Caterham F1 Gone?
Discussion
llewop said:
PW said:
Read back a page or so...
to what exactly? Surely not the 'no one sacked was employed by the team was employed by the team/everyone has been paid' smoke and mirrors?I know what I've said above is accurate as it is from someone involved.
Ex staff respond - http://www.crash.net/f1/news/207211/1/axed-caterha...
maffski said:
Ex staff respond - http://www.crash.net/f1/news/207211/1/axed-caterha...
Autosport have reported too.http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/115213
I'm looking forward to Caterham's response to the following:
"As confirmed in the contracts of employment for those working in the Caterham F1 Team, Caterham F1 is 'the trading name of the employer and the name of its motor racing team entered into the F1 world championship'.
"All those dismissed were employed in the Caterham F1 Team by their operational company Caterham Sports Limited (company number 07042086, previously 1Malaysia Racing Team (UK) Limited).
"The dismissal letters were on Caterham F1 Team headed notepaper and the reason for dismissal was given as: 'following the change in ownership and, as a result of the current financial position that the new owners have inherited, your position at Caterham Sports Ltd will terminate with immediate effect... You are being dismissed in law for Some Other Substantial Reason.'
"The summary dismissal of employees from Caterham was done without warning or consultation, which is a breach of employment laws and will result in significant compensation claims.
"Lawyers [acting] for those who have been dismissed wrote to Caterham on 25 July 2014 urging a response to the above matters and inviting settlement.
"A response from Caterham to this letter is awaited."
Ouch.
maffski said:
Ex staff respond - http://www.crash.net/f1/news/207211/1/axed-caterha...
This appears to be turning into a rather childish playground argument.If Caterham really have broken the law when making redundancies then there are processes and procedures that can be followed, I'm curious as to why the ex-employees have jumped straight in with a lawyer etc. I also don't understand why Caterham would jump in with the above PR statement.
I suspect this will turn out to be six of one and half a dozen of the other once all the hand waving and finer pointing is done with.
VladD said:
llewop said:
PW said:
Read back a page or so...
to what exactly? Surely not the 'no one sacked was employed by the team was employed by the team/everyone has been paid' smoke and mirrors?I know what I've said above is accurate as it is from someone involved.
the employees (that I knwo of) were dismissed without notice and paid up to the day they received the letter of dismissal.
The issue is that without consultation or paying out in lieu of notice, each employee MAY have a claim for 90 days pay. It is going to be messy, as there will be TUPE liability on the 'mystery buyer'. I really fail to see how they are going to escape liability ans still compete in F1. Sure, they can fold and play the 'administration' game - but I can't see it being a winning play.
Crafty_ said:
maffski said:
Ex staff respond - http://www.crash.net/f1/news/207211/1/axed-caterha...
This appears to be turning into a rather childish playground argument.If Caterham really have broken the law when making redundancies then there are processes and procedures that can be followed, I'm curious as to why the ex-employees have jumped straight in with a lawyer etc. I also don't understand why Caterham would jump in with the above PR statement.
I suspect this will turn out to be six of one and half a dozen of the other once all the hand waving and finer pointing is done with.
Are you kidding? What would you do if you turn up to work and get a letter dismissing you? Do you shrug and say 'oh well' or do you ask a lawyer if your contract allows them to dismiss you with no notice?
The 'processes and procedures that can be followed' are precisely what the employees have done:
1) consult employment lawyer;
2) serve claim to get contractual entitlements from former employer.
Maybe you think Tony Fernandes, Kolles and the mystery buyers should just be able to play a game they cannot afford by shafting their employees to save a bit of money.
johnfm said:
Vlad
the employees (that I knwo of) were dismissed without notice and paid up to the day they received the letter of dismissal.
I don't think its anywhere as clear as you make out, its obvious that there is more to this than a standard contract of employment.the employees (that I knwo of) were dismissed without notice and paid up to the day they received the letter of dismissal.
johnfm said:
'Jumped straight in with lawyers'?
Are you kidding? What would you do if you turn up to work and get a letter dismissing you? Do you shrug and say 'oh well' or do you ask a lawyer if your contract allows them to dismiss you with no notice?
