Re: McGuire : Thu Jun 08, 2023 2:27 pm  

The only way we can fire him is through a mutual termination. Do it without and he has every right to sue, if he (or, more importantly, a lawyer) truly believes he can win a case in a higher court.

Probably would have a double whammy of suing the RFL for restraint of trade and Wire for unfair dismissal.

Re: McGuire : Thu Jun 08, 2023 3:12 pm  

This forum has a surprising amount of lawyers on it
Not only lawyers, but lawyers with detailed knowledge of individual players contracts.

Re: McGuire : Thu Jun 08, 2023 3:15 pm  

Would a "he said but there were no actual witnesses" be a reason for dismissal if an employment tribunal was involved?

Re: McGuire : Thu Jun 08, 2023 3:26 pm  

If he said it, he should have some decency and walk. If he maintains that he hasn’t said anything offensive, then the appeal should be underway and announced at the first opportunity, even for the clubs sake to look like they are not just being inactive on this.

I would have thought the club would have put him on gardening leave pending the outcome of any appeal and/or the internal investigation.

Re: McGuire : Thu Jun 08, 2023 3:42 pm  

All of this could’ve been avoided if McGuire had simply had a pop at Charnley’s miniscule winkle like any normal human being.

Re: McGuire : Thu Jun 08, 2023 3:47 pm  

Philth wrote:

This forum has a surprising amount of lawyers on it
Not only lawyers, but lawyers with detailed knowledge of individual players contracts.

I know enough about, and had enough dealings with, employment law that I know you can't just fire someone on the basis of a lone, witness-less complaint from an ex-employee, who has a gripe against both your business and the individual he's complaining about.

Re: McGuire : Thu Jun 08, 2023 4:12 pm  

And you know without any doubt that there's nothing in McGuire's contract that states any lengthy ban or multiple lengthy bans dished out by the governing body could result in dismissal. Or if found guilty of using foul and offensive language by said governing body it would be considered gross misconduct. Fascinating.

I hope more Aussies don't twig, sign for 3 years and call someone a "slot meter" every time they play so they get 3 years of nest egg whilst having a picnic in Walton Gardens

Re: McGuire : Thu Jun 08, 2023 4:16 pm  

Any RL player signing a contract with those terms and conditions probably needs to find himself a new agent.

Re: McGuire : Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:55 pm  

Sorry DSM , I don’t want to come across all know-it-all but it is not ‘witness less”. Charnley is a witness. It may be uncorroborated,but that isn’t fatal to a dismissal or even a conviction come to that.
As to grounds for dismissal a clause allowing for dismissal where the employer is brought into disrepute by the actions of its employee is fairly standard and i would be amazed if nothing along those lines were included in Maguire’s contract.

Re: McGuire : Thu Jun 08, 2023 6:06 pm  

It's an indictment of today's society that there are people protesting the ban.
There's enough evidence from the first instance to dismiss him. If his contract doesn't incorporate a "gross misconduct" clause I would be amazed. He has clearly breached that requirement.
As for restraint of trade, do me a favour. He's breached his contract. End of discussion.
Hugely disappointed with the club at it's inaction. Dismissal.