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?

Perhaps some discussions stay behind closed doors?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

The analogy is well and good to keep Scarlett happy but it doesn't apply in this case.

No one has been sacked so there is no tribunal

A better analogy would be that the employer said they couldn't do that job any more because it wasn't safe so asked them to work in the office for the same money.

The issue will be when the contract is up for review. No tribunal for not renewing a contract.

I hope we sort it all out amicably and Dave can get back to playing but at the moment he has made his position clear by not wearing the tracker.
Seems like a pointless point of principle to me.

Nothing stopping Dave or his agent releasing a statement. Isn't his agent Harrison? He's never short of an opinion on everything.

It wasnt a very good analogy was it? Apologies

I see he’s up before the head and HR on Friday. I hope but don’t expect that they realise he is a cult amongst the Wakefield supporters who do not frequent this forum. What I expect is that they will agree for him to see out the season and allow him to leave because there will be no shortage of clubs looking to sign him.
The bottom line will as per usual be money, the club have made it a point on every occasion to state he is our highest paid player and I expect that they think he can be replaced by our London loanee who will warrant a much lower salary.