The 'processes and procedures that can be followed' are precisely what the employees have done:
1) consult employment lawyer;
2) serve claim to get contractual entitlements from former employer.
Maybe you think Tony Fernandes, Kolles and the mystery buyers should just be able to play a game they cannot afford by shafting their employees to save a bit of money.
I don't know what your beef is but you seem to attack anyone who doesn't agree 100% with you and the ex-employees. Grow up a bit eh ?Are you kidding? What would you do if you turn up to work and get a letter dismissing you? Do you shrug and say 'oh well' or do you ask a lawyer if your contract allows them to dismiss you with no notice?
The 'processes and procedures that can be followed' are precisely what the employees have done:
1) consult employment lawyer;
2) serve claim to get contractual entitlements from former employer.
Maybe you think Tony Fernandes, Kolles and the mystery buyers should just be able to play a game they cannot afford by shafting their employees to save a bit of money.
And to answer your question I would at the very least be in contact with ACAS to try and ascertain if I had been made redundant illegally and/or if the employer had fulfilled their obligations. I might employ an employment lawyer to review the contracts/situation and offer legal advice with a view to making a claim at an employment tribunal if there mitigating circumstances.
In fact, when I was made redundant some years ago this is exactly what I did do, although we found that the employer had not followed the correct process I had found other employment and would rather put it behind me than have all the hassle of going through a tribunal.
What I wouldn't do is start running around attempting to sue people and making lots and lots of noise about it to the press. It looks a bit immature to be honest, there are laws, processes and procedures for handling this sort of situation. I'm curious why the ex-employees have taken this course without going through the usual channels first.
johnfm said:
Crafty_ said:
maffski said:
Ex staff respond - http://www.crash.net/f1/news/207211/1/axed-caterha...
This appears to be turning into a rather childish playground argument.If Caterham really have broken the law when making redundancies then there are processes and procedures that can be followed, I'm curious as to why the ex-employees have jumped straight in with a lawyer etc. I also don't understand why Caterham would jump in with the above PR statement.
I suspect this will turn out to be six of one and half a dozen of the other once all the hand waving and finer pointing is done with.
Are you kidding? What would you do if you turn up to work and get a letter dismissing you? Do you shrug and say 'oh well' or do you ask a lawyer if your contract allows them to dismiss you with no notice?
The 'processes and procedures that can be followed' are precisely what the employees have done:
1) consult employment lawyer;
2) serve claim to get contractual entitlements from former employer.
Maybe you think Tony Fernandes, Kolles and the mystery buyers should just be able to play a game they cannot afford by shafting their employees to save a bit of money.
I suspect the whole saga is simple cost cutting exercise whilst evaluating how to proceed longer term (ie, what assets can be separated from existing liabilities allowing debt to be ditched). I suspect that if the team survives into next season it'll be because they'd figured out how to maintain the entry and car IP, and the day to day operations will be handled by a ltd co that doesn't yet exist...
Crafty_ said:
johnfm said:
Vlad
the employees (that I knwo of) were dismissed without notice and paid up to the day they received the letter of dismissal.
I don't think its anywhere as clear as you make out, its obvious that there is more to this than a standard contract of employment.the employees (that I knwo of) were dismissed without notice and paid up to the day they received the letter of dismissal.
johnfm said:
'Jumped straight in with lawyers'?
Are you kidding? What would you do if you turn up to work and get a letter dismissing you? Do you shrug and say 'oh well' or do you ask a lawyer if your contract allows them to dismiss you with no notice?
The 'processes and procedures that can be followed' are precisely what the employees have done:
1) consult employment lawyer;
2) serve claim to get contractual entitlements from former employer.
Maybe you think Tony Fernandes, Kolles and the mystery buyers should just be able to play a game they cannot afford by shafting their employees to save a bit of money.
I don't know what your beef is but you seem to attack anyone who doesn't agree 100% with you and the ex-employees. Grow up a bit eh ?Are you kidding? What would you do if you turn up to work and get a letter dismissing you? Do you shrug and say 'oh well' or do you ask a lawyer if your contract allows them to dismiss you with no notice?
