Arthur sacked

[flibbertyjibber]

There's a 21 day limitation period to commence unfair dismissal proceedings in Australia. That would explain why he filed it now.

Fair enough, thought it might have been able to be held back till after this series and done and dusted before the next one.

 

[hendrix]

I thought it a bit **** that he did it during the ashes and that he released that "cancer to the team" stuff, but given that 21 day limitation and the fact that he claims that other stuff was unintentionally leaked, I've got to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Especially given how tight-lipped he seemed to be at the press conference of his sacking.

 

[Cooky Monster]

What is it with Clarke and Twatto then? where did it stem from?

 

[hendrix]

the fact that Clarke wants his team to win and Watson can't be ****ed and won't put up with someone giving him discipline.

 

[Burgey]

I thought it a bit **** that he did it during the ashes and that he released that "cancer to the team" stuff, but given that 21 day limitation and the fact that he claims that other stuff was unintentionally leaked, I've got to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Especially given how tight-lipped he seemed to be at the press conference of his sacking.

It wouldn't have been unintentional though. It's part of his initiating process and presumably on the public record. The firm he's using has a track record doing things like this too. In the Ashby case they included a heap of irrelevant allegations against Slipper then tried to quietly drop them once they'd played out in the media.

I have my own views about that firm but I won't publicise them here. Suffice to say none of this surprises me.

 

[Days of Grace]

Australian cricket just seems like one big spin machine these days.

We had Arthur claiming in his post-sacking interview that many Australian players were crying over his dismissal, Clarke seeming so delighted over Australian losing narrowly and competing. Gimmie some truth!

 

[hendrix]

It wouldn't have been unintentional though. It's part of his initiating process and presumably on the public record. The firm he's using has a track record doing things like this too. In the Ashby case they included a heap of irrelevant allegations against Slipper then tried to quietly drop them once they'd played out in the media.

I have my own views about that firm but I won't publicise them here. Suffice to say none of this surprises me.

Ah ok.

Would he have been familiar with the way this firm acts? Like he might not have been aware of the Slipper tactics.

I would've been furious about the leaks - especially if they were intentional - because whether it helps his case or not, it does look bad for him in terms of future employment. THe firm probably doesn't give a **** about that though and just wants to give themselves the best possible chances of winning a big settlement.

 

[Top_Cat]

The dismissal was perhaps a good thing for Australia. Lehmann may give Australia the best chance in the Ashes. However, Arthur was clearly treated shabbily at the end and it was poorly handled by CA. There couldnt be any other outcome than a court case. As for him spilling the beans, Im not sure it is malicious. He is now divorced from the situation and speaking freely regards to how he saw his position.

I have sympathy with Aus supporters who clearly want, and should have, the best man for the job. But I also have sympathy for Arthur. I dont have sympathy with CA who seem to think they can act how they want with little consequence to their actions.

Yeah, largely in line with my views on this situation. He's saying nothing which people didn't already know or strongly suspect anyway.

 

[social]

The dismissal was perhaps a good thing for Australia. Lehmann may give Australia the best chance in the Ashes. However, Arthur was clearly treated shabbily at the end and it was poorly handled by CA. There couldnt be any other outcome than a court case. As for him spilling the beans, Im not sure it is malicious. He is now divorced from the situation and speaking freely regards to how he saw his position.

I have sympathy with Aus supporters who clearly want, and should have, the best man for the job. But I also have sympathy for Arthur. I dont have sympathy with CA who seem to think they can act how they want with little consequence to their actions.

CA have offered him 6 months severance pay (pretty bloody generous if you ask me) and Arthur wants his contract paid out in full

This is just typical commercial argey-bargey

 

[Spikey]

wait did you use the word generous

 

[Carn_the_pies]

And thus ends the great debate over whether international coaches sshould be selected to lead the nation with the richest cricketing history.

 

[Spikey]

no it doesnt. this has nothing to do with england.

 

[hendrix]

/West Indies

/India

 

[Burgey]

wait did you use the word generous

Six months' pay is generally considered the maximum someone will get in an unfair dismissal case. That can vary to an extent in some circumstances if it's high profile or at an executive level depending on the contract and its terms, but I've done those sorts of cases on and off over 20 years and I have never seen someone get the maxium amount. I generally explain to people that your boss owuold basically have to say "Get on your knees while I do you or you're sacked" before they'd get six months' pay.

It's not an explanation that's always well received.

 

[Spark]

But the fact he's using Harmer's is hilarious. They are Ashby's lawyers in his case against Slipper.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2012/1411.html

Some interesting judicial comments about Arthur's lawyers in there.

Haha, serious? Dear me.

 

[Burgey]

Scandalous

 

[hendrix]

never been sacked but I think i'd be pretty stoked with 6 months...

 

[Spikey]

you are all weak capitalist pigs

 

[Goughy]

Six months' pay is generally considered the maximum someone will get in an unfair dismissal case. That can vary to an extent in some circumstances if it's high profile or at an executive level depending on the contract and its terms, but I've done those sorts of cases on and off over 20 years and I have never seen someone get the maxium amount. I generally explain to people that your boss owuold basically have to say "Get on your knees while I do you or you're sacked" before they'd get six months' pay.

It's not an explanation that's always well received.

You would know far better than me but does that still applies to contracts? I can understand it if you are a regular, salaried employee but if a, for example, 4 year contract was signed then the employer can rip it up and pay 6 months or less severance?

 

[Jono]

But the fact he's using Harmer's is hilarious. They are Ashby's lawyers in his case against Slipper.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2012/1411.html

Some interesting judicial comments about Arthur's lawyers in there.

Haha, serious? Dear me.

I have no doubt that Harmers Lawyers leaked the court documents (possibly without Arthur's knowledge). I would put my house on it.

Their reputation precedes them, and not in a good way.