Three Bears call for Barry Leach to be sacked immediately

[BlueMazza 0]

Because any tribunal would look at the situation and find that the statement was made in confidence and he had never been warned by the company previously and find in his favour.

 

I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying I agree with it but that is the way employment tribunals work. Over 90% they will find in favour of the employee. It's just the way things work unfortunately.

 

Can he take Rangers to a tribunal though? He's been employed less than two years.

[Bluedell 5,343]

Can he take Rangers to a tribunal though? He's been employed less than two years.

 

Good point, although it doesn't eliminate the risk as far as I'm aware, depending on his contract.

[Scott7 5,184]

The "happy time" years of ITs are long gone unless it's a question of discrimination. If a new board goes through the correct procedures they've probably got him bang to rights.

 

What worries me is a clause in his contract that gives him a bag of gold on termination for whatever reason.

[buster. 4,808]

In a private conversation that you specifically ask to be off the record, and something that could genuinely be your opinion, and they ended up walking away without a pay-off? I very much doubt that.

 

I think you have to consider the lead-up to, reasons for and general 'political situation' surrounding the meeting with the RFB, where Leach either made a grave misjudgement to say what he did or he did so quite prepared to run the 'risk'.

 

By expressly asking for the remark not to be included in any Minutes or Public Record of the meeting, he flagged up that he himself immediately knew that it was apparently not one he'd like to be quoted with in public. He did this at the sametime as being on one side of an increasingly entrenched corporate battle where the RFB had made it clear they no longer had confidence in the RIFC officebearers and battles are often where the conventions are put aside in the general interest (eg.whistleblowers).

 

He also did this knowing full well that much of the DL&BL input to the meeting was weak and was never going to come near to putting in an order to buy materials, never mind re-building bridges. In fact some of it sounded to me as if the meeting was only ever going to produce more negative headlines for the RIFC board and that they had no real intentions to build any bridges (Note opening from DL).

 

This coming hard on the heels of a series of what could be termed as RIFC OG's, many of which were so 'rifle to foot' that had it been on the field of play, the bookies may have investigated for deliberate foul play.

 

 

IMO Leach has made a serious error of judgement to say what he did regardless of any mitigating circumstances he would point to. One in that he has either failed to grasp the strategic political situation or is actually carrying out orders within a strategy coming from Ashley that seems to delight in poking the support with a sharp stick whenever possible...................................This is before you even consider the remark itself.

 

 

As for industrial tribunals, I simply don't know how they work or what they would be prepared to consider as evidence.

I think there is a wider case to be made for sacking of both DL and BL as employees but this might be complex, costly and not without risk. A cleaner and immediate break may be better with legal energies channeled towards onerous contracts where possible.

Edited February 23, 2015 by buster.

[Bluedell 5,343]

As for industrial tribunals, I simply don't know how they work or what they would be prepared to consider as evidence.

 

Employee tribunals won't take into account most of what you've said. They almost always take the side of the employee. The circumstances of saying something that's your opinion about somebody that has no connection with the club wouldn't be sufficient in the eyes of a tribunal. They wouldn't take account of anything other than the incident itself.

 

Given no action would be taken by the current board and the 3Bs have no connection with the forthcoming EGM, anything subsequent to that would be looked upon as vindictive.

 

Tribunals are crazy and don't take a common sense approach. I just can't see one taking the side of a new board on this and he'll get his full pay-off in line with his contract.

[Zappa 0]

I'm with Bluedell on this because there doesn't look like a solid case for dismissal given the circumstances.

 

As forlan said regarding the minutes, they weren't a transcript.

 

It doesn't look as though there's any tangible evidence other than witness testimony.

[buster. 4,808]

Employee tribunals won't take into account most of what you've said. They almost always take the side of the employee. The circumstances of saying something that's your opinion about somebody that has no connection with the club wouldn't be sufficient in the eyes of a tribunal. They wouldn't take account of anything other than the incident itself.

 

Given no action would be taken by the current board and the 3Bs have no connection with the forthcoming EGM, anything subsequent to that would be looked upon as vindictive.

 

Tribunals are crazy and don't take a common sense approach. I just can't see one taking the side of a new board on this and he'll get his full pay-off in line with his contract.

 

Thank's for that BD !

 

I think this would come under the category of 'financial hits' that would have to be taken and money allocated to lawyers would be better spent looking into the circumstances surrounding the onerous contracts and subsequent revenue streams.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

they shouldn't be paid off at all.

 

put them on gardening leave and stop them working for ashley for months during their notice.

[Dragonfly Trumpeter 50]

Employee tribunals won't take into account most of what you've said. They almost always take the side of the employee. The circumstances of saying something that's your opinion about somebody that has no connection with the club wouldn't be sufficient in the eyes of a tribunal. They wouldn't take account of anything other than the incident itself.

 

Given no action would be taken by the current board and the 3Bs have no connection with the forthcoming EGM, anything subsequent to that would be looked upon as vindictive.

 

Tribunals are crazy and don't take a common sense approach. I just can't see one taking the side of a new board on this and he'll get his full pay-off in line with his contract.

 

If they have no connection whilst owning 20% of the company, how many more shares do you think they would need to buy to be connected?

[stewarty 1,876]

It just seems to me to be part of the PR war. We all know that Leach and Llambias wouldn't hang around if Ashley was no longer in control, and we wouldn't want them to either.

 

This just keeps the momentum up in terms of anti-Ashley/ Board press coverage.

 

Level5 PR earning their fees, essentially.