The 'processes and procedures that can be followed' are precisely what the employees have done:
1) consult employment lawyer;
2) serve claim to get contractual entitlements from former employer.
Maybe you think Tony Fernandes, Kolles and the mystery buyers should just be able to play a game they cannot afford by shafting their employees to save a bit of money.
And to answer your question I would at the very least be in contact with ACAS to try and ascertain if I had been made redundant illegally and/or if the employer had fulfilled their obligations. I might employ an employment lawyer to review the contracts/situation and offer legal advice with a view to making a claim at an employment tribunal if there mitigating circumstances.
In fact, when I was made redundant some years ago this is exactly what I did do, although we found that the employer had not followed the correct process I had found other employment and would rather put it behind me than have all the hassle of going through a tribunal.
What I wouldn't do is start running around attempting to sue people and making lots and lots of noise about it to the press. It looks a bit immature to be honest, there are laws, processes and procedures for handling this sort of situation. I'm curious why the ex-employees have taken this course without going through the usual channels first.
You said "I don't think its anywhere as clear as you make out, its obvious that there is more to this than a standard contract of employment."
I have seen the letter of dismissal. The employee in question had an employment contract. That contract did not allow the employer (Caterham Sports Limited) to terminate the contract on no notice. The reliance of 'some other substantial reason' might fly if the employer had not breached the notice provisions. But they have breached the notice provisions, so they have an issue.
Had Caterham Sports Limited merely followed the most basic consultation and redundancy procedures or used the 'some other substantial reason' and dismissed them on notice or paid them in lieu of notice they would have got away with paying statutory minimum or PILON (subject to individual's terms of employment of course - as the senior guys may have had substantially more generous provisions on termination or redundancy that the junior guys).
So, yes, it is as clear as we make out. Either Caterham Sports Limited or the 'mystery buyer' will be subject to proceedings - which they will either defend or settle. I expect the latter.
I don't think 'just get another job and get on with life' is an acceptable response to people who have been sacked with no notice for no other reason than to save money. I expect they would have all doen exactly that had the team closed down.
"What I wouldn't do is start running around attempting to sue people and making lots and lots of noise about it to the press. It looks a bit immature to be honest, there are laws, processes and procedures for handling this sort of situation. I'm curious why the ex-employees have taken this course without going through the usual channels first."
The lawyer made the press statement, no doubt as part of his strategy to get them to the table for a settlement. A settlement is the best result for all parties and will cost Caterham a lot less than defending the claims.
johnfm said:
You said "I don't think its anywhere as clear as you make out, its obvious that there is more to this than a standard contract of employment."
I have seen the letter of dismissal. The employee in question had an employment contract. That contract did not allow the employer (Caterham Sports Limited) to terminate the contract on no notice. The reliance of 'some other substantial reason' might fly if the employer had not breached the notice provisions. But they have breached the notice provisions, so they have an issue.
Had Caterham Sports Limited merely followed the most basic consultation and redundancy procedures or used the 'some other substantial reason' and dismissed them on notice or paid them in lieu of notice they would have got away with paying statutory minimum or PILON (subject to individual's terms of employment of course - as the senior guys may have had substantially more generous provisions on termination or redundancy that the junior guys).
So, yes, it is as clear as we make out. Either Caterham Sports Limited or the 'mystery buyer' will be subject to proceedings - which they will either defend or settle. I expect the latter.
I don't think 'just get another job and get on with life' is an acceptable response to people who have been sacked with no notice for no other reason than to save money. I expect they would have all doen exactly that had the team closed down.
So has your friend contacted ACAS ? the UK tribunals service ? even talked to the citizens advice bureau ? Have they raised an employment tribunal ? If its as simple as you make out its a slam dunk for unfair dismissal at a tribunal and monies would change hands. I have yet to see any explanation for not following this route.I have seen the letter of dismissal. The employee in question had an employment contract. That contract did not allow the employer (Caterham Sports Limited) to terminate the contract on no notice. The reliance of 'some other substantial reason' might fly if the employer had not breached the notice provisions. But they have breached the notice provisions, so they have an issue.
