must be true off it otherwise they would have vehemently tried to prove otherwise surely
May have been a justified dismissal but they didn't want all the shit that it would drag up floating to the surface.
Exactly. It all costs money, plus we already know these people have a massive X in the box for no publicity.
We had someone I worked with a few years back who claimed constructive dismissal against the firm. Everyone knew it was complete crap' but the firm decided to settle so as to knock it on the head and so that it didn't take up too much of everyone's time trying to fight it - which is time consuming stuff on lots of levels.
So any employer wanting to shift unwanted staff could bend the rules and find an excuse to sack someone, just to save on redundancy pay?
The plot thickens.
Not quite....if you 'bend the rules' and 'find an excuse to sack someone' that would be unfair dismissal. Strangely some employees, knowing that they are under scrutiny act like lemmings and give the employer valid reasons for dismissal. If you are dismissed, redundancy doesn't come into play as Clem says.
What if he was convinced by a very experienced lawyer that he had no chance of winning, and the club understandably not wanting a dirty washing scenario advised him to take the money for his and the clubs good?
But then why hire a top notch and very expensive counsel and then leave the settlement to the very last minutes. And not with one person but three.
Employers may stretch the case out as long as they can in the hope that the employee will back down under the mental and financial stress. Bully boy tactics.
...Found it quite insulting and shocking that they thought I'd breach confidentiality actually. To do my job you have to have trust. I hoped though it was just fear of the 'interweb' with a non-techy savvy HR person...
I can't help but think that it would people whose dealings may tend towards the machiavellian who are less likely to be trusting of their employees; fearful of what could become known publicly if their staff aren't restrained.
Anyway, to Airman: I hope the settlement is what you wanted and wish you all the best in putting this behind you and finding a new job.
It is amazing how many cases are settled at the doors of the court when the reality hits. In my opinion, if AB had lost the case it would have generated little if any publicity other than on CL. However if he had won, the damage not just to CAFC but to the owners would have been enormous. Therefore I go with Henry's assessment and as I observed, the appraches were made by the respondents. Yes the counsel may well have tried the 'you've no chance of winning crap' but my observation was that AB was calm and not fazed so I feel that he accepted terms which were satisfactory to him.
But then why hire a top notch and very expensive counsel and then leave the settlement to the very last minutes. And not with one person but three.
Employers may stretch the case out as long as they can in the hope that the employee will back down under the mental and financial stress. Bully boy tactics.
Because that is when the business gets done if you take it this far.
surprised at this news but i firmly believe from what i know of Rick and his postings here that the offer was too good to turn down for his family's financial security. I don't know if he's picked up another job so quickly after being sacked but it surely would've put a strain on him and his family due to legal costs etc.
Greedily i was hoping for some dirty laundry to be aired, alas, I believe it never will be now - much like the "real" reason why Dowie was sacked.
Our legal experts say now, rather than making people redundant or looking for ways to get rid of them, we can through mediation, basically say how much do you warn to leave, if acceptable to both parties then its job done, handshakes all round and no hard feelings. Seems a much more satisfactory way of dealing with people.
Must just add we have never made anyone redundant or used this suggested method, in the 12 years of running our company we have had 2 member of staff leave through their own choice and 22 join.
Our legal experts say now, rather than making people redundant or looking for ways to get rid of them, we can through mediation, basically say how much do you warn to leave, if acceptable to both parties then its job done, handshakes all round and no hard feelings. Seems a much more satisfactory way of dealing with people.
Must just add we have never made anyone redundant or used this suggested method, in the 12 years of running our company we have had 2 member of staff leave through their own choice and 22 join.
Sounds like a good company, well run. Would like to see a similar attitude at CAFC.
Just a thought, but I seem to recall that it was possible, as a business, to insure against potential losses from employment law liabilities incl. unfair dismissal claims. In such cases, wouldn't it be the insurer rather than the erstwhile employer that calls a halt and settles. It would also be the insurer that was picking up the tab for the QC. Does anyone know whether CAFC had bought such insurance?
What's perhaps a bit more telling is that Rick was second in court of three former employees claiming unfair ends to their working relationships with the club they support and love.
Our legal experts say now, rather than making people redundant or looking for ways to get rid of them, we can through mediation, basically say how much do you warn to leave, if acceptable to both parties then its job done, handshakes all round and no hard feelings. Seems a much more satisfactory way of dealing with people.
Must just add we have never made anyone redundant or used this suggested method, in the 12 years of running our company we have had 2 member of staff leave through their own choice and 22 join.
Sounds like a good company, well run. Would like to see a similar attitude at CAFC.
