Joined: Feb 11 2014 Posts: 1073 Location: Hill Valley
Gerrum on side ref wrote:Mu understanding of TUPE is that the employee has to agree to it, Carvell didn't agree to be TUPE'd from OK Bulls to Bulls 2014 so effectively he resigned, don't think the Bulls have a case but we will see how it goes over the coming weeks.
Having just done some reading up on this it sounds like that is right on the TUPE front.
Reading the statement it sounds like Bradford are claiming he was contracted to the club rather than the parent company of OK Bulls but if the parent company went into administration then that means any companies they own also went into administration surely?
Joined: Jul 31 2003 Posts: 36786 Location: Leafy Worcester, home of the Black Pear
Doc Brown wrote:Having just done some reading up on this it sounds like that is right on the TUPE front.
Reading the statement it sounds like Bradford are claiming he was contracted to the club rather than the parent company of OK Bulls but if the parent company went into administration then that means any companies they own also went into administration surely?
Not exactly. The Bulls club is not a legal entity and cannot go into administration. It's effectively a brand/product owned by OK Bulls and now owned by the newco. As such, their assertion that Carvell had a contract with the Bulls club and not the parent company is patent nonsense.
Hold on to me baby, his bony hands will do you no harm It said in the cards, we lost our souls to the Nameless One
Joined: Feb 11 2014 Posts: 1073 Location: Hill Valley
Kosh wrote:Not exactly. The Bulls club is not a legal entity and cannot go into administration. It's effectively a brand/product owned by OK Bulls and now owned by the newco. As such, their assertion that Carvell had a contract with the Bulls club and not the parent company is patent nonsense.
Thanks for clearing that up for me Kosh. Can't see a case for Bradford here myself.
Joined: May 12 2011 Posts: 3338 Location: West Hull
Just seen an article that I saw yesterday that looks as if it's been reworded to say they're suing carvell whereas yesterday they were suing Hull FC. Seems like a total mess from the Bradford end and either way they can't have much of a case.
All men are created equal, some work harder in preseason. -Emmitt Smith
Joined: Jul 31 2003 Posts: 36786 Location: Leafy Worcester, home of the Black Pear
the cal train wrote:Just seen an article that I saw yesterday that looks as if it's been reworded to say they're suing carvell whereas yesterday they were suing Hull FC. Seems like a total mess from the Bradford end and either way they can't have much of a case.
They have no case against FC and never did, much like we never had a case against Rovers when Cooke left. I very much doubt that they can build a convincing case against Carvell either - or at least not one that makes any commercial sense to pursue.
It's just bluster. Much like our threats following the Cooke fiasco.
Hold on to me baby, his bony hands will do you no harm It said in the cards, we lost our souls to the Nameless One
Joined: Aug 30 2005 Posts: 3231 Location: in a cave
the cal train wrote:Just seen an article that I saw yesterday that looks as if it's been reworded to say they're suing carvell whereas yesterday they were suing Hull FC. Seems like a total mess from the Bradford end and either way they can't have much of a case.
They need to get some proper lawyers. Their so-called "HR experts" aren't even solicitors. They may be ok for dealing with employment tribunal claims but they can't handle this sort of litigation.
I'm sure that HUll FC have nothing much to worry about and doubt Carvell has either.
First there was wisdom Then there was knowledge Now there is only information
Users browsing this forum: bonaire, Google Adsense [Bot], Maninasuitcase and 132 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