Had Caterham Sports Limited merely followed the most basic consultation and redundancy procedures or used the 'some other substantial reason' and dismissed them on notice or paid them in lieu of notice they would have got away with paying statutory minimum or PILON (subject to individual's terms of employment of course - as the senior guys may have had substantially more generous provisions on termination or redundancy that the junior guys).
So, yes, it is as clear as we make out. Either Caterham Sports Limited or the 'mystery buyer' will be subject to proceedings - which they will either defend or settle. I expect the latter.
I don't think 'just get another job and get on with life' is an acceptable response to people who have been sacked with no notice for no other reason than to save money. I expect they would have all doen exactly that had the team closed down.
Funnily enough the only reason I was made redundant was to save money. Having sorted myself out and gone and found alternative employment I just moved on, frankly the company wasn't worth my time bothering with.
johnfm said:
The lawyer made the press statement, no doubt as part of his strategy to get them to the table for a settlement. A settlement is the best result for all parties and will cost Caterham a lot less than defending the claims.
My point was there are lots of processes and procedures that are usually followed long before one starts employing a lawyer and issuing writs. I am still curious to know why the ex caterham employees have decided to skip all of that.As an aside, F1 is a small industry, I'm not sure its a good idea for these guys to be getting punchy if they wish to work in the sport again.
Crafty_ said:
johnfm said:
You said "I don't think its anywhere as clear as you make out, its obvious that there is more to this than a standard contract of employment."
I have seen the letter of dismissal. The employee in question had an employment contract. That contract did not allow the employer (Caterham Sports Limited) to terminate the contract on no notice. The reliance of 'some other substantial reason' might fly if the employer had not breached the notice provisions. But they have breached the notice provisions, so they have an issue.
Had Caterham Sports Limited merely followed the most basic consultation and redundancy procedures or used the 'some other substantial reason' and dismissed them on notice or paid them in lieu of notice they would have got away with paying statutory minimum or PILON (subject to individual's terms of employment of course - as the senior guys may have had substantially more generous provisions on termination or redundancy that the junior guys).
So, yes, it is as clear as we make out. Either Caterham Sports Limited or the 'mystery buyer' will be subject to proceedings - which they will either defend or settle. I expect the latter.
I don't think 'just get another job and get on with life' is an acceptable response to people who have been sacked with no notice for no other reason than to save money. I expect they would have all doen exactly that had the team closed down.
So has your friend contacted ACAS ? the UK tribunals service ? even talked to the citizens advice bureau ? Have they raised an employment tribunal ? If its as simple as you make out its a slam dunk for unfair dismissal at a tribunal and monies would change hands. I have yet to see any explanation for not following this route.I have seen the letter of dismissal. The employee in question had an employment contract. That contract did not allow the employer (Caterham Sports Limited) to terminate the contract on no notice. The reliance of 'some other substantial reason' might fly if the employer had not breached the notice provisions. But they have breached the notice provisions, so they have an issue.
Had Caterham Sports Limited merely followed the most basic consultation and redundancy procedures or used the 'some other substantial reason' and dismissed them on notice or paid them in lieu of notice they would have got away with paying statutory minimum or PILON (subject to individual's terms of employment of course - as the senior guys may have had substantially more generous provisions on termination or redundancy that the junior guys).
So, yes, it is as clear as we make out. Either Caterham Sports Limited or the 'mystery buyer' will be subject to proceedings - which they will either defend or settle. I expect the latter.
I don't think 'just get another job and get on with life' is an acceptable response to people who have been sacked with no notice for no other reason than to save money. I expect they would have all doen exactly that had the team closed down.
Funnily enough the only reason I was made redundant was to save money. Having sorted myself out and gone and found alternative employment I just moved on, frankly the company wasn't worth my time bothering with.
johnfm said:
The lawyer made the press statement, no doubt as part of his strategy to get them to the table for a settlement. A settlement is the best result for all parties and will cost Caterham a lot less than defending the claims.
