To who?

Richie Mathers sums it up quite well here https://twitter.com/richardmathers/stat ... 88704?s=21

Richie Mathers sums it up quite well here https://twitter.com/richardmathers/stat ... 88704?s=21

Quote ="Willzay"Richie Mathers sums it up quite well here https://twitter.com/richardmathers/stat ... 88704?s=21'" Except that club have stated that he has always refused to wear them, just that it wasn't really a problem pre-covid so the club let it slide instead of adressing the issue then.

Quote ="Willzay"Richie Mathers sums it up quite well here https://twitter.com/richardmathers/stat ... 88704?s=21'" Except that club have stated that he has always refused to wear them, just that it wasn't really a problem pre-covid so the club let it slide instead of adressing the issue then.

So who's going to lose at this tribunal?

Two conflicting stories here, who is making it up then?

"David has refused to wear one in the past, and despite being told that he must wear one, didn’t wear it against Catalans in the league game"

From the club statement, further clarified by Chester in an interview with either BBC Sport or Yorkshire Post

The employer, it will be down an employee and money from the inevitable payout from failing to comply with a legal obligation

A quick way for an employer win at a tribunal.

So what you are implying then is scarlet is wrong and is making it up by saying they've only been out a week when in fact they have been out a lot longer, according to BBCsport or the Yorkshire post, which one is it?

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 the employer has a duty to keep an employee safe and this would include providing PPE which is what the GPS tracker now is, an employee is required to cooperate with the employer. Every work place has the H&S poster even Trinity. Going back to your goggles analogy when the fool that won't wear goggles loses his sight from being hit by metal shavings who do you believe the Health and Safety Executive will be prosecuting.

https://www.griffinsafetytraining.co.uk ... es-duties/ Send him to prison!!

https://www.griffinsafetytraining.co.uk ... es-duties/ Send him to prison!!

You have no idea what you are talking about.

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.

It's either the club statement is wrong, or Scarlett is. I'm not sure which you choose to believe, and frankly, I don't care

Go and read up on the Equalities Act, you'll see that I'm right

It sounds like Big Dave wants out, he’s probably been tapped up, think most of the competition would like him, regardless of the current situation. Good luck with all this terrible CV19 to all our friends in rugby league.

Employers are under a duty to make reasonable adjustments for employees who suffer a disability. For these purposes a "disability" is any physical or mental impairment which has a substantial, long-term effect on an employee's ability to carry out their day to day activities. As well as the more obvious adjustments (such as to enable access to premises, or the provision of auxiliary aids), the duty to make reasonable adjustments is also required where an employer applies a "provision, criterion or practice" to an employee which substantially disadvantages a disabled employee as compared to those who are not.

In the context of COVID-19, requiring employees to attend the workplace (even if appropriate health and safety measures have been implemented) would likely constitute a "provision, criterion or practice" which would disproportionately affect employees who are vulnerable due to health concerns. Such employees may have a higher risk of infection and/or a higher risk of negative outcomes if they are infected. Some employees may also be newly disabled following infection by COVID-19 (i.e. if they are expected to have on-going long-term health implications). In these cases, it will be incumbent on the employer to consider what reasonable adjustments can be made. Continued working from home may be reasonable in many cases. Employers should also consider whether any additional PPE should be provided to disabled employees who cannot work from home, and whether there are other additional steps that can be taken to afford a higher level of protection to these employees.

Some employers may also encounter employees whose religion and belief includes a requirement which is not entirely compatible with PPE (for example, wearing a beard or a turban may impede the use of masks). Requiring an employee to shave their beard or remove their turban could give rise to potential indirect discrimination claims. In these circumstances, the employer is likely to have a legitimate aim (i.e. health and safety), however, the question will be whether their proposed approach is proportionate. Consideration should be given to whether other types of PPE could be used which would be more effective, notwithstanding the employee's beard or clothing, and also whether duties can be modified to lower the potential risk faced by the employee.

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.

Me too

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.