Thanks, we try hard, but as it gets bigger the problems begin to creep in. We feel anything over 15 or 16 staff is where the battle lines start to be drawn and the them and us mentality sets in, think we been lucky with our recruitment and we have got up to 24 staff including directors, but one bad egg starts the rot, once started its neigh on impossible to stop, although we are trying hard.
Re CAFC, you need the right mentality to run an organisation like them, from day 1 in my opinion, you are either going to be confrontational or what some what deem as submissive. The one thing which changes the submissive policy you follow again in my opinion would be a catastrophic loss of trust in personnel, this can rear its ugly head in many different guises, it might be an email sent with the inappropriate attachment, an overhead (often mis overheard) phone call, sudden exit of staff to one of your competitor, dodgy expensives, etc.
I have got no knowledge of what occurred with our club management, but what I do know, is that the heart has been ripped out and that is the fault of the management system, if was owned Charlton then you have 2 choices, sell, or change the club mentality and this might mean getting rid of all the long standing staff and starting again. I stress I know nothing about what's happening at Charlton and I am just looking at it from the outside as someone who owns and operate a business of a similar size, thankfully not a football club.
Just a thought, but I seem to recall that it was possible, as a business, to insure against potential losses from employment law liabilities incl. unfair dismissal claims. In such cases, wouldn't it be the insurer rather than the erstwhile employer that calls a halt and settles. It would also be the insurer that was picking up the tab for the QC. Does anyone know whether CAFC had bought such insurance?
You can buy insurance, its extremely expensive and frankly unless you or your staff are confrontational then its isn't worth it, that's from the mouths of our solicitors, who offer it. I have no idea if Charlton would by this sort of insurance, however I would suggest that as they are involved with complex contractural negotiations then they would have access to more and higher legal advice then the average man or company and therefore might be in receipt of massive discounts etc.
I believe you are correct it would be the solicitor that would make the suggestion to settle if they believe they would lose, the tab for a QC is astronomical.
Our legal experts say now, rather than making people redundant or looking for ways to get rid of them, we can through mediation, basically say how much do you warn to leave, if acceptable to both parties then its job done, handshakes all round and no hard feelings. Seems a much more satisfactory way of dealing with people.
Must just add we have never made anyone redundant or used this suggested method, in the 12 years of running our company we have had 2 member of staff leave through their own choice and 22 join.
Sounds like a good company, well run. Would like to see a similar attitude at CAFC.
Thanks, we try hard, but as it gets bigger the problems begin to creep in. We feel anything over 15 or 16 staff is where the battle lines start to be drawn and the them and us mentality sets in, think we been lucky with our recruitment and we have got up to 24 staff including directors, but one bad egg starts the rot, once started its neigh on impossible to stop, although we are trying hard.
Re CAFC, you need the right mentality to run an organisation like them, from day 1 in my opinion, you are either going to be confrontational or what some what deem as submissive. The one thing which changes the submissive policy you follow again in my opinion would be a catastrophic loss of trust in personnel, this can rear its ugly head in many different guises, it might be an email sent with the inappropriate attachment, an overhead (often mis overheard) phone call, sudden exit of staff to one of your competitor, dodgy expensives, etc.
I have got no knowledge of what occurred with our club management, but what I do know, is that the heart has been ripped out and that is the fault of the management system, if was owned Charlton then you have 2 choices, sell, or change the club mentality and this might mean getting rid of all the long standing staff and starting again. I stress I know nothing about what's happening at Charlton and I am just looking at it from the outside as someone who owns and operate a business of a similar size, thankfully not a football club.
Interesting choice of words to describe the different management styles. I think I would opt for 'autocratic' versus 'empowering'. The old Murray-Varney regime was very good at taking on previously inexperienced people and basically saying, 'we love your enthusiasm, we will train you in the professional skills, and the rest is up to you as to what you can achieve with us.' and it worked brilliantly for about 10 years . I have heard TJ described as 'an old style mill owner". However I am not sure whether he is personally the initiator of all the sackings. He may have just said "cut the overheads" and left it to others to decide how.
I've said it many times and will continue to do so. A football club is a 'people business'. The human output is everything. That makes it very different to a mill, or a property company. Makes it a lot like an advertising agency, actually. Full of highly paid, volatile characters, with a strong tribal team ethic as they go out to daily battle with loads of competitors. Well with all due respect to Michael Slater, a commercial lawyer lacks experience of this kind of people management. I've seen it loads of times out here, that lawyers have been put in such commercial roles and make a complete hash of it. They are naturally confrontational, when there are other, more effective solutions, as you and others have pointed out. In the interest of balance I would say that I can imagine Michael Slater might be very effective in negotiating contracts with players and slippery agents, and that can deliver significant value to a football club. There a whole lot of attributes need to run a football club and they may not easily be found in one person. It's a team game, off the pitch as well as on it.
