Barber, with his track record and history hasn't delivered a 100% water tight case.

No such thing chap, trust me, I'm a litigator.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

In the ET I might add, no cap in the county court.

I doubt this will go to an ET - this will be taken all the way as a contractual dispute.