- Moderator
- #1
http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,8026454-23209,00.html
I hope he takes them to court.
The last warning was a joke IMO.
I hope he takes them to court.
The last warning was a joke IMO.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 7 - Pride Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Anderson sacked
- Thread starter Aucklander
- Start date
- Tagged users None
John Gibbs was saying he'd most probably be taking the Sharks to court.
This gives a slight clue
This gives a slight clue
- Banned
- #3
i feel sorry for all coaches,players get injured and things can happen at any time.the sharks had a bad yr cause of injuries so did parra and the dragons but they will bounce back next yr.i hate it how coaches get blamed foe everything that happens during the yr,some things are out of there control.
i to hope he takes them to court.
only 1 coach this yr didnt complain and just got on with his job and he is the coach of the storm and i rate him very highly.
i to hope he takes them to court.
only 1 coach this yr didnt complain and just got on with his job and he is the coach of the storm and i rate him very highly.
I hope he takes them to court and fleeces them. I see nothing better in this world than a 16 team comp with the Gold Coast Sharks and the Central Coast bears...
i like it.
When i set the alarm this morning the radio blared something about Anderson not fulfilling a certain part of his contract, something about this was his 3rd strike, but i was far too sleepy to take any of it in. The impression i got from the sharks guy was that they were expecting a legal challenge but had grounds to sack him.
Mint Condition
Club Legend
What are the odds for a Sharks wooden spoon?
I hope they come dead last, and sometime during the season end up on the wrong side of a 40 point thrashing by South Sydney.
I hope they come dead last, and sometime during the season end up on the wrong side of a 40 point thrashing by South Sydney.
The Sharks Board has conducted themselves woefully. I suppose we'll have to wait and see what happens. I Imagine both of them will be hiring Legal Dream Teams for this battle though, and the costs alone would probably be enough to sink the sharks
Yeah, right.
Hurbie = tosser.
What seems interesting to me is that Barry Pierce, the Cronulla President, has been elected to the NSWRL board. The NSWRL & QRL boards form the ARL board. The ARL select the Australian national coach. And the national coach, is none other than Chris Anderson. I bet the Queenslanders were behind Pierce's election. On another note, WTF has Barry Pierce ever done for footy? He's a total hack. Peter Gow has also hinted at making a return to the Cronulla board - the sooner the better!
The Three breaches were...
1) The incident at the leagues club that led to hooker Dean Treister and lock Nick Graham being released earlier this year.
2) Abusing a match official in the tunnel after a game, which cost the Sharks a $10,000 fine.
3) The verbal exchange he had with club president Barry Pierce and general manager Steve Rogers after they cut his son, Jarrad, from the 2004 playing roster.
And now to the unfair dismissal laws
Any claim for Unfair Dismissal must go through a 2 stage test.
1. Was the dismissal for a fair reason ?
And if the dismissal was for a fair reason
2. Was the dismissal dealt with fairly ?
This means that an employer can dismiss an employee for a perfectly valid reason, but the way in which it was handled was unfair and so an Unfair Dismissal claim can be made.
Reasons for Dismissal
The following is a list of fair reasons for dismissing an employee and points that an Employment Tribunal will consider.
1. Capability
This is split into several areas.
Qualifications - does the employee have the necessary qualifications for the job and is a particular qualification actually needed for this type of job ?
Incompetence - this can be repeated incompetence or a very serious individual incident, but was the employee trained, were warnings given ?
Health - an employee who is genuinely ill on a regular basis, what was the illness, how long would the employee be off, did the employer consider alternative work for the employee ?
2. Conduct
Here are some of the possible situations where an employee’s conduct may have given the employer good reason to dismiss them:
Theft.
Corruption, including taking bribes.
Being drunk at work.
Taking drugs at work.
Abusive behaviour.
Leaking confidential documents or information.
Hacking into computer files, this includes stealing passwords.
Being absent from work on a regular basis.
Constantly late for work.
Unsuitable work clothes or appearance.
Taking holidays without informing your employer.
Unsuitable conduct with other members of staff during office hours.
Unsuitable conduct outside work hours that has an impact on the employee's job.
Even telling your employer exactly what you think of them.
All of the above may be persistent behaviour for which an employee has received earlier warnings or they may be individual incidents that are of a serious nature.
The tribunal will also consider the following:
a) Was the conduct of the employee looked into thoroughly ?
b) Did the employer believe that the employee committed the offence ?
The employer does not need absolute proof in a case of dishonesty, but there must be strong evidence of the dishonesty for them to dismiss the employee.
3. Redundancy N/A
4. Breaking the Law N/A
5. Any Other Reason
This is very wide and is used to cover virtually every other possible reason. For example, where a business is being reorganised and some employees refuse to reorganise along with it or where they are no longer considered suitable. For example an employee who refused to use computers when they were installed despite training was dismissed, this was said to be a valid reason to dismiss. It can include dismissing an employee because an important client demands it.
Fairness of Procedure
The test here is whether the employer used a fair procedure and was it reasonable for the employer to finally decide to dismiss the employee once the procedure had been carried out.
