Tigers v Sale (A) - Premiership - Friday 10th May 2024 - KO: 7:45pm

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

Post Reply
mol2
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4634
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 5:48 pm
Location: Cosby

Re: Tigers v Sale (A) - Premiership - Friday 10th May 2024 - KO: 7:45pm

Post by mol2 »

An employee being suspended for the investigation of an alleged incident does not prevent the employer from bringing in someone else to carry out those roles. It can’t be seen to affect the outcome of the disciplinary process and if the disciplinary process does not result in dismissal or resignation, the employer can’t make the individual redundant. (The role fulfilled by the individual is what you make redundant and as such the termination of their contract is permitted, but not if you replace them directly with someone else doing the same role.)

I guess this may have been why Tigers didn’t bring in a replacement? Sharing the role between the rest of the coaches might have left the option of redundancy open if the disciplinary process hadn’t resulted in dismissal or resignation. As Tigers have advertised the job, it would imply dismissal or resignation, presumably the latter by confidential agreement unless it has been a result of a criminal case in the public domain.
TigerFeetSteve
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7724
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:23 am

Re: Tigers v Sale (A) - Premiership - Friday 10th May 2024 - KO: 7:45pm

Post by TigerFeetSteve »

mol2 wrote: Mon May 13, 2024 9:23 am An employee being suspended for the investigation of an alleged incident does not prevent the employer from bringing in someone else to carry out those roles. It can’t be seen to affect the outcome of the disciplinary process and if the disciplinary process does not result in dismissal or resignation, the employer can’t make the individual redundant. (The role fulfilled by the individual is what you make redundant and as such the termination of their contract is permitted, but not if you replace them directly with someone else doing the same role.)

I guess this may have been why Tigers didn’t bring in a replacement? Sharing the role between the rest of the coaches might have left the option of redundancy open if the disciplinary process hadn’t resulted in dismissal or resignation. As Tigers have advertised the job, it would imply dismissal or resignation, presumably the latter by confidential agreement unless it has been a result of a criminal case in the public domain.
Think there's a bit of confusion here.

I didn't think we ever advertised for an attack coach. (Dickens role)

The one we have advertised is new S&C head (Richardson's role)
Used to run around with an 11, 14 or 15 on my back.
Tiglon
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4027
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:54 pm

Re: Tigers v Sale (A) - Premiership - Friday 10th May 2024 - KO: 7:45pm

Post by Tiglon »

Tigers could only make the Attack Coach tole redundant if they weren't intending to get a new Attack Coach. You make a role redundant, not a person.
Post Reply