Derby County Drink Driving charges (merged topics)

[REDOXO]

Keogh as club captain should of said order a ******* Uber. I have no sympathy at all. 
 

Keogh is the responsible manager adult!

[Mr Popodopolous]

How does that correspond with employment law though?

We all know why Derby made the decisions, makes good business sense but the PFA on his side will be interesting- yet while there is a bit of merit perhaps in the more Senior Party carrying the can, I'm not sure how well it stacks up.

[reddoh]

7 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Yes, absolutely, but perhaps it was the 20 pints they had at the Derby event rather than the half of shandy they had afterwards that was the major factor!!!

I joke in the above Paragraph To some extent but I recall something from work many years ago where they tried to sack someone - but they got off because the evening started with the works do where alcohol was provided. Lawyers are good at finding reasons for unfair dismissal!!!

I was sent on a course (10 years ago) where it was stated that the company was responsible(accountable) even after the event has ended until the employees have reached home (their sleeping place).

Don't know if that is still the case and no longer care.

[Red-Robbo]

4 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What's a greater crime then- in terms of a greater crime worthy of the sack?

Entering a car drunk, however not wearing a seat belt- or actually drink driving?

Surely an Employment Tribunal would find this very interesting- granted the fact he would've been out for some time is a counterpoint...

Hope he gets reinstated, or his contract paid in full and aggravated damages- not because I think he necessarily merits it but because it would put further budgetary squeezes on them.

 

Employment Tribunals do not look at what is "fair" or what is "reasonable". They are only concerned if employment law - and the contract the employee signed - has been adhered to.

[Mr Popodopolous]

22 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

Employment Tribunals do not look at what is "fair" or what is "reasonable". They are only concerned if employment law - and the contract the employee signed - has been adhered to.

Equal treatment under disciplinary procedure regulations?

https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/the-importance-of-equal-treatment/

[Red-Robbo]

22 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Equal treatment under disciplinary procedure regulations?

https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/the-importance-of-equal-treatment/

But they hadn't all done the same thing. And Keogh had extra responsibility as club captain and a senior pro.

I attended a fair few tribunals as an NUJ rep, but never saw one succeed unless it was that the employer hadn't followed the letter of the law.

The PFA is swimming in money - unlike the NUJ or most unions - so maybe it would take the case on, but most trade associations wouldn't. 

[SuperRed]

13 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Just seen also, Keogh was sacked after refusing a paycut from £29,000 per week to £3,000 per week.

Seems the decision to sack was for not wearing a seatbelt and refusing a near 90% paycut...so far as what we can see in the public domain.

Most shocking thing is that Keogh was on £29,000 a week. 

[CyderInACan]

So Derby were clearly prepared to retain Keogh as an employee, on reduced terms, and overlook his alleged gross misconduct.

Surely if they were prepared to keep him on the books, irrespective of what wages he was pulling in during his rehabilitation, their position is somewhat weakened? 

[redsquirrel]

could the seat belt statement thing be included in the reasons given because he might be getting fined for it? that surely is the only thing Keogh did wrong in the eyes of the law.

if he did anything else wrong by getting into the car drunk, taxis wouldn't be able to operate.

the drivers over the limit is the drivers responsibility,they were the ones putting glass to mouth,didnt have to.

 

[Grey Fox]

8 hours ago, REDOXO said:

Keogh as club captain should of said order a ******* Uber. I have no sympathy at all. 
 

Keogh is the responsible manager adult!

His credit card was refused........., as happens when you are on £29,000 per week

[CyderInACan]

2 minutes ago, Grey Fox said:

His credit card was refused........., as happens when you are on £29,000 per week

He sounds a sensible chap though, so I’m sure he has lots of savings to help him through these lean times 

[Drew Peacock]

12 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What's a greater crime then- in terms of a greater crime worthy of the sack?

Entering a car drunk, however not wearing a seat belt- or actually drink driving?

Driving off leaving a badly injured team mate at the scene of the accident.

[Mr Popodopolous]

13 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

Driving off leaving a badly injured team mate at the scene of the accident.

Absolutely.

7 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

But they hadn't all done the same thing. And Keogh had extra responsibility as club captain and a senior pro.

I attended a fair few tribunals as an NUJ rep, but never saw one succeed unless it was that the employer hadn't followed the letter of the law.

The PFA is swimming in money - unlike the NUJ or most unions - so maybe it would take the case on, but most trade associations wouldn't. 

The others acted worse, so yes they hadn't dome the same thing.

Let's not forget too what Drew Peacock said- driving off leaving him injured at the scene of the accident.

More serious than not wearing a seatbelt or being club captain...smacks of a deeply selective application of disciplinary procedure.

People spoke of contractual clauses..while that's also a factor, employment law can override but then again, depends on the nature of the clauses I'd have thought.

[BTRFTG]

15 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

. As I said, not condoning it, but neither driver was more than twice the limit - 58 and 64, when the limit is 35.

