Not all ET1 claims are accepted by the Tribunal office, they have to be assessed on whether it is a legitimate claim or not at that point. Then ACAS get involved to try and resolve the situation amicably to save court time. Advice will be given as to whether they actually have a cats chance in hell or not. Also any payment as part of a redundancy package will be considered as a whole, and also what has been done to attempt to get another job in the subsequent time since leaving the post. If someone has done naff all in the meantime, and had a decent redundancy payment at the time, then it is possible that the court will refuse to hear the case.

Didn't Steve Macnamara once try the same?

At this moment we don't know who is trying to make a claim and for what reason so i'm for biding my time before having my say, i would find it hard to feel anything but disgust if this turns out to be the case.

We are all in the dark and theres no point any of us getting wound up

(sorry bad joke) by this untill we know the facts.

Let the club deal with it and lets do what supporters do best.

Didn't ted say that if fans raised the £500k that he would walk away without a penny, and just be a fan?
Well he's walked away without a penny and if this turns out to be true, employment law or not, are these the actions of a "fan"?

Is Ted Richardson taking the club to an employment tribunal over unfair dismissal?

That would appear to be the rumour.

Don't think there is a link so we'll let that go.

I doubt it; to make an unfair dismissal claim, the claimant has to be an employee. My understanding is that Ted wasn't employed by the club so there would be no claim he could make.

So you don't know? I see.

Yeah, although it's a pity we're giving an airing to more negative stuff about the club without some solid factual basis. As The Clan said:

As I didn't start the thread, that is why I said rumour, you see.

Can't we just blame Julian O'Neil or Mark Field like the good old days?

No, I dont see. His name isn't mentioned in the original post, so I'm intrigued as to why you'd drag him into the equation, without knowing the facts.

This is Pearman country, surely?

Nobody's names are mentioned as far as I can see, but you have not commented on anyone else's naming of names.
Ted may or may not be involved in this rumoured action against the club as could Diane, I ask again would that be the action of fan.
Surely it's time they just moved on?

Because the other names mentioned so far were known to be employees of the club, on the payroll, and therefore in the frame.

As far as I aware, a Director is still/can still, be an employee.

True, but that still doesn't get us any nearer the answer, does it?

No, and until anything is confirmed it remains a "rumour" and no one can be discounted.
If you read both of my posts, you will see I don't actualy acuse ted or anyone, I merely point out "if".

I have no reason to question who told me the same news and it just goes to show how bitter it can get.

I can tell you this, last year I was in touch with Diane Maskill with regards the prize for the Leon Walker predictions competition,
it took around three emails for the club to respond and honour their promise of the prize,
excuses as its the shops fault and its lost in the post just lead me to believe how sloppy things was run,
I even ask yorkshire one not to post it on here as it would give bad pr to the club, it took three months to sort out.

If an employer makes you redundant, they have to show that you were fairly selected for redundancy, and further that you were in fact made redundant.

Speaking hypothetically, let's say you are made redundant from working in a shop, but the reason for that is because of your connection to the old bosses, not because of some objective criteria, like last one, first out, or voluntary packages first, and then you find out that someone has got your old job, two things arise:
1. You haven't been made "redundant", because your old job has not ceased to exist, and:
2. Even if you have been made redundant, you have potentially been selected for redundancy on an unfair basis, because you have been selected because of who you are.

Alternatively, if your wage is cut unreasonably, regardless of whether your original wage was unreasonably high, then maybe there has been constructive dismissal.

I have no idea if any of this applies, but it shows how easy it is to fall foul of employment law. What employers can do, however, is decide that paying the compo is worth it to get rid.

Surely their gripe is with O'haras. They are the ones trying to recoup the money they believe was wrongfully paid to certain employees prior to the purchase by Spirit of 1873 and they are the ones who laid all the staff off. I don't profess to know the ins and outs of employment law, but surely there is no claim against the new owners for deciding not to remploy people who had been made redundant by the administrators.

If it does involve the Richardsons then it is disgusting to think that there are other people who will have suffered far more loss of income as a result of the old regimes demise then them, and who were not directly responsible for everything going tits up.

TUPE regulations (Transfer of Undertakings something or other). New owners take on the employment obligations of the old ones.

Thought Administration negated that?

But surely they would have to be employees at the time the club was purchased for those rights to exist, which wasn't the case here as I understand it. Givem the business was in administration at the time I can't see how those rights would exist.