WIZZO83 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Could we be in a bit of bother here? no, club carried out their own investigation and found him guilty of gross misconduct. Just because he isn't going to court he confessed on tape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 I cant believe what I am reading on this subject, Montano bragged on camera how he tried to get booked, how he ran round kicking people! The club including Barry were 100% accurate in sacking him, I don't care what the police say he is on film confessing to the whole thing. Unless you've seen the whole video he could use the "I was trying to entrap him" defence, he didn't get booked in the game he was supposed to get booked in so it could be argued that he didn't commit an offence. Sucks but that's the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Lets get down to brass tacks. The Club could sack Montano whether or not the tape was real. It could do it without the tape. The tape could be editted to show him saying it and not being asked to to prove something. The bottom line is it has now been shown to operate with double standards, having bought itself into disrepute by its own operating standards. If they had applied their own standards, due dilligence,kept the promise not to bring in players who would disrupt the team, or bring in players on the word of another (Barry keeping in touch with MAssey seems to fall into that standard) then the question of Montano would not arise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShireBlue Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 We'd have more chance getting Montano back if he did a few years inside for match-fixing.. (Or rape).. (Or driving without a license). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC0AFC Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 He was having lessons with Latics School of Motoring whilst driving about in his Audi.. surely you can sack someone for driving without a license? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Unless you've seen the whole video he could use the "I was trying to entrap him" defence, he didn't get booked in the game he was supposed to get booked in so it could be argued that he didn't commit an offence. Sucks but that's the law. Regardless, what he said on that video brought the club into disrepute. He deserved his sacking and, regardless of the charges being dropped, I'm glad he'll never wear a Latics shirt again. Mind you, if he'd been charged and convicted, Barry probably would have been all over him like a cheap suit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 "In order to be rehabiliated, you must first commit the crime" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgoo_84 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) Montano is on film clearly admitting that he was deliberately trying to get booked, that in itself is an act contrary to the best interests of his employer. Therefore we have no issue as far as I can see for sacking him on the grounds of gross misconduct. That misconduct only becomes a criminal offence if / when it can be proved that i) he made a gain or caused another to suffer a loss due to his dishonest act, or ii) that he entered into an agreement (a conspiracy) with another to carry out a dishonest act to make a gain for himself / cause loss to another. Therefore it is perfectly conceivable that we can sack him, but there not be enough evidence to prosecute him, yet both decisions still be correct. Edited January 15, 2015 by mcgoo_84 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Leeslover is right. He was fired for bringing the club into disrepute. He can have a go down at the tribunal if he wants, but if we've dotted the t's and crossed the i's of the process, we should be okay. Big IF, mind you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 The authorities aren't having much luck in getting these allegations to stick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 The authorities aren't having much luck in getting these allegations to stick. That's what the bloke in the Tulisa video said. Ahh, stick! Sorry, i miss read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Unless you've seen the whole video he could use the "I was trying to entrap him" defence, he didn't get booked in the game he was supposed to get booked in so it could be argued that he didn't commit an offence. Sucks but that's the law.Yes he did, he was supposed to get booked in the first half but could only get booked in the 2nd. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24529508 It's an interesting one, whilst it is totally conceivable that despite all charges being dropped and us still being allowed to sack him for gross misconduct can co-exist. There's a lot of nuances about the issue. 1.) We fired him for the betting, his rape allegation, had no role in the matter, as was publicised on our website. (It wasn't made clear about the alleged driving a car without a license/insurance). Something I thought was very stupid at the time. 2.) He is a Columbian so can claim the racial discrimination element of unfair dismissal without the 2 years service normally required for normal unfair dismissal. 3.) A director, who was the one who probably fired him if the club have any sense, Corney should have heard the appeal. Is on record and in front of millions as saying he is very strongly in favour of rehabilitation, but Montano who let's not forget has not actually been convinced of a crime was fired without any offer of rehabilitation 4.) Montano was the only one of the accused to be fired without seeing his contract out. That can actually provide the basis of "A reasonable employer" which is key to employment law. 5.) Additionally, we are on record as being one of the few employers to offer the convicted rapist a job, so it becomes harder to claim we acted reasonably in both instances. 6.) Whilst Montano's possible claim for unfair dismissal would have normally expired by now, the new evidence of the official element of a set-up by the Fake Sheikh as well as us attempting to hire Evans, and only not doing so for reasons not connected to his criminal status (the loss of sponsors and the threats), mean that it might not be. 7.) The likelihood of getting our legal costs back even if Montano lost his employment tribunal would be very slim. As costs are only very rarely awarded in Employment Tribunals and it would have to be spurious to happen, a decision that is unlikely to be made. The one advantage we have is Employment Tribunals are no longer free, Cheers Cameron for that one. If we did everything by the book I'd think we would eventually be successful in an Employment Tribunal or an Employment Appeals Tribunal. It wouldn't be free though, although the same applies to Montano. That like others have said is a massive if and given the recent events as well as others under the same leadership I wouldn't be all that confident we did everything by the book, point 1 being an example of where we differed from the book. Fortunately, it becomes a lot easier to argue that not renewing his contract, which was due to expire this summer, was a reasonable option, that should limit any pay out we would have to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Looks like we might be who throws out a union rep at a dismissal hearing? We do, and that's why it wasn't done by the book, as expected. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/more-woe-for-oldham-as-sacked-player-plans-to-sue-for-100000-9981670.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
