Sky leaving is nothing, check out Jess

Vino'sGhost

If Jess varnish employment tribunal is successfull sports funding will be unrecognisable in the future.

She wants to make a discrimination and unfair dismissal claim, to do that she must show she was employed.

She may well have had a limited company through which she was paid but the issue is not the contract it is what was the actual relationship.

Like many before her she’s using control and personal service to show that irrespective of the contract the actual relationship was one of employment. Interesting stuff.

I suspect she’ll fail but if she wins, expect it to go to the Supreme Court . Or ecj if we haven’t pulled our collective fingers out.

Here’s a link to report in the times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jess ... 5a48bf0142

Vino'sGhost

Why is this important?

Well if Jess achieves her goal and she and others are found to be employees there are significant implications for tax and ni, pension contributions and holiday pay amongst other things.

It also means that they will all be able to claim for discrimination etc. The net effect is a lot of money shooting its way out of sport. This may be right of course, but it would be a significant change.

fenix

We might go back to the times before lottery funding. Real amateur status. Everyone turning up in mismatched kit. Who needs funding eh ?

DeVlaeminck

Wouldn't it depend on the sport. We know British Cycling likes to have complete control but is that the model in all sports - in athletics I get the impression the athlete employs the coach of their choice ? It's not something I'm that familiar with but Jess Varnish's case may not set a prededent for everyone even if it has implications for cycling.

fenix

Cycling might be a different model from others. Track cyclists need the track to train on - so makes sense to have the riders at the national track. Less important for runners ?

I know the Brownlees have a strong hub of Triathletes up in Leeds and look at the success Triathlon has had too.

I'm no judge but I don't see that Varnish has much chance of success.

RichN95.

Fenix wrote:

Cycling might be a different model from others. Track cyclists need the track to train on - so makes sense to have the riders at the national track. Less important for runners ?

I know the Brownlees have a strong hub of Triathletes up in Leeds and look at the success Triathlon has had too.

I'm no judge but I don't see that Varnish has much chance of success.

The irony is that she may very well win the right to be considered an employee but then lose the main case of unfair dismissal (I still struggle to see what her case is), which may ultimately leave her with a backdated tax bill to show for her efforts.

As for sport as a whole, I think it will depend sport by sport. I know someone who got a grant for hockey (probably still does). There's no way he's an employee.

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Cycling might be a different model from others. Track cyclists need the track to train on - so makes sense to have the riders at the national track. Less important for runners ?

I know the Brownlees have a strong hub of Triathletes up in Leeds and look at the success Triathlon has had too.

I'm no judge but I don't see that Varnish has much chance of success.

The irony is that she may very well win the right to be considered an employee but then lose the main case of unfair dismissal (I still struggle to see what her case is), which may ultimately leave her with a backdated tax bill to show for her efforts.

As for sport as a whole, I think it will depend sport by sport. I know someone who got a grant for hockey (probably still does). There's no way he's an employee.

Quite, the inland revenue has been getting better at perusing tax avoidance schemes which is what personal service companies can very easily be.

This may have unfortunate effects for lots of others. It depends very much on the facts of the case but the general tests for what constitutes an employment contract / relationship are very well established and have constantly been tested.

I’m looking forward to this one.

joey54321

This may well be my ignorance of either the law or the case but how can you have sexual discrimination in a 'job'/position which is strictly only open to females (being on the female track team)?

bompington

joey54321 wrote:

This may well be my ignorance of either the law or the case but how can you have sexual discrimination in a 'job'/position which is strictly only open to females (being on the female track team)?

Funny you should mention that...

Lanterne_Rogue

joey54321 wrote:

This may well be my ignorance of either the law or the case but how can you have sexual discrimination in a 'job'/position which is strictly only open to females (being on the female track team)?

The job role is "track cyclist"; it's the competitions that place the barrier on which events you can enter. You might train as part of a female team, but as it's the same employer (if that's established, of course) a male track cyclist is a perfectly fair comparison to draw for working out if there's discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic.

drlodge

underlayunderlay wrote:

The job role is "track cyclist".

Isn't her job role "Female track cyclist" though? She's "employed" because (a) she's a very good cyclist and (b) she's a she. Presumably there are quotas for male and female.

tangled_metal

drlodge wrote:

underlayunderlay wrote:

The job role is "track cyclist".

Isn't her job role "Female track cyclist" though? She's "employed" because (a) she's a very good cyclist and (b) she's a she. Presumably there are quotas for male and female.

But if they employ more males then females isn't that discrimination? If they provide more support for males than females that's discrimination?

The teams are gender based for events obviously but if male and female are doing the same type of event then they should be treated equal. Hence the track cyclist is potentially the job for both but they enter divided events based on gender. That is to present a level playing field for equivalent athletes.

It's possibly easier to accept on paralympic sports. A sprinter who's blind is in one race and a sprinter with a prosthetic leg is in a different race. But they're both sprinters. Gender division is about a fair competition. The role of male and female athletes in the same event type is still the same.

