I wonder how this will work out for him
Threadbanned Posters:
Hamsterchops
take everything
road_high
FixdePitchmark
gk5000
School will be closed so he'll get a day off too. He hasn't been showing up if the school is closed..
Diversity, Equality and Inclusion.
Everything that this family is against (it seems).
The post was a mild joke in response to the (unintentional) play on words. I should have placed an emoji or two.
I was joking too - just some light relief from the mundanity of this situation
Really????? Well I never!!
If in the next month his is finally sacked, but decides to go the WRC route, please tell me he won't still be getting paid if he carries this on?
At risk of slightly overplaying the issue, any hint of rubber stamping is exactly what will give the Burkes grounds to open up the issues again, whether in WRC or perhaps more likely in the general Courts.
The Appeal Panel needs to be very careful about their decision making, and should not rush anything, regardless of how frustrated people are in general with Burke's behaviour.
No, pay will stop.
Trump has just pardoned Enoch.
Ok already , we know you know what rubber stamping is.
and should not rush anything
😂
The Appeals Board which he initiated and then secured an injunction against were supposed to meet on July 7th 2023.
They are more entitled to come to a decision post haste.
He will be going to those courts either way.
Even if the WRC find fully in his favour they are limited in what they can award financially. 104 weeks salary.
Which he has had and more.
Absolutely no excuse for the Dept. to still be paying him.
Agreed. They should adopt the 'Ryanair School of Management'. If your face doesn't fit then they fire your a55 and 'take the knocks' that come afterwards.
Financially that would probably have worked out cheaper, although they would have had to be very pessimistic to think that at the time.
Think of the propaganda victory for the Burkes if the WRC somehow did find in his favour though 🤮
This is exactly the approach that will end up giving the Burkes grounds for appeal.
And when that happens, you'll be here posting about the big eejits who gave the Burkes grounds for appeal.
Don't agree. EB has a mantra "I'm turning up for work, that it what I am paid to do". Once he is formally dismissed, and the paycheck stops, then he hasn't got this crutch. Even if he wins an appeal he has zero chance of reinstatement. School may have to pay a few grand, even ten's of thousands. But that will still be small beer compared to what it will eventually cost them adopting the current strategy.
oh would ya stop as if they won’t appeal to every avenue available regardless. They’ll absolutely drag the bollox out of this.
You're absolutely right, they absolutely will drag it out.
Now do you want throw petrol on their fire by giving them excuses that WILL actually stand up in Court?
There is zero chance they'll suddenly become normal and make valid arguments even if given grounds for it.
They'll go in, scream, roar and get thrown out and the case closed; just like Ammi. Because they want the attention not money. Reinstatement is impossible.
that is most likely correct. however, you don't want that to the instance where they smarten up and get independent legal advice and win because the appeal was not conducted correctly. they haven't always ranted and raved at the courts. they have gone to court before with counsel and won their case. why give them that opportunity?
Are you suggesting that the Appeals Committee should do a rushed, half-arsed job because the lads on Boards are a bit impatient to move things on?
You really do love twisting things to match your pre-defined reply.
That's what this discussion is all about though. Literally, lads looking for a 'rubber stamping' process, the kind of stuff that gets highlighted in the WRC all the time as exposing employers to losses.
My point is that the Appeals Committee need to do the exact opposite of rubber stamping. They need to do their job seriously, with due process, giving the Burkes the opportunity to engage and respond at every stage.
Do you have a problem with this proposed approach?
Ah come on you are being extremely pedantic.
When people say they expect the appeals committee to rubber stamp they are saying they don't think the appeals committee with judge the situation any different to prior panels/committees. The expectation is that the committee will do its job properly and as a result confirm the dismissal ie rubber stamp.
You are taking posts way way too literally and in my view completely out of context.
I can see what you're saying, absolutely need to make sure every i dotted, every t crossed where this family are involved.
They won't engage in any meaningful manner though, they will do their usual roaring and screaming and disrupting the process so I can see how people are frustrated with the Burkes and the system that's allowing them to drag this out. Crucifixion, the only answer.
I'm being slightly pedantic, and my first post on this issue started out with 'it's just a small thing, but'.
There is a serious lesson here though. Rubber stamping is rubber stamping, and rubber stamping in HR processes, whether disciplinary meetings or termination decisions or appeals gets called out regularly at the WRC. Employers should be doing the exact opposite of rubber stamping.
they have gone to court before with counsel and won their case
That was before they had 2 freelance (unemployed) solicitors at their disposal.
it was but it shows they are willing to take another tack if they think they have a winnable case. it would be smart of the appeal board not to give them that opportunity
and, for clarity, they do not have 2 solicitors. they have one solicitor (who probably does not have a current practicing cert as that requires insurance to be in place) and one barrister in training who has not been called to the bar
Wonder if the bellend turn up at school today???
I heard he couldn't find his Ruby slippers so gave it a miss
Again.
It is completely within the remit of the appeals board and part of the defined process that a full hearing isn't mandatory if certain conditions are met or not met.
They are perfectly entitled to revert back to the BOM, there is no default position where the WRC or any other Court would automatically rule that as a breach of process.
and, for clarity, they do not have 2 solicitors
Whatever they are, there is no way they will be outsourcing their crusade.
You would need your head examined to take them on as clients, you'd probably be immediately slapped with some sort of injunction. Chances of getting paid would be virtually zero too.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
