Alan Sugar Employment Tribunal.

an9i77

It may stop serial career claimants. Had a temp last year, offered the opportunity to apply for the permanent job she was covering, said she didn't want to, so we recruited and filled it with someone else and then ended her employment via the agency. Two months later, she claimed against the company on racial discrimination grounds as she was from an ethnic background. Even though there was absolutely no grounds for her to win her case, the company settled for £2k to avoid having to pay to fight it.

I'm sure she didn't want the permanent job, it's far too lucrative to go around being a serial claimant temp instead!

Thomas_Hardy

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Disagree about Alan Sugar do himself no favours. If he had lost then yes but as he won he was proven right.

Glad he fought this case and won.

I don't think she had a case, but I do think she was done over. Obviously there is a huge gulf between someone being treated poorly by their employer and having a case worthy of legal action.

Takeaway_Addict

an9i77 wrote: »

It may stop serial career claimants. Had a temp last year, offered the opportunity to apply for the permanent job she was covering, said she didn't want to, so we recruited and filled it with someone else and then ended her employment via the agency. Two months later, she claimed against the company on racial discrimination grounds as she was from an ethnic background. Even though there was absolutely no grounds for her to win her case, the company settled for £2k to avoid having to pay to fight it.

I'm sure she didn't want the permanent job, it's far too lucrative to go around being a serial claimant temp instead!

The biggest issue you have is I am guessing you had nothing in writing?

Even if you had sent a confirmation email or letter it would have strengthened any case against her.

zzzLazyDaisy

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

The biggest issue you have is I am guessing you had nothing in writing?

Even if you had sent a confirmation email or letter it would have strengthened any case against her.

The trouble is, even if the company covers all bases in writing, from a legal point of view, there is still the b*ggeration factor (legal term )

Fighting the case involves not only the obvious costs in solicitors fees, but the hidden costs of having managers' time being taken up in giving statements and attending the tribunal hearing, and providing cover for them during their absence. It is also stressful for the managers who have to give evidence, who are often fairly low down the food chain. So often employers make a commercial decision based purely on a cost/benefit analysis.

an9i77

Absolutely - it was purely a commercial decision. Although had I been the MD I'd rather have made less profit that year than given her 2k!!!

antrobus

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Its in Lazy Daisys signature....

I almost never read signatures. Which of course, can be changed at any time.

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

The trouble is, even if the company covers all bases in writing, from a legal point of view, there is still the b*ggeration factor (legal term ).

That's always the issue. And not just with ET claims. Promoting 'access to justice' always promotes speculative claims on the basis that 'you have nothing to lose'.

zzzLazyDaisy

antrobus wrote: »

I almost never read signatures. Which of course, can be changed at any time.

A note about the forthcoming tribunal fees has been in my signature since the day they were announced in an effort to make people aware of these changes. Of course many people don't read signatures (that's why I put it in red) but maybe some might, and just maybe someone will save on fees by making their claim before the fees are introduced (which is believed to be July, although the govt have yet to confirm this).

coinxoperated

I'm glad Alan sugars won! It was for 'a' job. She could have left peacefully and gone on to have an extremely successful career along with support from a very influential and well known man. Instead she decided to screw him over. She clearly didnt raise a grievance or complain about it, she resigned and THEN decided to have a good 'ol moan. I'm glad Alan Sugar didnt settle outside of court. He's made it extremely clear where he's stood here and made a very clear example of a money grabbing woman.

dizzyrascal

coinxoperated wrote: »

I'm glad Alan sugars won! It was for 'a' job. She could have left peacefully and gone on to have an extremely successful career along with support from a very influential and well known man. Instead she decided to screw him over. She clearly didnt raise a grievance or complain about it, she resigned and THEN decided to have a good 'ol moan. I'm glad Alan Sugar didnt settle outside of court. He's made it extremely clear where he's stood here and made a very clear example of a money grabbing woman.

I don't think any of the above is very fair.
It has been widely publicised that she was already paid 80k at the bank she worked at and she lead a large team (having worked her way up). She was more interested in working for Alan Sugar in a proper job and developing a career out of it.
I do think that particular angle does not make Lord S look very good. He has not been particularly quiet about his disdain for women in the workplace and it does look like he made no effort whatsoever to help her career here. I don't think she is the type to just take the money and just do admin. It wasn't why she entered The Apprentice.

AP007

dizzyrascal wrote: »

I don't think any of the above is very fair.
It has been widely publicised that she was already paid 80k at the bank she worked at and she lead a large team (having worked her way up). She was more interested in working for Alan Sugar in a proper job and developing a career out of it.
I do think that particular angle does not make Lord S look very good. He has not been particularly quiet about his disdain for women in the workplace and it does look like he made no effort whatsoever to help her career here. I don't think she is the type to just take the money and just do admin. It wasn't why she entered The Apprentice.

Yes she said she was an OVER PAID lackey and that is not what the job was meant to be at all. I have not really heard of one apprentice (in the old format) that have gone on to big things with Sugar