That's how I see it. But I don't have a view on whether supporting an athlete is employment or not. It's the courts/tribunal to decide on that.

cougie

She seems to be making a huge deal of things. The BBC were saying that coaches listened through the door to make sure the kids were asleep on training trips. Makes perfect sense.
You don't get gold medals off of midnight feasts and staying up late.

RichN95.

cougie wrote:

She seems to be making a huge deal of things. The BBC were saying that coaches listened through the door to make sure the kids were asleep on training trips. Makes perfect sense.
You don't get gold medals off of midnight feasts and staying up late.

It would be standard for any school trip away from home, I would think.

She also complained for being made to do laps after turning up late and being expected to turn up to training in team kit. Where the hell did she think she was? Center Parcs?

blazing_saddles

Tangled Metal wrote:

drlodge wrote:

underlayunderlay wrote:

The job role is "track cyclist".

Isn't her job role "Female track cyclist" though? She's "employed" because (a) she's a very good cyclist and (b) she's a she. Presumably there are quotas for male and female.

But if they employ more males then females isn't that discrimination?

Not in the case of the sprinters, as the team sprints have not been brought into line, a la team pursuit.

Tangled Metal wrote:

If they provide more support for males than females that's discrimination?

They don't, it's the same.
Tbh, I think JV had a more general issue with discrimination.
Just how it got to be that way isn't a matter for open debate on here.

RichN95 wrote:

The irony is that she may very well win the right to be considered an employee but then lose the main case of unfair dismissal (I still struggle to see what her case is), which may ultimately leave her with a backdated tax bill to show for her efforts.

As for sport as a whole, I think it will depend sport by sport. I know someone who got a grant for hockey (probably still does). There's no way he's an employee.

Have to say that this concerns me, although somebody has deep pockets.

Any decision that carries back dating could have massive implications for a lot of athletes.
Where there is a tax bill, there also follows NI contributions......

joey54321

Tangled Metal wrote:

drlodge wrote:

underlayunderlay wrote:

The job role is "track cyclist".

Isn't her job role "Female track cyclist" though? She's "employed" because (a) she's a very good cyclist and (b) she's a she. Presumably there are quotas for male and female.

But if they employ more males then females isn't that discrimination? If they provide more support for males than females that's discrimination?

The teams are gender based for events obviously but if male and female are doing the same type of event then they should be treated equal. Hence the track cyclist is potentially the job for both but they enter divided events based on gender. That is to present a level playing field for equivalent athletes.

It's possibly easier to accept on paralympic sports. A sprinter who's blind is in one race and a sprinter with a prosthetic leg is in a different race. But they're both sprinters. Gender division is about a fair competition. The role of male and female athletes in the same event type is still the same.

That's how I see it. But I don't have a view on whether supporting an athlete is employment or not. It's the courts/tribunal to decide on that.

So if there were no events for females would you still have to have the same number of male and female riders?

tangled_metal

Actually if there's no equivalent event for women in a competition then isn't that a discrimination?

drlodge

Discrimination concerns equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

tangled_metal

The opportunity to compete in a women's race equivalent is denied in some cycling events. Correct be if I'm wrong but denying the opportunity to compete in a certain type of race when men aren't denied that opportunity sounds like effecting the equality of opportunity more than outcome. Lack of equivalent events is about opportunity to compete surely?

joey54321

But BC don't control the events, that would be organisers, UCI, etc...

Pross

Ironic that she has taken Sutton's alleged advice when she was dropped from the squad!

tangled_metal

joey54321 wrote:

But BC don't control the events, that would be organisers, UCI, etc...

That I know I was just replying to the fact there is discrimination in sport because of the unequal opportunities in the various types of event at competitions. I was not apportioning the responsibility for the discrimination.

Back to the BC I guess if she can prove access to what BC does provide is different between genders then perhaps that's discrimination.

Personally I suspect her case isn't strong but is strong enough to be worth a tribunal attempt. Afterall a legal team needs paying and that won't happen unless there's a chance of success such that the team is assured of payment or they are happy taking the risk on

RichN95.

Tangled Metal wrote:

Personally I suspect her case isn't strong but is strong enough to be worth a tribunal attempt. Afterall a legal team needs paying and that won't happen unless there's a chance of success such that the team is assured of payment or they are happy taking the risk on

It's good publicity for the legal team. Lots of lawyers take on high profile cases on a no-win no fee basis.

tangled_metal

RichN95 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Personally I suspect her case isn't strong but is strong enough to be worth a tribunal attempt. Afterall a legal team needs paying and that won't happen unless there's a chance of success such that the team is assured of payment or they are happy taking the risk on

It's good publicity for the legal team. Lots of lawyers take on high profile cases on a no-win no fee basis.

But there will be a payout somewhere. Insurance cover or if they win more paying work. I trust lawyers not a lot. I don't believe things are done without a payout being expected one way or another (as in from this case out cases off the back of publicity).

RichN95.

Tangled Metal wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Personally I suspect her case isn't strong but is strong enough to be worth a tribunal attempt. Afterall a legal team needs paying and that won't happen unless there's a chance of success such that the team is assured of payment or they are happy taking the risk on

It's good publicity for the legal team. Lots of lawyers take on high profile cases on a no-win no fee basis.

But there will be a payout somewhere. Insurance cover or if they win more paying work. I trust lawyers not a lot. I don't believe things are done without a payout being expected one way or another (as in from this case out cases off the back of publicity).

If Varnish wins the first part of the case, I imagine there may be quite a lot of spin-off legal work involving other athletes.

johnboy183

I see that Dr Freeeman didn’t turn up today on legal advice. Presumably be related to his own BMC hearing early next year...

RichN95.

johnboy183 wrote:

I see that Dr Freeeman didn’t turn up today on legal advice. Presumably be related to his own BMC hearing early next year...

GMC. Unless he's being held to account by Greg van Avermaet.

Lanterne_Rogue

RichN95 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Personally I suspect her case isn't strong but is strong enough to be worth a tribunal attempt. Afterall a legal team needs paying and that won't happen unless there's a chance of success such that the team is assured of payment or they are happy taking the risk on

It's good publicity for the legal team. Lots of lawyers take on high profile cases on a no-win no fee basis.

But there will be a payout somewhere. Insurance cover or if they win more paying work. I trust lawyers not a lot. I don't believe things are done without a payout being expected one way or another (as in from this case out cases off the back of publicity).

If Varnish wins the first part of the case, I imagine there may be quite a lot of spin-off legal work involving other athletes.

Possibly. Firms rarely run totally speculative cases because (spoiler) there's not a lot of money in losing cases. Largely you just try and weed out the rubbish and hope that the rest provide enough winners to pay for the losers. You'd think that insurance cover would reduce the risks, but in my experience it's pretty rare in no win no fee cases as you can't really recommend it (what risk, exactly, is your client at in this situation, and why do they need protecting from it?) and it only covers the other side's costs as otherwise you'd just spend like mad, run up a huge bill, and not really care if you won or lost - so you're still out of pocket when you lose. Insurers also have a terrible tendency of pulling cover from perfectly decent cases once the costs start going up, and from the perspective of the bottom line the more risky cases are the better payers, not least because you can show the judge the hilarious sums the other side ran up when trying to justify your own (soberly serious) costs, and you actually want to be running a fair number of them as long as they're not too risky.

In this case I suspect it's that this firm are happy running this sort of case because the direct rewards are worth the risk, and they simply have to run enough cases to ensure their luck evens out. There's a small amount of getting other business (but a reputational risk if you lose), and probably no small amount of professional curiosity as to the result. I can't believe they're running a case that they know to be a turkey though - you might take one of those up to trial in the hope the other side blinks, but once you're in a trial situation the costs go up sharply, and believe it or not, most lawyers also have ethical problems in lying to their clients about their chances.

awavey

Vino'sGhost wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Cycling might be a different model from others. Track cyclists need the track to train on - so makes sense to have the riders at the national track. Less important for runners ?

I know the Brownlees have a strong hub of Triathletes up in Leeds and look at the success Triathlon has had too.

I'm no judge but I don't see that Varnish has much chance of success.

The irony is that she may very well win the right to be considered an employee but then lose the main case of unfair dismissal (I still struggle to see what her case is), which may ultimately leave her with a backdated tax bill to show for her efforts.

As for sport as a whole, I think it will depend sport by sport. I know someone who got a grant for hockey (probably still does). There's no way he's an employee.

Quite, the inland revenue has been getting better at perusing tax avoidance schemes which is what personal service companies can very easily be.

This may have unfortunate effects for lots of others. It depends very much on the facts of the case but the general tests for what constitutes an employment contract / relationship are very well established and have constantly been tested.

they are, but things like IR35 muddied the waters, and hands up who thinks the BC of the 2008 era ever thought about any of these kinds of details and the implications of tax or employment status on them...anyone ?

Vino'sGhost

Re the fees, this is an employment tribunal each side generally pays their own irrespective of who wins.

Re payouts, the average payout for unfair dismissal is only a few thousand pounds and is limited anyway

Discrimination claims are unlimited but again despite what people think, actual payouts tend on the whole to be modest.

First step is to demonstrate that she was an employee

Re discrimination ...... the answer is..... it depends.....

larkim

Her discrimination case won't be the M/F split of team sizes or anything like that. She'll be arguing that (if she is an employee) she would have been subject to sexist remarks, lack of tolerance of female specific issues, simply being treated different as a woman than she would have been as a man doing the same job.

Tribunals are often quite employee centric - they assume that "big bad corporation" generally abuses employees, especially where the employee has felt the need to go to the tribunal. Not always, and not every case, but employers are wary of them because you can follow all of the correct process etc and still come unstuck with the "extra mile" that you could have gone to make things entirely fair for the employee (recognising that the power of a company vs the power of an individual are imbalanced).

But all that needs her to be considered to be an employee. The context of BC teams might feel more like an employee / employer relationship than some other sports relationships. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.