Who writes these guys contracts ????

Liam Byrne

Was listening to Enda Kenny's questioning of Cowen earlier, and I nearly fainted!!!!

Apparently, the issue is that because Molloy wasn't fired he wasn't entitled to a payoff ?????

How f**king backward is that ?

If he had been fired, he'd have been entitled to one ?

That's so bloody ludicrous that I've been checking since if I actually woke up this morning!!!!

Someone PLEASE tell me that someone has the cop-on in a contract to differentiate between being "made redundant" and being "fired" for incompetence and / or corruption or whatever ......... :eek: Please ?????

P. Breathnach

Liam Byrne wrote: »

... If he had been fired, he'd have been entitled to one ? ...

That's the flaw in your reasoning.

If he had been fired, he might have had a basis for an unfair dismissal case, and that could have been costly; it would, at the very least, have been troublesome. But if it could be established that a dismissal was justified, then he would not have been entitled to anything over and above the pension rights he had already built up.

LoLth

its not the first time this has happened: Fingleton , the finance watchdog, I've persoanlly seen it happen in the private sector where a manager was asked to resign rather than be fired (and then got his happy handshake bonus) and also where an engineer was "fired" but in effect they just wrappe dup his contract early and paid him the balance outstanding - for running a pr0n repository from the company's DMZ....

I do agree thats its utterly ridiculous and really splitting hairs. If an employee (regardless of sector) is found to be unsuitable for their position due to wrongdoing on their part, they should be found in breach of contract and all benefits perks etc should be null and void. Bertie actually got a pension ffs!

meglome

The sad thing is they often get a promotion to get them out of the way when they've fúcked up. But that's been the policy of the government over along period of time, throw money at the problem and hope it goes away quietly.

Liam Byrne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's the flaw in your reasoning.

If he had been fired, he might have had a basis for an unfair dismissal case, and that could have been costly; it would, at the very least, have been troublesome. But if it could be established that a dismissal was justified, then he would not have been entitled to anything over and above the pension rights he had already built up.

Thanks for the clarification. So the issue isn't what they're bull****ting about to save face, because the award would only be made IF he was fired and later found to be fired unfairly ? Phew!

I take it so that if he had been fired and it wasn't unfair, then the payoff would have been held back ?

So basically it all comes down to a lack of conviction on the Government's part yet again; we want you out because "people" think we should, not because it's blatantly obvious that what you did (and didn't do) was unacceptable ?

P. Breathnach

Liam Byrne wrote: »

... I take it so that if he had been fired and it wasn't unfair, then the payoff would have been held back ?

That's how I see it.

So basically it all comes down to a lack of conviction on the Government's part yet again; we want you out because "people" think we should, not because it's blatantly obvious that what you did (and didn't do) was unacceptable ?

There is also another angle. Even if the government was convinced that a firing would be justified, Rody Molloy could have initiated legal action. That action might have had very little chance of success, but nothing is ever an absolute certainty when you go to court. Even if the action failed, it would cast some uncertainty over the whole FAS situation for a year or two. On that basis, you can make a case for giving Molloy money to go away.

My own opinion is that those negotiating with Molloy could, and should, have taken a harder line: simply told him to leave with what he had. I am sure that Molloy would have packed his bag and gone. But in a high-stakes game, they blinked first. I might be wrong: maybe Molloy has the balls to bring an action that would have been, to put it mildly, unpopular.

Naz_st

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Even if the government was convinced that a firing would be justified, Rody Molloy could have initiated legal action. That action might have had very little chance of success, but nothing is ever an absolute certainty when you go to court

I remember reading a letter in the Irish Times on this a few weeks ago, where the author pointed out that even if Molloy had taken a case (which would have been handled efficiently and quite cost-effectively in the Employee Appeals Tribunal rather than the high courts), and had he won the case and the tribunal found that the government had been grossly and conciously unfair in the dismissal (basically the worst possible), the maximum amount that he could have been awarded would have been 2 years salary (~480k or so IIRC). Which would still have been less than half the actuarial value of his golden handshake.

Government just wanted him out as quickly as possible (and as usual, taxpayers money wasn't an issue...)

sceptre

Naz_st wrote: »

Government just wanted him out as quickly as possible (and as usual, taxpayers money wasn't an issue...)

And comparatively quietly. The last thing they wanted was the guy to be in the papers making them look bad again (and as though they had no control over the national tiller... or tills) in six months or two years.

Boskowski

LoLth wrote: »

for running a pr0n repository from the company's DMZ....

As you do....:D lolz

scnr

dvpower

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is also another angle. Even if the government was convinced that a firing would be justified, Rody Molloy could have initiated legal action. That action might have had very little chance of success, but nothing is ever an absolute certainty when you go to court. Even if the action failed, it would cast some uncertainty over the whole FAS situation for a year or two. On that basis, you can make a case for giving Molloy money to go away.

My own opinion is that those negotiating with Molloy could, and should, have taken a harder line: simply told him to leave with what he had. I am sure that Molloy would have packed his bag and gone. But in a high-stakes game, they blinked first. I might be wrong: maybe Molloy has the balls to bring an action that would have been, to put it mildly, unpopular.

If the Government had a bit of courage it would have stood up to him and made it clear that if he took a case it would be fought using expensive government lawyers and if he lost, the state would persue costs. He would have had to blink to remove the tears from his eyes.

Fulton Crown

dvpower wrote: »

If the Government had a bit of courage it would have stood up to him and made it clear that if he took a case it would be fought using expensive government lawyers and if he lost, the state would persue costs. He would have had to blink to remove the tears from his eyes.

Look pal..get real.

What is in common with all of this......these obscene settlements and public service bonusus + the crazy salaries of the RTE "stars"

It's not their money and they have to answer to nobody !

They seem to be untouchable and immune to sacking....why would they stress themselves when a few hundred thou of our cash will sort it out.

Think The Mayo man has he coughed up the million squids yet.....who drew up moustache mans contract.

Will Naas man keep the Audi...who signed orf on it !

Fcuck sake it's mad :eek:

FlutterinBantam

Roscommon actually;)