Mex Martillo 1:11 Sun Jan 15
Employment law?
|
|
if you have an employee (Payet) that says he will not do his job, but you do not want to sack him.
Do you still have to pay the employee (Payet)?
Anyone know about this?
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
Far Cough
11:29 Sun Jan 15
Re: Employment law?
|
Haha, probably spot on
|
ManorParkHammer
11:26 Sun Jan 15
Re: Employment law?
|
Wrong website.
There are no legal experts on WHO.
It's a site full of barely literate scaffolders and admin bods who think they are bankers because they work near Liverpool Street.
|
Mike Oxsaw
8:34 Sun Jan 15
Re: Employment law?
|
Surely depends on the terms of his contract. If he's a freelancer he's responsible for his own sick pay, if he's on IR35, his umbrella company will have to cough up, although I don't think IR35 stretches into sport...
|
SecondOpinion
8:21 Sun Jan 15
Re: Employment law?
|
He could be signed off sick for six months on full pay, then another six months on SSP
|
Chris-e-boy
6:29 Sun Jan 15
Re: Employment law?
|
Unc - she doesn't work? Lazy cow. Still, she must have to leave the house now and again; maybe to go foraging at the local pond for frogs and snails for their dinner, or maybe to Fortnum and Mason's for a couple of carrier bags of garlic.
|
Uncle Junior
4:28 Sun Jan 15
Re: Employment law?
|
Chris e boy - yeah reckon that should do the trick ( obviously though his wife does not work )
|
Far East Hammer
4:07 Sun Jan 15
Re: Employment law?
|
If this 40 million from Marseille but the shitbag stay with us until summer story is true, then I'd add on a couple of million more to cover for weekly fines (being double his salary) between now and the summer. And ban him from even training - on the basis that it's for his own safety or somesuch. Let the cunt's weight do a Benni McCarthy.
Though maybe give him a surprise call up at the end of the season (assuming we're safe in mid table with nothing to play for) and hope that the unfit twat suffers a career threatening injury in that match - given that he'd already be Marseilles property it'd be no skin off West Ham's nose
|
Chris-e-boy
3:47 Sun Jan 15
Re: Employment law?
|
This is a situation that could so easily be resolved by nail-gunning a cat to his front door and presenting him with an envelope containing photos of his kids going to school and his wife going to work.
|
Hermit Road
3:45 Sun Jan 15
Re: Employment law?
|
If he is breach of contract couldn't he be sued for the value of the contract and for the value of his registration? About £50 million.
|
Chigwell
3:42 Sun Jan 15
Re: Employment law?
|
Of course he is breach of his contract by not performing his side of it, so that should give the club the right to stop his wages (as with any employee who takes strike action). But "ownership" of an employee (as with football clubs and players), and the complex contracts involved, take this situation away from ordinary employment law.
Payet could try claiming restraint of trade if West Ham refuse to transfer him, but I don't think he would get far with that as West Ham could justifiably argue that he was perfectly able to practice his trade but chose not to do so. It's not the same situation as the Bosman case, where a player out of contract could not play professionally at all unless he was transferred.
|
,
3:35 Sun Jan 15
Re: Employment law?
|
Sensible thing is to sell now and divide his wages between two incomers.
|
geoffpikey
3:20 Sun Jan 15
Re: Employment law?
|
This may be why a sell-to-Marseille, but loan back to WHU for rest of season makes sense.
They get their man. But they have to pay top whack now, otherwise it's an auction.
He gets to go where he says he wants. And we keep him from any auction to other PL clubs.
To a degree, we save face. We don't buckle on him physically leaving now and we just chuck him in the stiffs. With the possible option, if he fucking crawls and apologises, of getting in the 1st team squad should he miraculously recover and both Bilic and other players are willing to entertain his presence.
If he still refuses to play, we just fine him his wages as often as we can.
|
Mike Oxsaw
3:10 Sun Jan 15
Re: Employment law?
|
I suppose the club could contract his training out to a 3rd party away from Rush Green/Chadwell Heath in order to cover their side of the contract (they could probably ask Marseilles to do the job just to antagonise both of them).
I tend to agree with a lot of the sentiment on here - as hard as I look for a way back into the C&B for him, I can't even come up with a preposterously tenuous one - he's not only burned all his bridges, he's pushed the river banks so far apart as to now make it unbridgeable.
|
Mex Martillo
2:57 Sun Jan 15
Re: Employment law?
|
Gank, it does not sound good then.
The bugger will be on full wages scratching his balls until he decides to eat humble pie (not easy to manage) or is sold in the summer.
I would be happy to sell him now. after yesterday's performance I do not want him back.
|
ray winstone
2:47 Sun Jan 15
Re: Employment law?
|
Thanks Thatcher!
|
gank
2:14 Sun Jan 15
Re: Employment law?
|
Legally we can pay him one week's wages and fine him two. However, if you cite 'gross misconduct' as the reason then you have to dismiss him. If you dismiss him he is unemployed and can demand his registration from us effectively we would be giving him a free transfer. Imagine the signing on fee he can demand if there is no transfer fee!
We also have to demand he turns up at every training session and every match on time in order for him to breach this obligation, and given that we don't want him near our players that's a tricky one too.
Saying 'let him rot in the reserves' isn't a good response either as the reserve squad is more vulnerable to his negative influence.
|
11MDE
1:58 Sun Jan 15
Re: Employment law?
|
It would depend on what's in his contract, but it would be very hard for the club not to pay him.
|
Hermit Road
1:34 Sun Jan 15
Re: Employment law?
|
It'd be pretty easy to argue that he is intentionally missing work and not pay him I reckon given what he has said.
|
Westside
1:31 Sun Jan 15
Re: Employment law?
|
Isn't Payet saying he has a bad back and unable to play? That's why we can't fine him.
|
lab
1:30 Sun Jan 15
Re: Employment law?
|
And it's gross misconduct surely ?
|
beppe
1:27 Sun Jan 15
Re: Employment law?
|
Also, surely he is in breach of his contract
|
| 