Any Employment Tribunal would consider some of the following:
1. Was the employee given a fair hearing by the employer ?
2. What evidence was used at the hearing and was it all used ?
3. Did the employee have a representative at the hearing or a Trade Union official ?
4. If there was more than one employee involved were they all treated in the same way ?
5. Had the employee done this before ?
6. Did the employer consider warnings, were these used in the past ?
7. Did the employer consider the overall performance of the employee, for example did the employee previously have a long record of good work and behaviour ?
8. Could the employer have disciplined the employee instead of dismissing them ?
9. Did the employee have an effective right of appeal against the decision ?
10. Was the whole procedure carried out in the same way as previous procedures, if not how did it differ and why ?
1) The incident at the leagues club that led to hooker Dean Treister and lock Nick Graham being released earlier this year.
2) Abusing a match official in the tunnel after a game, which cost the Sharks a $10,000 fine.
3) The verbal exchange he had with club president Barry Pierce and general manager Steve Rogers after they cut his son, Jarrad, from the 2004 playing roster.
And now to the unfair dismissal laws
Any claim for Unfair Dismissal must go through a 2 stage test.
1. Was the dismissal for a fair reason ?
And if the dismissal was for a fair reason
2. Was the dismissal dealt with fairly ?
This means that an employer can dismiss an employee for a perfectly valid reason, but the way in which it was handled was unfair and so an Unfair Dismissal claim can be made.
Reasons for Dismissal
The following is a list of fair reasons for dismissing an employee and points that an Employment Tribunal will consider.
1. Capability
This is split into several areas.
Qualifications - does the employee have the necessary qualifications for the job and is a particular qualification actually needed for this type of job ?
Incompetence - this can be repeated incompetence or a very serious individual incident, but was the employee trained, were warnings given ?
Health - an employee who is genuinely ill on a regular basis, what was the illness, how long would the employee be off, did the employer consider alternative work for the employee ?
2. Conduct
Here are some of the possible situations where an employee’s conduct may have given the employer good reason to dismiss them:
Theft.
Corruption, including taking bribes.
Being drunk at work.
Taking drugs at work.
Abusive behaviour.
Leaking confidential documents or information.
Hacking into computer files, this includes stealing passwords.
Being absent from work on a regular basis.
Constantly late for work.
Unsuitable work clothes or appearance.
Taking holidays without informing your employer.
Unsuitable conduct with other members of staff during office hours.
Unsuitable conduct outside work hours that has an impact on the employee's job.
Even telling your employer exactly what you think of them.
All of the above may be persistent behaviour for which an employee has received earlier warnings or they may be individual incidents that are of a serious nature.
The tribunal will also consider the following:
a) Was the conduct of the employee looked into thoroughly ?
b) Did the employer believe that the employee committed the offence ?
The employer does not need absolute proof in a case of dishonesty, but there must be strong evidence of the dishonesty for them to dismiss the employee.
3. Redundancy N/A
4. Breaking the Law N/A
5. Any Other Reason
This is very wide and is used to cover virtually every other possible reason. For example, where a business is being reorganised and some employees refuse to reorganise along with it or where they are no longer considered suitable. For example an employee who refused to use computers when they were installed despite training was dismissed, this was said to be a valid reason to dismiss. It can include dismissing an employee because an important client demands it.
Fairness of Procedure
The test here is whether the employer used a fair procedure and was it reasonable for the employer to finally decide to dismiss the employee once the procedure had been carried out.
Any Employment Tribunal would consider some of the following:
1. Was the employee given a fair hearing by the employer ?
2. What evidence was used at the hearing and was it all used ?
3. Did the employee have a representative at the hearing or a Trade Union official ?
4. If there was more than one employee involved were they all treated in the same way ?
5. Had the employee done this before ?
6. Did the employer consider warnings, were these used in the past ?
7. Did the employer consider the overall performance of the employee, for example did the employee previously have a long record of good work and behaviour ?
8. Could the employer have disciplined the employee instead of dismissing them ?
9. Did the employee have an effective right of appeal against the decision ?
10. Was the whole procedure carried out in the same way as previous procedures, if not how did it differ and why ?
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #10
As a Sharks supporter I was appalled at the treatment of some of our stalwart players considering the Sharks had been preliminary finalists but I thought that we might have to knuckle down and make the tough decisions under an established coach so that we could make the jump to play in grand finals. As it turned out Anderson had less of a plan and more of an idea to recreate the glory days of the Storm by recruiting Kimmorley and handing over the captaincy to him in the blink of an eye. Systematically dismantling a preliminary final side and plunging them to the cellar is not my idea of helping them take the next step.
Sure Vagana has signed because of Anderson and Bailey has a clause to leave if Anderson does but geez the Sharks have lost a lot of players because of Anderson's arrival in the first place.
The only thing that bugs me about his departure is that now the Sharks have confirmed they stuffed up by signing him in the first place. Gee, wonder if we can get Johnny Lang and Sherwin Campbell back now?
Sure Vagana has signed because of Anderson and Bailey has a clause to leave if Anderson does but geez the Sharks have lost a lot of players because of Anderson's arrival in the first place.
The only thing that bugs me about his departure is that now the Sharks have confirmed they stuffed up by signing him in the first place. Gee, wonder if we can get Johnny Lang and Sherwin Campbell back now?
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #12
LOL, the brain was saying Preston but the hands were two steps ahead. Preston is a much better footballer than Sherwin is a cricketer IMO.