Glad this settled and hope RE is happy with his settlement, although it does seem rather difficult to have wanted CAFC to lose. I don't know the facts but having been here for a few years I can't see how anyone can doubt RE's commitment to our long-term future.
I am sure the owners will have being trying to settle before as high legal fees would have been incurred before then. Although the sum settled was probably significant to RE it was probably not that significant to the owners. This makes me think there was possibly some other reason it had not been settled other than financial (although this was probably being debated at the same time). Could it be the breadth of the gagging order. I am sure RE would have accepted the terms of the agreement and probably even the reason for his departure. However perhaps the club wanted to make it much wider and include all sorts of other things. This is obviously pure speculation and we shall never know.
Off subject slightly I can partly understand the tab of a QC as many years ago we had need of Queens Council advice on an employment matter - I have never heard such learned and eloquent use of the English language and depth of knowledge of the subject, listening to this guy was spellbinding and I have never experienced such intellect since nor his beautiful use of our language, maybe that says about me!
Our legal experts say now, rather than making people redundant or looking for ways to get rid of them, we can through mediation, basically say how much do you warn to leave, if acceptable to both parties then its job done, handshakes all round and no hard feelings. Seems a much more satisfactory way of dealing with people.
Must just add we have never made anyone redundant or used this suggested method, in the 12 years of running our company we have had 2 member of staff leave through their own choice and 22 join.
I don't think either side in this situation would have settled for mediation and leaving with a handshake and a smile! Which is also why I think it took outside counsel to broker a deal. I image the two sides were quite emotionally attached to pursuing their case and it was only when someone else laid out the realities of the issue that they managed to find out how much it would take (both in terms of money and silence) to drop the case.
In my earlier post I spoke about the exchange of documents before the hearing,as a representative it was often at this stage that I could see the strength of my opponents case and assess whether it was worth settling.
Another point posters need to consider is that a private settlement would normally involve an ex gratia payment.This would be in full and final settlement so would not need to claw back any monies earned by the employee after leaving,whereas in a remedy hearing following a Tribunal any income earned or claimed in benefits would need to be repaid.This can also have implications on taxation.
Some years ago I represented an eccentric South American lady who insisted against my advice to have her day in Tribunal.The outcome was that her former employer needed to pay two thirds of the settlement to the Inland Revenue to replace the benefits that she had received in the year following her dismissal.
Another factor here is the relevance of material.None of us know the reasons for dismissal.Any evidence would need to be directly or indirectly relevant to this,if the ET believed that an aggrieved ex employee was trying to settle other grievances it would not enhance their claim.Quite correctly,Rick has been very careful in his posts here not to enlighten us on this point.
Like others I wish Rick well and completely understand why he needed to settle and would suggest we now move on because I would not want to people to speculate any further so we would not potentially jeopardise the terms of his compromise agreement .
Our legal experts say now, rather than making people redundant or looking for ways to get rid of them, we can through mediation, basically say how much do you warn to leave, if acceptable to both parties then its job done, handshakes all round and no hard feelings. Seems a much more satisfactory way of dealing with people.
Must just add we have never made anyone redundant or used this suggested method, in the 12 years of running our company we have had 2 member of staff leave through their own choice and 22 join.
I don't think either side in this situation would have settled for mediation and leaving with a handshake and a smile! Which is also why I think it took outside counsel to broker a deal. I image the two sides were quite emotionally attached to pursuing their case and it was only when someone else laid out the realities of the issue that they managed to find out how much it would take (both in terms of money and silence) to drop the case.
DRF,
Agree with you on Ricks situation. I was just highlighting that there is now a different approach, which helps small business to get move on staff, other than through sacking or redundancy, this to me appears a more humane way of doing the dirty deed, and I believe if undertaken with mediation could result in both parties getting the result they want at the least expense for the employer and the maximum gain for the employee as the solicitors won't be involved.
Comments
We had someone I worked with a few years back who claimed constructive dismissal against the firm. Everyone knew it was complete crap' but the firm decided to settle so as to knock it on the head and so that it didn't take up too much of everyone's time trying to fight it - which is time consuming stuff on lots of levels.
There is no doubt that he loves his club.
Employers may stretch the case out as long as they can in the hope that the employee will back down under the mental and financial stress. Bully boy tactics.