Assuming alcohol was the reason for impairment.....

[Mr Popodopolous]

Based on what we know in public domain- excluding Social Media expectations.

Legal penalty for a passenger not wearing a seat-belt? £500. Seems to be nothing higher than that indicated, for an adult passenger of their own choice doing this.

Crashing car and leaving passengers- 6 weeks wages, a very small fine, some community work and back in the side again- Keogh though, for a much lesser offence- 90% wage cut and sacked.

Granted, he cannot play again but yes, must be more to it...?

[GlastonburyRed]

9 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

Employment Tribunals do not look at what is "fair" or what is "reasonable". They are only concerned if employment law - and the contract the employee signed - has been adhered to.

Without wanting to come across as an arse, 'reasonableness' is exactly what Employment Tribunals up & down the land will be assessing when it comes to a significant chunk of dismissal scenarios. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, GlastonburyRed said:

Without wanting to come across as an arse, 'reasonableness' is exactly what Employment Tribunals up & down the land will be assessing when it comes to a significant chunk of dismissal scenarios. 

Definitely a strong factor at minimum IMO.

[Red-Robbo]

18 minutes ago, GlastonburyRed said:

Without wanting to come across as an arse, 'reasonableness' is exactly what Employment Tribunals up & down the land will be assessing when it comes to a significant chunk of dismissal scenarios. 

I'm afraid not. They only look at complete adherence to contracts of employment. If there is a reason for a dismissal, for example as club captain and senior professional he was seen to condone illegal behaviour by younger players, and by not wearing a seat belt he had got himself injured, then he refused to accept a club-imposed sanction during his recovery time, the tribunal would only look at whether dismissal was allowable vis a vis his contract of employment with the club.

They wouldn't look at whether it was "fair" on Keogh.  They wouldn't consider whether the club should also have sacked the other two players. That is a completely separate issue.

I know it doesn't sound logical, but that is entirely how they operate. As I say, I've sat through perhaps a dozen and worked closely with the union's lawyers on preparing cases for more than that. 

Reasonableness is not a criterion. Merely, what the black and white of the contract says and whether the club adhered to UK employment law and its own published guidelines.

[Rudolf Hucker]

18 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Whilst the drivers' insurers might seek to refuse/reduce any claim presented by Keogh on the basis of 'Volenti non fit injuria',

Thank you Boris. 

[Sleepy1968]

4 hours ago, CyderInACan said:

So Derby were clearly prepared to retain Keogh as an employee, on reduced terms, and overlook his alleged gross misconduct.

Surely if they were prepared to keep him on the books, irrespective of what wages he was pulling in during his rehabilitation, their position is somewhat weakened? 

i imagine their offer would have been on a 'without prejiduce' basis, and irrelevent to any further action they decided to take if not accepted.  So whilst their position and conduct in this whole affair is morally repugnant to most of us, it won't have any legal ramifications. Natural justice is not legal justice. And if we're talking about justice, two people seemingly avoided custodial sentences because they were highly paid professional footballers.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, Sleepy1968 said:

i imagine their offer would have been on a 'without prejiduce' basis, and irrelevent to any further action they decided to take if not accepted.  So whilst their position and conduct in this whole affair is morally repugnant to most of us, it won't have any legal ramifications. Natural justice is not legal justice. And if we're talking about justice, two people seemingly avoided custodial sentences because they were highly paid professional footballers.

 

Wouldn't the other party need to have accepted this for it to stand though?

Agreed- the reasoning of the judge though is even more astonishing than the 'real' reason ie what we all know.

Or is it that both parties would agree at the start of the process that negotiations would be on a 'without prejudice' basis and that negates further action by Keogh?

Quote

Jonathan Taaffe had warned the players that a prison sentence was an option but the men walked free from court after probation services told the hearing of concerns they would struggle in custody

Incredible.

[REDOXO]

5 hours ago, Grey Fox said:

His credit card was refused........., as happens when you are on £29,000 per week

LMFAO.  Really that’s brilliant!
 

Must have been all three of them with no cell phone and cash to call a taxi/Uber/Lyft. I cant speak for others but i have several credit cards and debit cards with me particularly if I’m out.

Derby County FC must be seething and are firing the Club Captain. I’m not sure if the exact same circumstance happened at our club and It was SL the same would not happen. The fact he was the worse injured and may be finished is a detail that doesn’t make me more sympathetic!

[Sleepy1968]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Wouldn't the other party need to have accepted this for it to stand though?

Agreed- the reasoning of the judge though is even more astonishing than the 'real' reason ie what we all know.

Or is it that both parties would agree at the start of the process that negotiations would be on a 'without prejudice' basis and that negates further action by Keogh?

Incredible.

