Former Accies coach wins unfair dismissal claim against the club

Sep 2 2010 by Alastair McNeill, Hamilton Advertiser

A ‘HARD man’ Accies coach who told players to get their ‘tackle’ out because a female physiotherapist was going to see who had the ‘biggest t****r’ has won a claim for wrongful dismissal against the club.

John ‘Cowboy’ McCormack was appointed as assistant manager to Billy Reid at the newly-promoted New Douglas Park side in June 2008, but was sacked just over two months later for alleged gross misconduct following a string of incidents.

McCormack, who got his nickname from a Glasgow boxer, sued the club at the Court of Session in Edinburgh seeking damages of £93,334 for wrongful dismissal.

Hamilton contested the action maintaining he was in breach of contract and it was entitled to dismiss him.

A judge has now ruled in favour of McCormack, a former Dundee and Albion Rovers manager.

Lord Woolman said: “In my view all the incidents, taken together, did not justify summary dismissal. Mr McCormack's conduct did not in my view justify that step being taken.”

Further proceedings will have to take place to establish the amount McCormack is to receive. McCormack, of Mount Vernon, Glasgow, claimed he was appointed for a two-year term at £40,000 a year, but the judge said he preferred the evidence of club chairman Ronnie MacDonald that he had agreed a one-year contract.

The court heard that manager Mr Reid was aware that McCormack had a reputation in football as a ‘hard man’ who was heavy on players.

Within days of his appointment McCormack took charge of the Accies team taking part in a pre-season tournament.

Physiotherapist Jillian Galloway was with the squad and was present when McCormack gave a team talk before the final match against a Dundee United side.

McCormack made comments of a sexual nature in the presence of the players and Miss Galloway.

After the match she was also instructed to go back into the dressing room where McCormack said: “Get your tackle out lads, Jillian’s coming to see who’s got the biggest t****r.”

McCormack was also said to have undressed in front of the 21-year-old before showering and dressing again.

Lord Woolman said he found Miss Galloway to be “a transparently honest and reliable witness” and added: “I reject Mr McCormack’s suggestion that she fabricated her account of him changing in front of her in the dressing room.”

Miss Galloway said she felt embarrassed by the dressing room incidents as did youth academy director Frank McAvoy who said he was amazed at the assistant manager’s behaviour on the touchline which involved swearing constantly at Hamilton players.

Lord Woolman accepted McCormack’s coaching style “did involve a great deal of aggressive shouting and swearing.”

Mr MacDonald later called McCormack to a meeting and told him he was “old school” following comments over his behaviour at the tournament. At the time of the meeting he did not know of the dressing room comments.

But at a subsequent meeting the issue was raised and Mr MacDonald said he told him he was not going to issue a written contract.

Lawyers acting for McCormack claimed there were no grounds for his summary dismissal, and that he apologised for insensitive remarks made in front of Miss Galloway and there was no repeat of the behaviour.

The club maintained he was lawfully dismissed for gross misconduct following a course of conduct.

Lord Woolman said McCormack was “candid about a number of matters about which he might have been expected to be reticent” but added that where there was conflict in the evidence he unhesitatingly preferred the evidence of the other witnesses to his testimony.

The judge said “a curious feature” of the case was the lack of documentation in the period leading up to dismissal, including no written warning, no report of any internal enquiry or minute of a board meeting deciding he should be dismissed.

Lord Woolman said the obligation of confidence and trust was a mutual one. He added: “In my view, Hamilton itself was under a duty to keep the employee fully informed of any perceived deficiencies in his or her conduct during the course of a contract of employment. That did not occur here.”