Long time coming
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Ricky. Methinks there is a sub agenda here somewhere.....perhaps the thread should be renamed as 'Personal vendettas against George Crofts. Stick to the thread, or start another one with the correct title.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turn and burn,
Getting back to the point of the case, you said:
The argument is that the 49ers were dismissed without having been given a reason, the implication being that the dismissals were unjustified.
You are wrong.
The contracts of the 49ers were terminated - they were not dismissed. If Cathay choses to try to argue that they were dismissed then they will be on a very sticky wicket because they did not follow the procedure contained within the contract. This is why Cathay tried so very hard to have the case thrown out on jurisdictional issues - they DO NOT want to argue the case in court. The case will be argued on it's merits because that's what lawyers do. This is real life - not TV!!
For those of you who rely on the Sun for your judgement of others - my sympathies.
PS. My own opinion is that Cathay will try to settle before the court date (if they can) or will simply admit the charges without entering any evidence.
PPS. Let's say that Cathay did try to prove that there was a case for dismissal (which they won't for the reason that I have already given). They would look pretty dumb if they tried to introduce an event that seems to have occurred BEFORE Capt Crofts joined Cathay - wouldn't they? A shame then that Cathay's lawyers are undoubtedly able to think more clearly than some that post on this forum.
Getting back to the point of the case, you said:
The argument is that the 49ers were dismissed without having been given a reason, the implication being that the dismissals were unjustified.
You are wrong.
The contracts of the 49ers were terminated - they were not dismissed. If Cathay choses to try to argue that they were dismissed then they will be on a very sticky wicket because they did not follow the procedure contained within the contract. This is why Cathay tried so very hard to have the case thrown out on jurisdictional issues - they DO NOT want to argue the case in court. The case will be argued on it's merits because that's what lawyers do. This is real life - not TV!!
For those of you who rely on the Sun for your judgement of others - my sympathies.
PS. My own opinion is that Cathay will try to settle before the court date (if they can) or will simply admit the charges without entering any evidence.
PPS. Let's say that Cathay did try to prove that there was a case for dismissal (which they won't for the reason that I have already given). They would look pretty dumb if they tried to introduce an event that seems to have occurred BEFORE Capt Crofts joined Cathay - wouldn't they? A shame then that Cathay's lawyers are undoubtedly able to think more clearly than some that post on this forum.
Last edited by Ricky Whizz; 3rd Apr 2006 at 10:14.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The interview process includes questions on criminal record and drug abuse. If you choose not to reveal your past history and then the company subsequently discovers that you do have a criminal record and that you had taken a drug overdose, the company would be within their rights to dismiss you. The vast majority of interviews are accepted at face value. I see no reason why CX should have egg on their face if an issue is discovered after the interview process is complete.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T&B, you seem singularly able to keep missing the point. As was the point of this case, 'George and the others had their contracts terminated - none were dismissed for any offence. If they had been, there was a process contained within the contract which should have been followed.'
If you feel that George Croft should have his skeletons aired for whatever reason then it isn't going to happen on this thread. This thread is about the 49'ers and the termination, apparently outside of the law as it should have been applied to them of their contracts.
If VETA had wanted to dismiss GC because of anything else then they should have followed the correct procedures, which it appears they didn't. They dismissed GC and the others constructively and therefore will now have to deal with that particular issue at an English Employment Tribunal.
If you feel that George Croft should have his skeletons aired for whatever reason then it isn't going to happen on this thread. This thread is about the 49'ers and the termination, apparently outside of the law as it should have been applied to them of their contracts.
If VETA had wanted to dismiss GC because of anything else then they should have followed the correct procedures, which it appears they didn't. They dismissed GC and the others constructively and therefore will now have to deal with that particular issue at an English Employment Tribunal.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK T&B,
Let's say for arguments sake that they discovered that GC was a terribly bad boy after they had given him the job.
Why did they not go through their own D&G procedure that was contained in their contract with him and then dismiss him?
Let's say for arguments sake that they discovered that GC was a terribly bad boy after they had given him the job.
Why did they not go through their own D&G procedure that was contained in their contract with him and then dismiss him?