(I think we probably need someone legally qualified to chime in at this point, however this is the internet, so I'll continue give me unqualified opinion - if I might have peripherally have come across anything remotelly related to without prejiduce offers in my job I would be certainly barred from discussing them)

Without prejiduce is really just a tool to assist in agreements being reached before thing escalate to court action. Anything offered won't be effective unlerss/until backed by a legal agreement. But what it does is stop anything you say/offer being used in court against you.

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Sleepy1968 said:

(I think we probably need someone legally qualified to chime in at this point, however this is the internet, so I'll continue give me unqualified opinion - if I might have peripherally have come across anything remotelly related to without prejiduce offers in my job I would be certainly barred from discussing them)

Without prejiduce is really just a tool to assist in agreements being reached before thing escalate to court action. Anything offered won't be effective unlerss/until backed by a legal agreement. But what it does is stop anything you say/offer being used in court against you.

We don't need someone legally qualified giving us boring old facts as it's much more fun to raise suspicions based on limited information and speculate ad nauseam with every permutation of what happened and what might happen next.  

P.S. In my legal opinion  Keogh does have one of the worst professional footballer haircuts - a coconut with a number 2 round the sides..

[chinapig]

5 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

I'm afraid not. They only look at complete adherence to contracts of employment. If there is a reason for a dismissal, for example as club captain and senior professional he was seen to condone illegal behaviour by younger players, and by not wearing a seat belt he had got himself injured, then he refused to accept a club-imposed sanction during his recovery time, the tribunal would only look at whether dismissal was allowable vis a vis his contract of employment with the club.

They wouldn't look at whether it was "fair" on Keogh.  They wouldn't consider whether the club should also have sacked the other two players. That is a completely separate issue.

I know it doesn't sound logical, but that is entirely how they operate. As I say, I've sat through perhaps a dozen and worked closely with the union's lawyers on preparing cases for more than that. 

Reasonableness is not a criterion. Merely, what the black and white of the contract says and whether the club adhered to UK employment law and its own published guidelines.

True enough, but the test in a civil case is whether a reasonable person, properly instructed as to the facts and the law, would have reached the decision Derby did. What used to be called the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' test.

So a tribunal could reach a different decision on the basis of the same facts and law.

[Red-Robbo]

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

True enough, but the test in a civil case is whether a reasonable person, properly instructed as to the facts and the law, would have reached the decision Derby did. What used to be called the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' test.

So a tribunal could reach a different decision on the basis of the same facts and law.

If Keogh sued in a civil court the result might be different.

But in an ET, if the appeal was "others have done worse than me and kept their jobs", the response would be "so what? We are only adjudicating if Derby are within their rights to sack you, not on whether others should've gone as well". 

[chinapig]

1 minute ago, Red-Robbo said:

If Keogh sued in a civil court the result might be different.

But in an ET, if the appeal was "others have done worse than me and kept their jobs", the response would be "so what? We are only adjudicating if Derby are within their rights to sack you, not on whether others should've gone as well". 

I take your point but I was not referring to the Civil Courts in the formal sense.

A dispute between an employer and an employee is a civil (i.e. not a criminal) matter. It happens to be heard by a Tribunal rather than a court (both are under the umbrella of Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service) but the reasonable person test still applies.

A Tribunal (probably a judge sitting alone) could still therefore decide that Derby's decision was unreasonable. Though Keogh's case would be an individual one so I suspect a judge might regard what happened to the other players as not relevant.

If it ever gets to a tribunal that is!

[Red-Robbo]

15 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I take your point but I was not referring to the Civil Courts in the formal sense.

A dispute between an employer and an employee is a civil (i.e. not a criminal) matter. It happens to be heard by a Tribunal rather than a court (both are under the umbrella of Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service) but the reasonable person test still applies.

A Tribunal (probably a judge sitting alone) could still therefore decide that Derby's decision was unreasonable. Though Keogh's case would be an individual one so I suspect a judge might regard what happened to the other players as not relevant.

If it ever gets to a tribunal that is!

They might indeed decide that. We'd have to know the details of Keogh's contract of employment to be able to take a view on it.

All I'm saying is that saying "others have done worse and not been sacked" doesn't work at an employment tribunal.

As FoC, I was involved in a case where upwards of 10 journalists all faced disciplinary charges over a cock-up each had had a different, but distinct role in.  Two guys were sacked. The case that they were treated unfairly compared to some of the other 8+ got nowhere. It isn't up to an ET to decide who gets sacked. It is only up to them to rule on whether the corporation had a case for dismissal against both men; whether they had followed procedures laid down; whether the men had been given a chance to appeal the decision and given the chance to plead their case.

How the corporation treated the other journalists and whether it was fair as regards to the two who were dismissed was beyond their judicial competence to rule on.

[WhistleHappy]

Derby 1up vs Boro …. Lawrence goal... 

So    ….  ' He Shot, Didn't Miss, He Cant Be F'ing Pissed ! '  today then.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Tom Lawrence 2 v Middlesbrough 0.