1970 Crow I am weary of correcting your blatantly incorrect posts. Suspension is not a legal requirement in civil employment law but is optional. The decision to suspend or not suspend is the right of the employer in this case the AFC Board. You prove how little you know by using that example. I repeat this is a civil matter which is subject to different processes and standards of proof. The Board has decided that it is in the operational and strategic interests of the club that the CEO is not stood down during a CIVIL investigation. If they suspend the CEO then there is a high possibility they would have to suspend half the recruiting/list management team in the middle of trade period. This is not a criminal matter. The Board have made the correct decision as far as we can tell under the circumstances. And I'd take a guess at the lawyer who is advising them - and I'll bet it's the best in Adelaide. I prefer that advice over yours anyday.
Now I suggest you go play in an area which you have expertise as this is clearly not it.
not too bright are you. what i'm referring to is that in both of these scenarios the employee has potentially transgressed the very rules which they are employed to watch over. that is the relevance of the police officer hypothetical compared to triggy's issues. and suspending them while the investigation is being undertaken is an entirely appropriate course of action. but, altough your not intelligent enough to realise, you agree with me anyway that it would be appropriate to suspend him if the board decided to.
"The Board has decided that it is in the operational and strategic interests of the club that the CEO is not stood down during a CIVIL investigation."
so congratulations are in order. you agree with decision that board has made on this matter. anyone who disagrees is an idiot and incapable of comprehending the vast array of issues at hand. and surprisingly, jenny agrees with you. who could have predicted that.
