Tullio Cofrancesco v Parramatta Leagues Club

[Lossy]

Details on the decision on Tullio Cofrancesco's unsuccessful unfair dismissal case against Parramatta Leagues Club.

Apologies if it's been posted already.

Decision here.

Quite interesting.

 

[strider]

in summary ... bad Tullio

 

[Gronk]

There you go a lesson is learned. If your boss asks you to do something that might be borderline you have to say no.

Well at least that part of the witch hunt is over.

 

[strider]

or the other lesson ... "if it looks dodgy, sounds dodgy and smells dodgy - don't do it"

 

[fish eel]

So the board were right to punt him?

 

[hineyrulz]

So the board were right to punt him?

Looks like it, but i thought everything the board did was wrong??? I thought it was just a terrible vendetta against DF and his colleages :crazy:

 

[Gronk]

So the board were right to punt him?

Yep, his role was to countersign cheques and his boss told him to cut a cheque. He denies knowing what the $39k was for, but that's not good enough when you are placed in a position of responsibility.

He trusted his boss and that was his downfall.

 

[born an eel]

while the payment in advance sounds suss, I was of the understanding that directors, board members, executives etc had the right to seek defamation proceeding against a third party at no cost to them personally, if they were defamed in the course of doing their job. Obviously with the right approvals from the board and within the law and corporations act.
if memory serves it is written into the club constitution.

 

[mickdo]

But I thought the board was just wasting money on lawyers?

 

[Bigfella]

The current organisation has the right, and the responsibility, to investigate, and if appropriate, take action against any breaches of employment duties or statutory obligation.

This and other cases have been cited as part of the campaign by Hadley, and the usual suspects on here, as being "evidence" of a campaign or vendetta.

None of us know all of the facts (if any).

The board should be allowed to adopt the course it sees fit, and stand or fall on the results of those decisions.

If they are unfounded cases, people who drove them will be brought to account. If not, they will be vindicated.

All I object to is the innuendo and smears by people who don't know the facts.

I also suspect that people trying
to smother the cases or Investigations have some interest in avoiding some of these facts being uncovered. That's only a guess though.

Contrary to what the band of posters on here have claimed, I don't have any allegiance whatsoever to the new board members or administration. Don't know them, have any relationship with them or anything to gain by their incumbency.

What gets up my nose is the campaign against them based on speculation and assumptions.

For the record, if anyone could reasonably demonstrate that the current board (as opposed to one or two rogue members) did maliciously leak sensitive information; or did use board funds solely to run a private vendetta, I would be the first to call for them to go.

But that is a long way from the case. People
are running a campaign based on either personal dislike for individuals,
or a desire to restore people
in the joint with whom they have a relationship.

I think the new mob are doing a reasonable job. I think the process of uncovering some
of the unsavoury things that may have happened inthe joint are essential to moving forward.

 

[Gronk]

The current organisation has the right, and the responsibility, to investigate, and if appropriate, take action against any breaches of employment duties or statutory obligation.

This and other cases have been cited as part of the campaign by Hadley, and the usual suspects on here, as being "evidence" of a campaign or vendetta.

None of us know all of the facts (if any).

The board should be allowed to adopt the course it sees fit, and stand or fall on the results of those decisions.

If they are unfounded cases, people who drove them will be brought to account. If not, they will be vindicated.

All I object to is the innuendo and smears by people who don't know the facts.

I also suspect that people trying
to smother the cases or Investigations have some interest in avoiding some of these facts being uncovered. That's only a guess though.

Contrary to what the band of posters on here have claimed, I don't have any allegiance whatsoever to the new board members or administration. Don't know them, have any relationship with them or anything to gain by their incumbency.

What gets up my nose is the campaign against them based on speculation and assumptions.

For the record, if anyone could reasonably demonstrate that the current board (as opposed to one or two rogue members) did maliciously leak sensitive information; or did use board funds solely to run a private vendetta, I would be the first to call for them to go.

But that is a long way from the case. People
are running a campaign based on either personal dislike for individuals,
or a desire to restore people
in the joint with whom they have a relationship.

I think the new mob are doing a reasonable job. I think the process of uncovering some
of the unsavoury things that may have happened inthe joint are essential to moving forward.

Yes but your campaign to defend them is based on your own speculations and assumptions.

What gets up everyone else's nose is your arrogant, condescending attitude to those who post opinions which differ from yours.

 

[mickdo]

Oh lord, here we go...

 

[Delboy]

Gronk = high hosre/argue with himself in a sound proof room

Mate, give it a rest, no need to turn everything into comments on your dislike for the current board

most of us are over it

 

[Bigfella]

Yes but your campaign to defend them is based on your own speculations and assumptions.

What gets up everyone else's nose is your arrogant, condescending attitude to those who post opinions which differ from yours.

They are entitled to be assumed not to have done something until it is proven that they have.

If you think assuming someone is innocent until proven guilty is arrogant, good on you.

You and your cronies - and one of them is Casper, which tells you what sort of company you are in - post in packs, and get the sh%ts when I disagree.

Chin up fairyfloss. Maybe you should get back to listening to Ray Hadley to check what your opinions should be? Then if you've got time you can try to bring down the board because of the ugly cap in the membership package.

 

[born an eel]

All I object to is the innuendo and smears by people who don't know the facts.

I also suspect that people trying
to smother the cases or Investigations have some interest in avoiding some of these facts being uncovered. That's only a guess though.

Contrary to what the band of posters on here have claimed, I don't have any allegiance whatsoever to the new board members or administration. Don't know them, have any relationship with them or anything to gain by their incumbency.

What gets up my nose is the campaign against them based on speculation and assumptions.


But that is a long way from the case. People
are running a campaign based on either personal dislike for individuals,
or a desire to restore people
in the joint with whom they have a relationship.

how do you look at yourself in the mirror :crazy::crazy:

 

[Gronk]

They are entitled to be assumed not to have done something until it is proven that they have.

If you think assuming someone is innocent until proven guilty is arrogant, good on you.

You and your cronies - and one of them is Casper, which tells you what sort of company you are in - post in packs, and get the sh%ts when I disagree.

Chin up fairyfloss. Maybe you should get back to listening to Ray Hadley to check what your opinions should be? Then if you've got time you can try to bring down the board because of the ugly cap in the membership package.

Once again you post with your typical holier than thou attitude. Perhaps you should ask Mummy what "condescending" means and then grow up a little.

 

[born an eel]

But I thought the board was just wasting money on lawyers?

one swallow doesn't make a summer,

some terminations and remunerations may well be justified ,others have already been proven not to be.

 

[Jake the snake]

Ok so the current board have been vindicated in this action????

And all this happened under the previous boards noses??

 

[Bigfella]

Once again you post with your typical holier than thou attitude. Perhaps you should ask Mummy what "condescending" means and then grow up a little.

Quality comeback.

I see your boys are coming in to get your back.

I can also see why you need help, based on that response.

 

[Jake the snake]

They are entitled to be assumed not to have done something until it is proven that they have.

If you think assuming someone is innocent until proven guilty is arrogant, good on you.

You and your cronies - and one of them is Casper, which tells you what sort of company you are in - post in packs, and get the sh%ts when I disagree.

Chin up fairyfloss. Maybe you should get back to listening to Ray Hadley to check what your opinions should be? Then if you've got time you can try to bring down the board because of the ugly cap in the membership package.

Good call.