Re: David Fifita : Wed Sep 02, 2020 12:47 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

It sounds more like Big Dave got away with being an exception when it wasn't compulsory because he brought a lot to the team and it was okay to ignore it, but now it is compulsory he is demanding to be still treated differently but isn't allowed to do so.

Uncomfortable or whatever, we are getting the game going for the benefit of the game, something that has provided him with an income, and for the sake of the British game, which has turned him from a fringe player at Cronulla to the main focus of a super league side. If he won't take one for the team, it won't bother me if he doesn't play in a Wakey shirt again.

Exactly how I see things.

Re: David Fifita : Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:34 pm  

Me too

Re: David Fifita : Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:51 pm  

What I said was one of them is not telling the whole truth. The question is when the use became compulsory did he ask for a smaller version if so then why was this not stated in the CEO statement. If he didn’t then the club need to confirm this and then we know who was being inaccurate.

Re: David Fifita : Wed Sep 02, 2020 3:31 pm  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

What I said was one of them is not telling the whole truth. The question is when the use became compulsory did he ask for a smaller version if so then why was this not stated in the CEO statement. If he didn’t then the club need to confirm this and then we know who was being inaccurate.

Why do they, who exactly do you think you are?

Re: David Fifita : Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:10 pm  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

What I said was one of them is not telling the whole truth. The question is when the use became compulsory did he ask for a smaller version if so then why was this not stated in the CEO statement. If he didn’t then the club need to confirm this and then we know who was being inaccurate.

Perhaps some discussions stay behind closed doors?

Re: David Fifita : Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:17 pm  

I agree but it’s difficult to stay behind closed doors when one of the parties make a statement to the press. I and many others would not have cared if the statement had not referenced his standing down and the reason why, this was then followed by his contrary statement that he requested a smaller device which the club did not provide. If you are happy to accept everything on face value can I suggest to you that the earth is flat or that the moon is made of green cheese.

[PopTart]

Re: David Fifita : Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:21 pm  

vastman wrote:

Why do they, who exactly do you think you are?

I was just about to write the same.
It baffles me.

Re: David Fifita : Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:47 pm  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

I agree but it’s difficult to stay behind closed doors when one of the parties make a statement to the press. I and many others would not have cared if the statement had not referenced his standing down and the reason why, this was then followed by his contrary statement that he requested a smaller device which the club did not provide. If you are happy to accept everything on face value can I suggest to you that the earth is flat or that the moon is made of green cheese.

Club: "you have to wear one of these now. It's compulsory, Dave"
Dave: "you know I don't like them. Get me a smaller one and I'll think about it. Until then, no."

Not sure the club needs to do anything. Wakey's top earner not doing his bit, as far as I see it. As he doesn't bring as much to the team as he used to, the club are right to reassess his demands and refusals.

Re: David Fifita : Wed Sep 02, 2020 5:17 pm  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

I agree but it’s difficult to stay behind closed doors when one of the parties make a statement to the press. I and many others would not have cared if the statement had not referenced his standing down and the reason why, this was then followed by his contrary statement that he requested a smaller device which the club did not provide. If you are happy to accept everything on face value can I suggest to you that the earth is flat or that the moon is made of green cheese.

Don't forget also you talk a load of rubbish I accept that old cocker

Re: David Fifita : Wed Sep 02, 2020 5:49 pm  

Egg Banjo wrote:

The employer is legally required to make reasonable adjustments. In the case of the goggles analogy, this could include the use of other eye protection types or models, proving protective shields etc. As none of those were shown in the analogy, the sacked employee would win an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal.

Can I just remind you that you wrote the analogy

Health and Safety requires removal of the risk and if that is not possible a fully risk assessed alternative can be considered which could be a change in working practise, grills or shield along with PPE and they would have to cooperate 'reasonable adjustment' is not a method used in safety. Your goggles fearing chap would lose a tribunal, assuming he has the money to start it

Even though you have added a few extra bits to the initial post and the task before it escalated you still come up with the the wrong answer but his safety is paramount and if the only way to guarantee it is to remove him from the task so be it, no doubt they would seek to find another role in the company to suit someone with a fear of safety goggles.

As for 'reasonable adjustments' I am assuming you've picked this up from the Equality Act which requires employers do this for people who may need additional support in the work place be for people with disabilities.