Selby White wrote:rigger wrote:Selby White wrote:I don't believe racist comments actually constitute Gross Misconduct unless its listed specifically in the Players
contract or Club Rules.
Things normally recognised in the workforce as Gross Misconduct are such as :-
Physical assault.
Sexual harassment.
Regular unauthorised Absence or persistant lateness.
Theft (or any criminal offence in the work place).
Sabotage
So way I see it the only things the Club can do is :-
Terminate contract by mutual consent (probably mean paying his contract).
Give a official warning (which makes it easier to sack him in future)
Sack him and risk him claiming unfair dismissal and would possibly get his contract paid up but not his job back.
Take the "done the crime, done the time" policy and include him once the suspension is up and hope he's learnt from it.
Its not straightforward but I'm sure the Clubs Lawyers will be considering their options.
Really ??
I would think that anything that would mean you'd be arrested on the street would warrant being classified as gross misconduct.
Yes its a difficult one and covered by the Criminal Offence part but he hasn't been found guilty in a Law court.
Its very difficult to actually sack someone although one company I worked for had a boss (I was a department manager) that said "If you need to sack them do it, they may claim and win but they wont get their job back"
It's messy, isn't it.
Trying to look at it from the club's position (and I'm not involved in running the club so just guessing here):
if KC had protested his innocence then, morally, the club should stand by him until/unless the charge against him is proven.
So then the charge is proven and he is found guilty;
112) Accordingly, we find
a) That KC is guilty of Misconduct for a breach of FA Rule E3 as alleged, and
52
b) That because the words constituting that breach made reference to race, colour and/or
ethnic origin, the breach is an ‘Aggravated Breach’ as defined in FA Rule E3(2).
but ... The FA have been very careful to state they are not accusing KC of being a racist - Decision, section 11:
11) We consider KC’s conduct in this case to fit that description. While we accept
a) That KC is not a racist, and
b) That KC’s language was wholly out of character
the language used was abhorrent, and was plainly a very grave and serious racial insult.
So he's been found guilty of 'misconduct' by the FA.
At this point it surely gets easier for the club as all doubt has evaporated but what are their options, just a few below that occurred while I was in Tesco, I'm sure there are lots of others?
- 1.The word misconduct has already been used in the decision so for that to seen as Gross Misconduct under the clubs operating policies might not be much of a stretch.
2. it's not difficult (for me) to argue that KC has brought the club into disrepute which then triggers the gross misconduct/instant dismissal angle.
3. Or, possibly, the club says something along the lines of "KC isn't a racist, but he was involved in a racist incident. With that in mind and because we believe in rehabilitation, we have decided to support him with education etc."
I included 3 because of this:
(E) Deterrence
28) The FA submits that any sanction should ‘incorporate an element of deterrence to demonstrate the seriousness of this matter and to seek to prevent such misconduct arising at all levels of football in the future’.
29) That is not something that we felt to be necessary in this case. The approach that we adopted was to identify what penalty was necessary and proportionate to reflect the nature and circumstances of the Aggravated Breach that we found to have been committed.
So the FA saw no need for their decision to have a deterrent effect
P.S Derby sacked Keogh for drink-driving which they describes as gross misconduct. He says he has his lawyers on it so we'll see.