we hate man,u and city to Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Remember the wolves away game, just for this incident. Thinking back after it had all ended up on the news, it seemed as though he was trying to get booked. Remember him slide tackling someone next to opposition corner flag, stupid tackle at that end of the pitch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavageTheBeast Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 We will be fine and the case will be thrown out. We have had good advice from top lawyers on this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 I've banged the drum that the Evans saga had something to do with the Montano saga. I hope I am wrong but looks like those chickens may come home to roost, the PFA are not the organisation you want to upset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Some interesting points here regarding actions an employer can take against an employee facing court action including http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/deal-employees-may-committed-criminal-offences-facing-charges/governance/article/1164751 'Very often employees will either be unwilling or unable to participate in disciplinary proceedings while criminal charges are pending. However, there is no rule that an employer should continue to employ and pay them until the criminal matters are concluded. After all, that could take some time. Ultimately, will be for the tribunal to consider whether the employer acts reasonably in proceeding with disciplinary action. Factors such as the size and nature of the employer’s business, and whether it could reasonably cope with the employee’s continued absence will be considered, as will any provisions of the employer’s handbook.' 'Tribunals have upheld as fair dismissals of employees facing charges of murder and sexual abuse, even where no case was ever proved against them.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Yes he did, he was supposed to get booked in the first half but could only get booked in the 2nd. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24529508 I commented at the end of the first half that Montano would probably be substituted because he was acting recklessly, as though he was hell-bent on getting sent off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Yes he did, he was supposed to get booked in the first half but could only get booked in the 2nd. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24529508 It's an interesting one, whilst it is totally conceivable that despite all charges being dropped and us still being allowed to sack him for gross misconduct can co-exist. There's a lot of nuances about the issue. 1.) We fired him for the betting, his rape allegation, had no role in the matter, as was publicised on our website. (It wasn't made clear about the alleged driving a car without a license/insurance). Something I thought was very stupid at the time. 2.) He is a Columbian so can claim the racial discrimination element of unfair dismissal without the 2 years service normally required for normal unfair dismissal. 3.) A director, who was the one who probably fired him if the club have any sense, Corney should have heard the appeal. Is on record and in front of millions as saying he is very strongly in favour of rehabilitation, but Montano who let's not forget has not actually been convinced of a crime was fired without any offer of rehabilitation 4.) Montano was the only one of the accused to be fired without seeing his contract out. That can actually provide the basis of "A reasonable employer" which is key to employment law. 5.) Additionally, we are on record as being one of the few employers to offer the convicted rapist a job, so it becomes harder to claim we acted reasonably in both instances. 6.) Whilst Montano's possible claim for unfair dismissal would have normally expired by now, the new evidence of the official element of a set-up by the Fake Sheikh as well as us attempting to hire Evans, and only not doing so for reasons not connected to his criminal status (the loss of sponsors and the threats), mean that it might not be. 7.) The likelihood of getting our legal costs back even if Montano lost his employment tribunal would be very slim. As costs are only very rarely awarded in Employment Tribunals and it would have to be spurious to happen, a decision that is unlikely to be made. The one advantage we have is Employment Tribunals are no longer free, Cheers Cameron for that one. If we did everything by the book I'd think we would eventually be successful in an Employment Tribunal or an Employment Appeals Tribunal. It wouldn't be free though, although the same applies to Montano. That like others have said is a massive if and given the recent events as well as others under the same leadership I wouldn't be all that confident we did everything by the book, point 1 being an example of where we differed from the book. Fortunately, it becomes a lot easier to argue that not renewing his contract, which was due to expire this summer, was a reasonable option, that should limit any pay out we would have to make. I get the feeling that if Alan Hardy had been here, it would have been handled a bit better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh_latics Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Isn't this a complete non-starter? Unfair dismissal requires two years of employment, we signed him August 2012 and was sacked December 2013? I was, and still am, happy with the way we dealt with this. On the balance of probabilities, his behaviour that was recorded is gross misconduct, whether or not the Sheikh is dodgy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Isn't this a complete non-starter? Unfair dismissal requires two years of employment, we signed him August 2012 and was sacked December 2013? I was, and still am, happy with the way we dealt with this. On the balance of probabilities, his behaviour that was recorded is gross misconduct, whether or not the Sheikh is dodgy. I think the club's decision to sack him was right but it doesn't sound as if it was handled at all properly, based on the Independent article. Refusing to follow procedures, refusing to allow the employee to have his legal representative there and asking his union rep to leave part way through is all very reckless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 I think the club's decision to sack him was right but it doesn't sound as if it was handled at all properly, based on the Independent article. Refusing to follow procedures, refusing to allow the employee to have his legal representative there and asking his union rep to leave part way through is all very reckless. Although the club certainly gave the impression that they took legal advice throughout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 I commented at the end of the first half that Montano would probably be substituted because he was acting recklessly, as though he was hell-bent on getting sent off. I was apoplectic in the dying stages of the first half when, after a Wolves corner was cleared to the edge of our own penalty area, Montano failed to use what was essentially the freedom of Molineux and hit them on the break. He instead opted to slow down, cut back, and lost the ball. At the time I thought it was symptomatic of the negative way we had set out that evening (none up front, although LJ would have you believe we played three up front), but in hindsight I remain highly suspicious after the nature of the allegations made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Although the club certainly gave the impression that they took legal advice throughout. Indeed. The article relies solely on the view of Montano's lawyer and, slightly more worryingly, the PFA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pukka Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 We have had good advice from top lawyers on this issue. I'd like to think so, but after last week - I wouldn't be surprised if they asked Lionel Hutz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.