Alan Sugar Employment Tribunal.

Takeaway_Addict

AP007 wrote: »

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

First guy worked for alan for a year or two and then left on great terms to start his business.

What about the guy who invented the curved nail file (I think). He's done alright...Tom was it?

AP007

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

First guy worked for alan for a year or two and then left on great terms to start his business.

What about the guy who invented the curved nail file (I think). He's done alright...Tom was it?

Tim the first guy yes when Sugar had a real business to work for then the guy with the nail file was not the same set up. Sugar goes into business with the winner ie as a backer a bit like Dragons Den but not

Takeaway_Addict

AP007 wrote: »

Tim the first guy yes when Sugar had a real business to work for then the guy with the nail file was not the same set up. Sugar goes into business with the winner ie as a backer a bit like Dragons Den but not

The reason the format changed was because the could no longer give a job away as a prize.

Hiccups_2

The full judgment is here if anyone's interested.

Having read it, I have to say the evidence as well the law seems to have been stacked against her. The media coverage of the emails between the parties also appears to have been inaccurate.

Incidentally, she described the exchange below as a humiliating and degrading "reprimand".

38 On 2 November 2010 the Claimant (who had by this time been at Viglen for some two months) wrote to Mr Tkachuk as follows (p. 127):

“There are some things that I need to discuss with you as soon as possible. I have booked some time in your diary. I’m concerned about the lack of processes down here. Something came to light this morning which I am working hard to sort out. I have briefly mentioned it to Gavin but I would rather talk to you if you don’t mind. May I tell you that the long and the short of it is that there is £2.3m worth of projects down here which are still not signed off. That means that they are still OPEN rather than signed by customer and ready for payment. Luckily a lot of them have paid but we have left ourselves wide open. I am running all of the orders through avante to see how much money is outstanding and it is a fair chunk I’m at 600k outstanding yet only half way through checking. I will send you an update when finished. I hope you can appreciate that I want to talk to you direct not to anyone else. Not to stitch them up but it begs the question why no one knows something that it took me 1 hour to check.”

39 Mr Tkachuk’s response came within seven minutes and was copied to Messrs Ray, Burne and Wheeler. Mr Tkachuk’s suggested to the Claimant that she “talked the matter through” with Mr Ray to resolve the position and Mr Tkachuk also commented:

“…I am not interested in stitching any one up its not the way we do things we need to be just getting on top of what needs to be done”

40 The Claimant’s response was to confirm that she had sat down with Mr Burne, and that she would speak to Messrs Ray and Wheeler.

---

130 The Claimant’s email (127A) to Mr Tkachuk is couched in rather strange terms with the Claimant in the last sentence saying: “Not to stitch them up but it begs the question why no one knows something that it took me 1 hour to check”. The email in response from Mr Tkachuk indicated that he was not interested in stitching any one up and that it was not the way they did things and suggested that: “we just needed to get on and do what was necessary”. That was not a reprimand and it was the Claimant who first used the expression “stitch them up”. We do consider it is significant that although the Claimant indicated that she did not want to stitch anyone up she went on then to make the comment that she could not understand why no-one else had noticed this when it only took her an hour to spot it. She was clearly being critical of others who she was suggesting had not done their work properly. The Claimant was not reprimanded and there was no conduct on the part of Mr Tkachuk which was a breach of the implied term.

When you look at the evidence, Alan Sugar et al appear to have been very considerate and accommodating towards her.

... and this is also quite insightful:

157 The Tribunal also found it difficult to understand why it was that when the Claimant first resigned from Viglen Ltd in May 2011 she did not inform Lord Sugar direct and on her second resignation she first went absent without any notification to YouView or Lord Sugar and then at the same time as notifying Lord Sugar in a brief note went to the press via Max Clifford.

AP007

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

The reason the format changed was because the could no longer give a job away as a prize.

Yeah and we wonder why? Cause he never really had jobs to give hence the court case.

aliasojo

After reading the judgement I got the strong feeling Stella overestimated her level of importance and her issues simply stemmed from the reality of her working environment not quite matching up to her expectations.

I can easily see why the judgement went against her. I don't think she handled certain things particularly well.

That said, I can also easily AS & co lying through their teeth if it suited their case so I don't accept all their points as gospel either.

I agree with the part of the judgement that stated she was ill advised when she sought legal advice about whether to raise a claim or not. I guess that employment solicitor wont be using this case as an example of their work.

Crazy_Jamie

zzzLazyDaisy wrote:

One of the problems with the current system is that anyone can make a claim at no cost to themselves, and although the tribunals do have the power to strike out cases, they very rarely exercise that power. So employers are faced with paying off employees with no case, or incurring the costs of fighting the case (which win or lose, they can't claim back).

I do not agree with the introduction of fees, due to come in this summer, as I think the result will be to prevent many people with good cases from having access to legal redress. But I do believe that greater intervention should be taken at an earlier stage to weed out hopeless cases.

I agree entirely with this. Unfortunately it seems that the majority of legal reforms this year (in all areas; criminal, family and civil) are focused on cutting cost, and in doing so are running the serious risk of unjustifiably restricting access to justice.

In my opinion it is not a 'problem' that claims in the Employment Tribunal can be brought at no cost and with no usual risk of an adverse costs order at the end. I actually think that that is a good thing on balance because it enables total access to justice (and, indeed, with the introduction of One Way Costs Shifting, it's a system that has effectively migrated over to personal injury law, so the powers that be must consider it to have some merit). The problem is that the system needs to be more efficient when it comes to dealing with very weak cases.

