Joey Barton - Is there a way back?

[pete 2,499]

I really don't think it works like that - ever... There is always a lot of discretion. No two employees have the same record nor exactly the same misconduct. There is no black and white about it.

 

As I have worked in Holland for the last 35 years I can only really talk about Holland and European rules. It is very hard to sack someone with immediate effect. There really has to be a crime for that like theft or assault. For normal sacking you normally have to have two written warnings for bad behaviour before they can sack you. I am not sure how it works in Britain but it can't be very different if they are following European rules.

[boabie 230]

As I have worked in Holland for the last 35 years I can only really talk about Holland and European rules. It is very hard to sack someone with immediate effect. There really has to be a crime for that like theft or assault. For normal sacking you normally have to have two written warnings for bad behaviour before they can sack you. I am not sure how it works in Britain but it can't be very different if they are following European rules.

 

Around 1980 I was offered a job at a steel making plant in the Netherlands. Please excuse the spelling, but a place called "Heerhogovliet" or similar.

[calscot 0]

There does have to be some level of consistency or the employee can claim victimisation. If you fine 2 people for betting then it becomes difficult to sack the third without being in a position where you would lose the tribunal case.

 

I agree that you can litigate against victimisation but not just because you were sacked and someone wasn't for vaguely similar misconduct. I'm pretty sure there is a lot of leeway with level of contrition, attitude towards management etc - that itself happens in court where a judge will adjust a sentence based on level of remorse. Or two different judges will give two different sentences.

 

You would really have to prove it's victimisation and not your attitude to your work. I'm pretty sure a person might get away with not being sacked for something if they are very contrite and apologetic and promise to behave in future, while another can be sacked if they are arrogant, lippy and unrepentant. And that's when it's exactly the same.

 

The Black and Barton cases are different - the latter has more than betting on his charge sheet and was already suspended before the betting came out. I think he'd have a very tough case to prove inconsistency or victimisation.

Edited October 10, 2016 by calscot

[calscot 0]

I always thought you can be sacked immediately for "gross misconduct". However, I think usually you get a bit of minimum severance, or gardening leave. I think footballers must be slightly different as they have a different style of contract and a lot will depend on the wording.

[calscot 0]

In any case, it will be moot as they will probably come to some deal out of court depending on the strengths of their cases.

[limeburner 0]

Some sort of compromise will surely need to be reached,for the benefit of both parties.

Edited October 10, 2016 by limeburner

[Bluedell 5,366]

I agree that you can litigate against victimisation but not just because you were sacked and someone wasn't for vaguely similar misconduct. I'm pretty sure there is a lot of leeway with level of contrition, attitude towards management etc - that itself happens in court where a judge will adjust a sentence based on level of remorse. Or two different judges will give two different sentences.

 

You would really have to prove it's victimisation and not your attitude to your work. I'm pretty sure a person might get away with not being sacked for something if they are very contrite and apologetic and promise to behave in future, while another can be sacked if they are arrogant, lippy and unrepentant. And that's when it's exactly the same.

 

It would be up to the club to prove that they had reasons for treating them differently. The whole lippy/apologetic thing wouldn't be that relevant as that sort of thing would not be relevant in an employment tribunal. If someone was lippy you would just have to give them a verbal warning.

 

The Black and Barton cases are different - the latter has more than betting on his charge sheet and was already suspended before the betting came out. I think he'd have a very tough case to prove inconsistency or victimisation.

If he's being sacked for betting on its own then the other issues wouldn't be relevant. The act would need to be looked at on its own.

 

If he's being sacked after being given 2 written warnings about other issues (and if Black was given a written warning) then it's a different matter. I doubt that Barton has had the verbal warning and 2 written warnings procedure served on him yet, so if the precedent that betting was due a written warning then he'd win his case.

[calscot 0]

It would be up to the club to prove that they had reasons for treating them differently. The whole lippy/apologetic thing wouldn't be that relevant as that sort of thing would not be relevant in an employment tribunal. If someone was lippy you would just have to give them a verbal warning.

 

I didn't mean just lippy, I included a lack of contrition, arrogance etc which pretty much indicates subordination. You might be right but it's hard to believe when it's highly relevant in sentencing for criminal charges. The point is that there is a case for reprieve to dismissal if a working relationship can be re-established between employee and employer, but not if it's irretrievably broken down.

 

If this were not the case then there would be a lot more sackings as an employer could not afford to be lenient at its discretion - and a lot more tribunals.

 

If he's being sacked for betting on its own then the other issues wouldn't be relevant. The act would need to be looked at on its own.

 

I doubt that would be the case as he was already suspended. The club would use everything they had to keep it as watertight as possible. As for the betting, we don't know all the details, and after the previous betting issues, I would assume the club policy has hardened on that score. We don't know, but it's very possible.

 

If he's being sacked after being given 2 written warnings about other issues (and if Black was given a written warning) then it's a different matter. I doubt that Barton has had the verbal warning and 2 written warnings procedure served on him yet,

 

I would personally surmise that he's been given a verbal or written warning for the first suspension and can't see him not getting a written one for the 3 week extension - something must have happened there. He's had a second extension and so you'd have to give some credence to the possibility that he's been through some kind of a disciplinary procedure.

 

so if the precedent that betting was due a written warning then he'd win his case.

 

Surely, there is some difference in the detail which could make a difference? I can't see how you can automatically equate them - and as said, club policy could have changed. Also each contract for each player is different.

 

There is so many things that could be different, I don't know how you can state that so strongly.

[alexscottislegend 2,103]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiOtO6v19DPAhXrCcAKHfBGBlYQFggfMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cheltenhamfestivals.com%2Fliterature%2Fwhats-on%2F2016%2Fjoey-barton-with-owen-jones%2F&usg=AFQjCNFOlqldunJSsFjvJlK9I5OhuBv2Cg&sig2=9FWV4A_2ftjdGptmoeChzg

 

Going to be speaking to Owen Jones live at the Cheltenham Book Festival. Be interesting to see if he has similar political views. Cannot fathom how such an intelligent man can lose his cool so easily.

[alexscottislegend 2,103]

In that twitter feed I just posted someone claimed that he said to Halliday that his "Son was older than Sevco." wtf?