Excellent piece of business, strengthens the pack and adds some real go forward.

Certainly gives me more hope of matching Cats pack on Friday.

I know its a different scenario but with Cooke, the lack of a signed contract was appeared to be incidental to the registration and he was subsequently registered with the RFL as a rovers player. If the RFL are registering Carvell as a Hull player (and therefore a free agent) they must believe his contract with BB was null and void. Either way should Bradford's grievance be with the player or the RFL?

But simultaneously with Thackray. Do you see a pattern emerging?

I would have thought Bratfud would have more pressing things to spend money on than a futile legal action.

I also think it would be foolish of them to upset the RFL given their recent predicament. No official decision has been made yet on a possible points deduction for going into administration. Again.

In the Cooke situation, it was probably a failure of the RFL, as it was just a continuation of a contract somebody probably registered Cookie without even checking for a signed contract.
In this instance, it's hard to find blame with anyone but the Bulls for this situation, Carvell had rejected the newco and they've decided to just ignore that on some whim of a part of his contract which is extremely amateurish and utterly unenforceable. The RFL will have wanted to see contracts because of the whole TUPE thing.

Under TUPE you can refuse, but that on its own doesn't grant you a dismissal, constructive or otherwise. He would still be bound to his existing contractural conditions and could be held in violation of conditions. All TUPE is is a protection of employment conditions in a business transfer, not a change in employment conditions as required for constructive dismissal.

That said, my understanding is that they altered his conditions, I believe his salary. Which is clear contractural violation.

Either way. Providing Hull didn't make an approach, all is good from that point of view and the case against Carvell is very likely not worth perusing. I expect this to go away with a whimper.

Big lads all!

Nope, they wouldn't. Unless their actions were discriminatory, best an employee can get is lost income. You as an employee can't even claim legal costs. Something I've written to parliament about before as I believe the system of employment tribunals is very lopsided in favour of employers with disposable capital.

TUPE does allow resignation, but we'll have to wait and see.....

My understanding of TUPE is that an employee can't be compelled to transfer his employment to a new employer and has the right to walk away from an employment contract. I'm pretty sure this is the fundamental principle here and why carvell feels he can walk away. I've never seen any mention of reduced salaries. I don't think anyone has mentioned dismissal, constructive or otherwise. I'm pretty sure he's just exercising his right to walk away under TUPE

You can "resign" at anytime. Your not obliged to work for somebody, but it doesn't free you from your contractural obligations unless you are dismissed or constructively dismiss yourself.

One of the key requirements for constructive dismissal is a change in employment conditions. A TUPE transfer is meant to actually protect these conditions.

Under TUPE he can walk away from any contract he had with the previous employer. No one is trying to claim constructive dismissal, just that his contract with bradford is null and void

It doesn't actually end the contract, or count as dismissal. However I believe you do get a very short consultation period under TUPE to refuse and walk away liability free. Not sure of the duration, but it's less than a week I think.

Bradford seem to be indicating from their statement that he didn't exercise this hence the surprise.

That's how I see it.

What is odd is this reference in Bradford's statement.



which wouldn't apply straight after a TUPE transfer.