Anyway, to Airman: I hope the settlement is what you wanted and wish you all the best in putting this behind you and finding a new job.
Greedily i was hoping for some dirty laundry to be aired, alas, I believe it never will be now - much like the "real" reason why Dowie was sacked.
Must just add we have never made anyone redundant or used this suggested method, in the 12 years of running our company we have had 2 member of staff leave through their own choice and 22 join.
In such cases, wouldn't it be the insurer rather than the erstwhile employer that calls a halt and settles. It would also be the insurer that was picking up the tab for the QC.
Does anyone know whether CAFC had bought such insurance?
Re CAFC, you need the right mentality to run an organisation like them, from day 1 in my opinion, you are either going to be confrontational or what some what deem as submissive. The one thing which changes the submissive policy you follow again in my opinion would be a catastrophic loss of trust in personnel, this can rear its ugly head in many different guises, it might be an email sent with the inappropriate attachment, an overhead (often mis overheard) phone call, sudden exit of staff to one of your competitor, dodgy expensives, etc.
I have got no knowledge of what occurred with our club management, but what I do know, is that the heart has been ripped out and that is the fault of the management system, if was owned Charlton then you have 2 choices, sell, or change the club mentality and this might mean getting rid of all the long standing staff and starting again. I stress I know nothing about what's happening at Charlton and I am just looking at it from the outside as someone who owns and operate a business of a similar size, thankfully not a football club.
I believe you are correct it would be the solicitor that would make the suggestion to settle if they believe they would lose, the tab for a QC is astronomical.
I've said it many times and will continue to do so. A football club is a 'people business'. The human output is everything. That makes it very different to a mill, or a property company. Makes it a lot like an advertising agency, actually. Full of highly paid, volatile characters, with a strong tribal team ethic as they go out to daily battle with loads of competitors. Well with all due respect to Michael Slater, a commercial lawyer lacks experience of this kind of people management. I've seen it loads of times out here, that lawyers have been put in such commercial roles and make a complete hash of it. They are naturally confrontational, when there are other, more effective solutions, as you and others have pointed out. In the interest of balance I would say that I can imagine Michael Slater might be very effective in negotiating contracts with players and slippery agents, and that can deliver significant value to a football club. There a whole lot of attributes need to run a football club and they may not easily be found in one person. It's a team game, off the pitch as well as on it.
I am sure the owners will have being trying to settle before as high legal fees would have been incurred before then. Although the sum settled was probably significant to RE it was probably not that significant to the owners. This makes me think there was possibly some other reason it had not been settled other than financial (although this was probably being debated at the same time). Could it be the breadth of the gagging order. I am sure RE would have accepted the terms of the agreement and probably even the reason for his departure.
However perhaps the club wanted to make it much wider and include all sorts of other things.
This is obviously pure speculation and we shall never know.
I can partly understand the tab of a QC as many years ago we had need of Queens Council advice on an employment matter - I have never heard such learned and eloquent use of the English language and depth of knowledge of the subject, listening to this guy was spellbinding and I have never experienced such intellect since nor his beautiful use of our language, maybe that says about me!
In my earlier post I spoke about the exchange of documents before the hearing,as a representative it was often at this stage that I could see the strength of my opponents case and assess whether it was worth settling.
Another point posters need to consider is that a private settlement would normally involve an ex gratia payment.This would be in full and final settlement so would not need to claw back any monies earned by the employee after leaving,whereas in a remedy hearing following a Tribunal any income earned or claimed in benefits would need to be repaid.This can also have implications on taxation.
Some years ago I represented an eccentric South American lady who insisted against my advice to have her day in Tribunal.The outcome was that her former employer needed to pay two thirds of the settlement to the Inland Revenue to replace the benefits that she had received in the year following her dismissal.
Another factor here is the relevance of material.None of us know the reasons for dismissal.Any evidence would need to be directly or indirectly relevant to this,if the ET believed that an aggrieved ex employee was trying to settle other grievances it would not enhance their claim.Quite correctly,Rick has been very careful in his posts here not to enlighten us on this point.
Like others I wish Rick well and completely understand why he needed to settle and would suggest we now move on because I would not want to people to speculate any further so we would not potentially jeopardise the terms of his compromise agreement .
Agree with you on Ricks situation. I was just highlighting that there is now a different approach, which helps small business to get move on staff, other than through sacking or redundancy, this to me appears a more humane way of doing the dirty deed, and I believe if undertaken with mediation could result in both parties getting the result they want at the least expense for the employer and the maximum gain for the employee as the solicitors won't be involved.