wogghead1 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Whoever is right or wrong and whichever side has dropped a bollock, he's a cheeky :censored:, he was caught on camera admitting it. The quicker he is gone the better. I hope him spouting this :censored:e spurs the lads on tonight as to not let it ruin theirs and our season. (This is only my opinion so please don't hang me out to dry!!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Would whoever loses the case have to pay the other sides costs? - which could be quite substantial. As far as I'm aware - admittedly I haven't read anything other than what's on here - he's appealing the club's decision to dismiss. These aren't legal proceedings. If the club upholds its decision and he decides to take it to an employment tribunal it could be different. Difficult to say without knowing the ins and outs of the investigation and hearing, but the ET might not even accept the case even if one were submitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Would whoever loses the case have to pay the other sides costs? - which could be quite substantial. Depends on the court, this could easily be an internal appeal. Like others have said everybody has a right to appeal a disciplinary action as part of their enployment. However, the appeal needs to be handled appropriately because a badly handled appeal or the whole disciplinary process can give rise to a successful external appeal. Then there is either an Employment Tribunal, which Montano probably won't use as he Employment Tribunals can only award so much, or the High Court. If Montano takes the club to High Court then costs are much more likely to be awarded to the victors too, however, that implies that the loser can afford the costs. However, if Montano is taking us to an Employment Tribunal, then costs are much less likely to be awarded, but if the Employment Judge/Tribunal panel thinks it is a vexious claim then they have been known to award costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Further to what Z says, my understanding is that for Employment Tribunal claims both sides usually, but not always, pay their own costs irrespective of the outcome. That said the limit for wrongful dismissal claims in an ET is 25k and depending on his salary he may wish to bring a claim in the county court, in which case the rule of thumb (though again not always) is that loser pays winner's costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Also said that contrary to reports from the club he's been being paid in full while suspended Is that for work already undertaken i.e. in arrears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Sinnott Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Just to clarify : that guy denies any wrong doing in spot fixing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Would whoever loses the case have to pay the other sides costs? - which could be quite substantial. It's not a court case, just an internal meeting. Done and dusted in an hour. Surprised if he hasn't been interviewed though, you'd expect them to go to any lengths to show fairness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Doesn't he pretty much have to appeal? To not appeal the club's decision to sack him would lead others (public, media) to assume he accepts that the club's decision is reasonable. Which would undermine any denial of charges he may face in light of the spot-fixing allegations. In other words, to not appeal would be seen as acknowledging his guilt, even if legally that's not necessarily the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 I'm surprised that he hasn't been interviewed.However, as he hasn't worked for the club for 2 years, he cannot claim unfair dismissal. The qualifying period was increased in 2012 from 1 to 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Further to what Z says, my understanding is that for Employment Tribunal claims both sides usually, but not always, pay their own costs irrespective of the outcome. That said the limit for wrongful dismissal claims in an ET is 25k and depending on his salary he may wish to bring a claim in the county court, in which case the rule of thumb (though again not always) is that loser pays winner's costs. As the Doc says ET can award costs if the case has been unreasonably brought or conducted. You have to file payment against this for each element of the claim to deter people throwing any old :censored: against employers hoping it becomes cheaper to settle than defend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 I'm surprised that he hasn't been interviewed. However, as he hasn't worked for the club for 2 years, he cannot claim unfair dismissal. The qualifying period was increased in 2012 from 1 to 2 years. That would be ordinary unfair dismissal, I'm fairly certain that dismissal as a result of alleged racial discrimination doesn't have as long a qualifying period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 That would be ordinary unfair dismissal, I'm fairly certain that dismissal as a result of alleged racial discrimination doesn't have as long a qualifying period. It doesn't have any qualifying period. Doubt that there's any suggestion of his dismissal being race-related though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 That would seem to be a fairly ludicrous basis for fighting the dismissal, certainly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 It doesn't have any qualifying period. Doubt that there's any suggestion of his dismissal being race-related though. Being sacked because of your political affiliations also has no qualifying period - but I don't think its that either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OAFC_Ryan Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 That would be ordinary unfair dismissal, I'm fairly certain that dismissal as a result of alleged racial discrimination doesn't have as long a qualifying period. What the hell does his race have to do with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 (edited) It doesn't have any qualifying period. Doubt that there's any suggestion of his dismissal being race-related though.There doesn't have to be but a good lawyer can make it seem like there is. Montano is after all a Columbian, and the decision has been taken by Caucasian men. Furthermore, the other players allegedly involved, some of whom, are still supposedly in contention to be picked by their clubs, are Black. Montano could also claim depression or some other form of disability and the qualifying period doesn't apply. Edited December 17, 2013 by rudemedic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 There doesn't have to be but a good lawyer can make it seem like there is. Montano is after all a Columbian, and the decision has been taken by Caucasian men. Furthermore, the other players involved, some of whom, are still supposedly in contention to be picked by their clubs, are Black. I don't think that would make him a 'good' lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 There doesn't have to be but a good lawyer can make it seem like there is. Is Montaño being represented by Derren Brown or Paul McKenna? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckshawlatic Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Is that for work already undertaken i.e. in arrears. Didn't say - just that he'd been on full pay throughout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 There doesn't have to be but a good lawyer can make it seem like there is. Montano is after all a Columbian, and the decision has been taken by Caucasian men. Furthermore, the other players allegedly involved, some of whom, are still supposedly in contention to be picked by their clubs, are Black. Montano could also claim depression or some other form of disability and the qualifying period doesn't apply. Other clubs players have nothing to do with whether oldham followed due process. And he's still on the :censored:ing tape saying he did it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs synic Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Further to what Z says, my understanding is that for Employment Tribunal claims both sides usually, but not always, pay their own costs irrespective of the outcome. That said the limit for wrongful dismissal claims in an ET is 25k and depending on his salary he may wish to bring a claim in the county court, in which case the rule of thumb (though again not always) is that loser pays winner's costs. thought it was £72k, just been through it and won, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Looks like a cynical attempt to get Latics to pay him off rather than run up a legal bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Other clubs players have nothing to do with whether oldham followed due process. And he's still on the :censored:ing tape saying he did it Actually the actions of other clubs can have an effect. The decision taken has to be one a (hypothetical) reasonable employer takes, the fact that other clubs, faced with the same evidence have not (yet) taken the same action we have can be taken into consideration when deciding if the club has taken a decision that a reasonable employer takes. If the club are merely relying on the same evidence that is in the public domain, then things could get complicated and costly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disjointed Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Other clubs players have nothing to do with whether oldham followed due process. And he's still on the :censored:ing tape saying he did it Which is how he brought the club into disrepute by uttering those words, it is now up to his lawyer to totally twist things around to make it look like it is all a big mistake. Which it might be I hasten to add. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Looks like a cynical attempt to get Latics to pay him off rather than run up a legal bill. I doubt it, because I don't think it will cost Latics more in legal fees, bear in mind there is often insurance for such matters, and the fact that the club are using an "official partner," that it will cost to pay off Montano at supposedly £1200/week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts