Sky leaving is nothing, check out Jess
Comments
-
Not sure that's true. I used to have a boss who's senior position in a large company (plc but not a truly large one having only 5 figures of employees worldwide) was to play hardball with employees of companies they've taken over. Basically go in and sack people / close branches down where they compete with existing group companies. He's been in countless tribunals and never lost one. He used to say that you can process anyone out of the company if you create the paperwork backing it up. Nobody is so clean as to not face discipline it's just backing your action up properly.
No idea how true it is but I've never seen any company I've been in lose when a former employee tried to go after them through courts or tribunals. Paper trials count at evidence better than employee statements I guess.0 -
Tangled metal you are to a point correct in that having a well documented fair process that leads to a dismissal may avoid unfair dismissal charges but thats not the whole story. The tribunal look at the facts and have quite wide ranging powers to decide what "evidence" they accept and even vary or ignore some of their own rules. My experience is that they tend not to favour either party though for the purpose of access to justice and fairness they might use some of their flexibility to allow an unrepresented person to make their case.
It is an enormous task for a layperson to represent themselves against experienced barristers and the resources available to a well funded corporate far exceed those of the average man in the street. Fortunately well worded reasonable information requests under the dataprotection act can unearth all sorts of mistakes by large corporates especially where there is a strategy to find reasons to fire people that have been inherited through acquisition and might otherwise have employment protection rights. TUPE is complicated, anyone who brags their job is to fire them and never lose just hasn't been doing it long enough.
Every case turns on the facts. (or should) look at the tribunal reports for an indication of the total number of cases and which end in an award. its less than 5% (and less than half of those awarded anything actually receive their award in part or in full) but a very large number of those cases which are brought never see the inside of a tribunal.
I suspect Varnish has an axe to grind and is seeking to exercise her employment rights to do it (if she can show she has them).
She must feel mightily aggrieved because the associated stress is significant.0 -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/46571673If Varnish wins it could have far-reaching consequences for how athletes are funded and their contracts, the tribunal heard.
It could also potentially lead to more cases of wrongful dismissal being brought.
It was a situation that British Cycling's barrister, Thomas Linden QC, described to the tribunal as "the skies falling in" for UK Sport.
Judge Ross' judgement was expected on Monday but after final submissions were given at the tribunal in Manchester on Friday, she said she would make her judgement within 28 days and would "strive to get it out by mid-January."
So, as always a protracted interlude before we find out if there is any more mileage in this turgid affair.Linden told the tribunal on Friday that Varnish was telling "half-truths".
"This is a case of the highest public interest and extremely important to athletes, sport and the funding bodies, so it is vital a true and fair picture is presented.
"What we have witnessed here is the difference between self-interest and the public interest.
"For good or ill we have presented the facts - I am not sure I am able to say the same of the claimant."
For me, an astute summation."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
By the BC barrister?
Is that a summation or a legal argument? Isn't a summation technically the role of a judge in a trial?
Why not quote Varnish's barrister for balance. Unless that's not of interest to you. Decided already?0 -
Tangled Metal wrote:By the BC barrister?
Is that a summation or a legal argument? Isn't a summation technically the role of a judge in a trial?
Why not quote Varnish's barrister for balance. Unless that's not of interest to you. Decided already?
Exactly
The opposition to varnish is playing hard balll, are they concerned she’ll get past stage one? Interesting stuff . 2 battles here, the facts and public perception.0 -
Tangled Metal wrote:By the BC barrister?
Is that a summation or a legal argument? Isn't a summation technically the role of a judge in a trial?
Why not quote Varnish's barrister for balance. Unless that's not of interest to you. Decided already?
I never needed to decide. I knew the truth from day one."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Good job you're not involved in the tribunal then. It's really not what you know but what you can prove.0
-
Blazing Saddles wrote:Tangled Metal wrote:By the BC barrister?
Is that a summation or a legal argument? Isn't a summation technically the role of a judge in a trial?
Why not quote Varnish's barrister for balance. Unless that's not of interest to you. Decided already?
I never needed to decide. I knew the truth from day one.
0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote: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 precedent for everyone even if it has implications for cycling.
UK Athletics have form for pushing funded athletes towards their own directly employed coaches. There are also examples of funded athletes or those coached by UKA employees being picked or favoured for championships ahead of those from outside 'the system', who arguably had better claims for selection.
Even Toni Minicello (Jess Ennis coach) had issues with UKA at times.0 -
surprising to see defence QC banging on about sky’s falling in for British sport and more claims.
If they’ve been behaving outside the law and not paying the required benefits they’re outside the law. I think it would be naive to think that the reason for many sportspeople to be on self employed contracts wasn’t influenced by ease of dismissal and tax implications.0 -
Vino'sGhost wrote:surprising to see defence QC banging on about sky’s falling in for British sport and more claims.
If they’ve been behaving outside the law and not paying the required benefits they’re outside the law. I think it would be naive to think that the reason for many sportspeople to be on self employed contracts wasn’t influenced by ease of dismissal and tax implications.
Surely an athlete needs to be on some kind of “contract” basis rather than an employee. They have a limited life in terms of when they can perform, so you’d want to avoid a situation where you have to “fire” someone.
Which leaves you with self employed or fixed term contract, right?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Vino'sGhost wrote:surprising to see defence QC banging on about sky’s falling in for British sport and more claims.
If they’ve been behaving outside the law and not paying the required benefits they’re outside the law. I think it would be naive to think that the reason for many sportspeople to be on self employed contracts wasn’t influenced by ease of dismissal and tax implications.
Surely an athlete needs to be on some kind of “contract” basis rather than an employee. They have a limited life in terms of when they can perform, so you’d want to avoid a situation where you have to “fire” someone.
Which leaves you with self employed or fixed term contract, right?
I think she is upset at not being good enough to make the grade and wants somebody to be held account for her shortcomings.
Not saying BC is perfect but I think she has an axe she wants to grind.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Vino'sGhost wrote:surprising to see defence QC banging on about sky’s falling in for British sport and more claims.
If they’ve been behaving outside the law and not paying the required benefits they’re outside the law. I think it would be naive to think that the reason for many sportspeople to be on self employed contracts wasn’t influenced by ease of dismissal and tax implications.
Surely an athlete needs to be on some kind of “contract” basis rather than an employee. They have a limited life in terms of when they can perform, so you’d want to avoid a situation where you have to “fire” someone.
Which leaves you with self employed or fixed term contract, right?
Yes youre right in that an open ended traditional employment relationship doesn't make sense. If however the reality of the situation that the worker finds them-self in is one of employment then the protections apply. There is loads of case law and established tests to work through to establish what the true relationship is.
After that, if it is found that she was an employee and was an employee for long enough to qualify for the protections against unfair dismissal etc then she will need to make a case to demonstrate where she has been treated unfairly. Most of these employment protections kick in after two years though some have no qualifying period.
To complicate matters she would have some but not all employment rights as a "worker". Again the tribunal will look at the facts in the case.
From a UK point of view it makes sense for the law to support a business or organisation to be able to hire the people it needs and manage those people as necessary. It's also in the UKs interest to ensure that there is some fairness and balance in the employment relationship. Most employers are reasonable some are not, the same goes for employees.
The workspace is changing rapidly with all sorts of different employment relationships reflecting those changes, Im sure its going to be a constantly developing area for the foreseeable future. I for one dont want to see knee jerk changes, most of the protections arent about limiting flexibility and if left to the devices of multinational companies there would be no protections at all. After all, companies like Amazon and Apple have huge volumes of sales within the UK and pay little or no corporation tax. I'm sure they'd like to cut their employment costs too.0 -
Varnish lost. Judged not to be an employee.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/46890146
(Personally I thought she might win that bit, it was the unfair dismissal that I thought she had no chance with)Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:Varnish lost. Judged not be an employee.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/46890146
(Personally I thought she might win that bit, it was the unfair dismissal that I thought she had no chance with)
A collective sigh all round.
Reads as if the BBC are a bit miffed by the decision, not that anyone should be surprised.
Still, they managed to get in another plug for Doc Freeman."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
All good stuff isn’t it.0
-
Base funding is up to £25k tax free is isn’t bad and then you then add commercial deals and appearance fees and it’s a world away from most amateurs pre lottery funding.
A common sense ruling which leaves cash in the sport for hopefuls rather than extending the principal and reach of employment law.
No doubt her solicitors will be paid in full.
Does anyone know if costs were awarded against JF?“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
I'm willing to be corrected, but I don't think costs work like that for employment tribunals.Slowmart wrote:No doubt her solicitors will be paid in full.
Does anyone know if costs were awarded against JF?
As for the solicitors being paid, I think they were doing this pro bono for the publicity. Which is why an appeal is highly unlikely.
This seemed like an ill-advised suit from the start. The product of an athlete buying into press coverage of her original complaints.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Slowmart wrote:Base funding is up to £25k tax free is isn’t bad and then you then add commercial deals and appearance fees and it’s a world away from most amateurs pre lottery funding.
A common sense ruling which leaves cash in the sport for hopefuls rather than extending the principal and reach of employment law.
No doubt her solicitors will be paid in full.
Does anyone know if costs were awarded against JF?
I wish my take home pay was £25k per year.
I doubt that somebody like Jess Varnish made much in the way of appearance fees and she didn't have the appeal of Victoria Pendleton to sponsors. A gold medal at London would have probably set her up for life.
She also wouldn't have been able to earn money from the road in the same way Joanna Rowsell Shand, Laura Kenny and Dani Rowe would have.
But for a disqualification at London 2012 this would have been very different me thinks.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
I'm willing to be corrected, but I don't think costs work like that for employment tribunals.Slowmart wrote:No doubt her solicitors will be paid in full.
Does anyone know if costs were awarded against JF?
As for the solicitors being paid, I think they were doing this pro bono for the publicity. Which is why an appeal is highly unlikely.
This seemed like an ill-advised suit from the start. The product of an athlete buying into press coverage of her original complaints.
Generally each side pays their own and costs arent awarded.0 -
Der Kaiser wrote:A common sense ruling which leaves cash in the sport for hopefuls rather than extending the principal and reach of
I wish my take home pay was £25k per year.
I doubt that somebody like Jess Varnish made much in the way of appearance fees and she didn't have the appeal of Victoria Pendleton to sponsors. A gold medal at London would have probably set her up for life.
She also wouldn't have been able to earn money from the road in the same way Joanna Rowsell Shand, Laura Kenny and Dani Rowe would have.
Im not convinced winning a gold medal is the path to riches it once was unless a career in media punditry beckons, plenty of gold medallists from both 2012 & 2016 have not become the kind of olympian stars of the 80s that we once had...I would say 90s too but really 92 was about as far as that got
and actually Im equally not convinced the track cyclists earned a great deal from their forays into road cycling either, they probably got paid abit extra to be there for sure by some promoters,but I doubt it really amounted to much more income.
the biggest downside is national insurance and pensionable contributions, by being kept in this tax free almost bursary status and non employee recognised, you probably lose 10-15 years of NI contributions which you will struggle to back fill given your average earning potential once you leave the system
...but yay gold medals, go TeamGB
0 -
awavey wrote:Der Kaiser wrote:A common sense ruling which leaves cash in the sport for hopefuls rather than extending the principal and reach of
I wish my take home pay was £25k per year.
I doubt that somebody like Jess Varnish made much in the way of appearance fees and she didn't have the appeal of Victoria Pendleton to sponsors. A gold medal at London would have probably set her up for life.
She also wouldn't have been able to earn money from the road in the same way Joanna Rowsell Shand, Laura Kenny and Dani Rowe would have.
Im not convinced winning a gold medal is the path to riches it once was unless a career in media punditry beckons, plenty of gold medallists from both 2012 & 2016 have not become the kind of olympian stars of the 80s that we once had...I would say 90s too but really 92 was about as far as that got
and actually Im equally not convinced the track cyclists earned a great deal from their forays into road cycling either, they probably got paid abit extra to be there for sure by some promoters,but I doubt it really amounted to much more income.
the biggest downside is national insurance and pensionable contributions, by being kept in this tax free almost bursary status and non employee recognised, you probably lose 10-15 years of NI contributions which you will struggle to back fill given your average earning potential once you leave the system
...but yay gold medals, go TeamGB
Im sure not paying income tax at 20/40% more than makes up for that.
I'm sure I heard previously that the elite track riders are paid a standard £65k per year. This £25k is from UK Sport. They must also be paid directly by BC?"Unfortunately these days a lot of people don’t understand the real quality of a bike" Ernesto Colnago0 -
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
iainf72 wrote:
theyd already made the changes before the tribunal though. :roll:0 -
Vino'sGhost wrote:iainf72 wrote:
theyd already made the changes before the tribunal though. :roll:
This was always about JV, first and last, not changes for the perceived benefit for others.
Make no mistake, she lost.gsk82 wrote:
Im sure not paying income tax at 20/40% more than makes up for that.
I'm sure I heard previously that the elite track riders are paid a standard £65k per year. This £25k is from UK Sport. They must also be paid directly by BC?
Without going into specifics, you are correct in as much that there are several tiers of funding, dependent upon which programme a rider is on. The simple outline can be found here.
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/riderroute
Plus top riders can have, what I would describe as modest, sponsorship deals.
Obviously some less modest than others.
As for NI contributions, they can be made voluntarily, if a rider so wishes.
The BBC mentions sick pay, but as long as a rider remains on a programme, they are funded regardless.
Holiday pay is irrelevant.
So, it is, as you point out, the tax and everybody loves paying tax, right? "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Surely some have deals that aren't modest at all - like Wiggins in 2016. The Kennys must do OK for themselves. And the likes of Froome and Thomas are officially on the podium programme but obviously don't get paid a penny.Blazing Saddles wrote:
Without going into specifics, you are correct in as much that there are several tiers of funding, dependent upon which programme a rider is on. The simple outline can be found here.
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/riderroute
Plus top riders can have, what I would describe as modest, sponsorship deals.
Obviously some less modest than others.
I was surprised by the size of Varnish's deal with Boots(?)Twitter: @RichN950 -
That would be polish, not varnish...RichN95 wrote:
Surely some have deals that aren't modest at all - like Wiggins in 2016. The Kennys must do OK for themselves. And the likes of Froome and Thomas are officially on the podium programme but obviously don't get paid a penny.Blazing Saddles wrote:
Without going into specifics, you are correct in as much that there are several tiers of funding, dependent upon which programme a rider is on. The simple outline can be found here.
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/riderroute
Plus top riders can have, what I would describe as modest, sponsorship deals.
Obviously some less modest than others.
I was surprised by the size of Varnish's deal with Boots(?)0 -
Isn't polish better for boots than varnish?RichN95 wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:I was surprised by the size of Varnish's deal with Boots(?)0 -
orraloon wrote:
Isn't polish better for boots than varnish?RichN95 wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:I was surprised by the size of Varnish's deal with Boots(?)
They'll work harder and do it cheaper to."Unfortunately these days a lot of people don’t understand the real quality of a bike" Ernesto Colnago0 -
RichN95 wrote:
Surely some have deals that aren't modest at all - like Wiggins in 2016. The Kennys must do OK for themselves. And the likes of Froome and Thomas are officially on the podium programme but obviously don't get paid a penny.Blazing Saddles wrote:
Without going into specifics, you are correct in as much that there are several tiers of funding, dependent upon which programme a rider is on. The simple outline can be found here.
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/riderroute
Plus top riders can have, what I would describe as modest, sponsorship deals.
Obviously some less modest than others.
I was surprised by the size of Varnish's deal with Boots(?)
Sure, but those guys are in a league of their own.
Modest is a relative term, I suppose.
Definitely not pocket change, but I meant when compared to other sports and other deals."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0