A balance has to be struck, and it is just as important for potential claimants to be able to bring a claim as it is for companies to be able to properly protect themselves from frivolous or hopeless claims. The introduction of fees is not, to my mind at least, justifiable because it will prevent employees from bringing legitimate claims because they cannot afford to, and that is simply not acceptable whichever way you spin it. It is absolutely essentially in any legal system that those with legitimate cases should be afforded an opportunity to bring those cases, and the introduction of these fees clearly flies in the face of that principle.

The better answer would be not only for cases to be struck out more regularly where they disclose no realistic prospect of success, but also for the power to order a deposit to be paid to be strengthened (for those who are unaware, this power allows Judges to order a Claimant to pay a 'deposit' into court before trial, which then goes to Respondent if the claim falls. Deposits are essentially ordered in cases that are seen to be unlikely to be successful). Both would allow Judges to take steps to discourage weak claims or remove them from the system altogether, and that is a far better approach than preventing claims, both strong and weak, from being brought on the basis of finances.

Takeaway_Addict

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

I agree entirely with this. Unfortunately it seems that the majority of legal reforms this year (in all areas; criminal, family and civil) are focused on cutting cost, and in doing so are running the serious risk of unjustifiably restricting access to justice.

In my opinion it is not a 'problem' that claims in the Employment Tribunal can be brought at no cost and with no usual risk of an adverse costs order at the end. I actually think that that is a good thing on balance because it enables total access to justice (and, indeed, with the introduction of One Way Costs Shifting, it's a system that has effectively migrated over to personal injury law, so the powers that be must consider it to have some merit). The problem is that the system needs to be more efficient when it comes to dealing with very weak cases.

A balance has to be struck, and it is just as important for potential claimants to be able to bring a claim as it is for companies to be able to properly protect themselves from frivolous or hopeless claims. The introduction of fees is not, to my mind at least, justifiable because it will prevent employees from bringing legitimate claims because they cannot afford to, and that is simply not acceptable whichever way you spin it. It is absolutely essentially in any legal system that those with legitimate cases should be afforded an opportunity to bring those cases, and the introduction of these fees clearly flies in the face of that principle.

The better answer would be not only for cases to be struck out more regularly where they disclose no realistic prospect of success, but also for the power to order a deposit to be paid to be strengthened (for those who are unaware, this power allows Judges to order a Claimant to pay a 'deposit' into court before trial, which then goes to Respondent if the claim falls. Deposits are essentially ordered in cases that are seen to be unlikely to be successful). Both would allow Judges to take steps to discourage weak claims or remove them from the system altogether, and that is a far better approach than preventing claims, both strong and weak, from being brought on the basis of finances.

Why not just have it more accepted that if you lose the winning party can claim costs (to a reasonable amount).

Crazy_Jamie

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Why not just have it more accepted that if you lose the winning party can claim costs (to a reasonable amount).

Because that would in itself be a deterrent for legitimate claimants as well as those bringing weak or frivolous claims. A lot of claimants in the employment tribunal do not have the money to pay a solicitor to pursue a claim for them, which is why there are so many litigants in person and solicitors acting on contingency fee agreements in the employment tribunal. It is likely that if a claimant was to become liable for a respondent's costs if they are unsuccessful, many claimants would not bring a claim irrespective of the merits. Development of the deposit power would make more sense because the exercising of that power is linked directly to the merits of a claim.

Alternatively, if the amount of recoverable costs was to be significant enough, then it could breed a system similar to the previous situation with personal injury litigation (prior to 1st April), where 'no win no fee' agreements are backed by ATE insurers, which results in a huge increase in the costs of litigation all around. That's the last thing that is needed in employment law.

It's worth noting that even a perceived 'claims culture' in this country doesn't stretch to employment law. The whole point is that employment is required, so 'career claimants' by default rarely exist in this field. Equally fraud is very rare. Weak claims are obviously brought, as with any area of litigation, but ultimately this is not an area of law that requires sweeping changes to correct procedural issues as with personal injury litigation. Only minor changes are/were needed; unfortunately in my view in bringing in issue and hearing fees the powers that be have chosen the wrong changes.

Takeaway_Addict

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Because that would in itself be a deterrent for legitimate claimants as well as those bringing weak or frivolous claims. A lot of claimants in the employment tribunal do not have the money to pay a solicitor to pursue a claim for them, which is why there are so many litigants in person and solicitors acting on contingency fee agreements in the employment tribunal. It is likely that if a claimant was to become liable for a respondent's costs if they are unsuccessful, many claimants would not bring a claim irrespective of the merits. Development of the deposit power would make more sense because the exercising of that power is linked directly to the merits of a claim.

Alternatively, if the amount of recoverable costs was to be significant enough, then it could breed a system similar to the previous situation with personal injury litigation (prior to 1st April), where 'no win no fee' agreements are backed by ATE insurers, which results in a huge increase in the costs of litigation all around. That's the last thing that is needed in employment law.

It's worth noting that even a perceived 'claims culture' in this country doesn't stretch to employment law. The whole point is that employment is required, so 'career claimants' by default rarely exist in this field. Equally fraud is very rare. Weak claims are obviously brought, as with any area of litigation, but ultimately this is not an area of law that requires sweeping changes to correct procedural issues as with personal injury litigation. Only minor changes are/were needed; unfortunately in my view in bringing in issue and hearing fees the powers that be have chosen the wrong changes.

I agree its rare but why should an employer be out of pocket as well if things have been done legitimately. There seems to be this feeling that as long as the employee is alright then its tough on the employer if it costs them to defend a claim.

It would stop a lot of out of court settlements and would stop alot of the 50/50 cases being brought and take the stress of the system.