My point was there are lots of processes and procedures that are usually followed long before one starts employing a lawyer and issuing writs. I am still curious to know why the ex caterham employees have decided to skip all of that.As an aside, F1 is a small industry, I'm not sure its a good idea for these guys to be getting punchy if they wish to work in the sport again.
I think your last point is what Caterham are relying on - "don't expect to work in F1 if you go legal" might work if their action was vexatious or without merit.
I get the impression that you think the teams should be able to not pay their bills in order to compete. I think if they can't afford to play they should close or agree new terms with their employees.
johnfm said:
Yes - they consulted their union as far as I know. It is the union (as far as I have been told) that pointed them to the lawyer. It is likely the lawyer will pursue the claim in an employment tribunal. You seem to think that tribunals don't involve employment lawyers - which isn't the case.
I think your last point is what Caterham are relying on - "don't expect to work in F1 if you go legal" might work if their action was vexatious or without merit.
I get the impression that you think the teams should be able to not pay their bills in order to compete. I think if they can't afford to play they should close or agree new terms with their employees.
You do not need a lawyer for an employment tribunal, you may find it beneficial but it is not mandatory.I think your last point is what Caterham are relying on - "don't expect to work in F1 if you go legal" might work if their action was vexatious or without merit.
I get the impression that you think the teams should be able to not pay their bills in order to compete. I think if they can't afford to play they should close or agree new terms with their employees.
I haven't said anything about the teams or what they should/shouldn't be able to do past compliance with employment law.
Your friend may well have been wronged, but I don't think this is a one sided argument, unless Caterham completely made up anything in the press release that was posted to this page ?
Crafty_ said:
johnfm said:
Yes - they consulted their union as far as I know. It is the union (as far as I have been told) that pointed them to the lawyer. It is likely the lawyer will pursue the claim in an employment tribunal. You seem to think that tribunals don't involve employment lawyers - which isn't the case.
I think your last point is what Caterham are relying on - "don't expect to work in F1 if you go legal" might work if their action was vexatious or without merit.
I get the impression that you think the teams should be able to not pay their bills in order to compete. I think if they can't afford to play they should close or agree new terms with their employees.
You do not need a lawyer for an employment tribunal, you may find it beneficial but it is not mandatory.I think your last point is what Caterham are relying on - "don't expect to work in F1 if you go legal" might work if their action was vexatious or without merit.
I get the impression that you think the teams should be able to not pay their bills in order to compete. I think if they can't afford to play they should close or agree new terms with their employees.
I haven't said anything about the teams or what they should/shouldn't be able to do past compliance with employment law.
Your friend may well have been wronged, but I don't think this is a one sided argument, unless Caterham completely made up anything in the press release that was posted to this page ?
No offence intended, but your quaint approach to being shat on from a great height is what many companies rely on in order to s
t on their employees and customers in order to maximise returns for management. it is a pretty standard approach from many companies.Anyway - lets see how it plays out.
I would assume that part of the thought process behind the ex Caterham staff is that career prospects in F1 are limited because of the lack of money many teams had. Equally if Caterham had actually paid them some redundancy they may have put up with it, instead of which they have no money to pay the mortgage etc.
Of course at the end of the days its possible that the taxpayer ie us will be paying out
Of course at the end of the days its possible that the taxpayer ie us will be paying out
Crafty_ said:
johnfm said:
You said "I don't think its anywhere as clear as you make out, its obvious that there is more to this than a standard contract of employment."
I have seen the letter of dismissal. The employee in question had an employment contract. That contract did not allow the employer (Caterham Sports Limited) to terminate the contract on no notice. The reliance of 'some other substantial reason' might fly if the employer had not breached the notice provisions. But they have breached the notice provisions, so they have an issue.
Had Caterham Sports Limited merely followed the most basic consultation and redundancy procedures or used the 'some other substantial reason' and dismissed them on notice or paid them in lieu of notice they would have got away with paying statutory minimum or PILON (subject to individual's terms of employment of course - as the senior guys may have had substantially more generous provisions on termination or redundancy that the junior guys).
So, yes, it is as clear as we make out. Either Caterham Sports Limited or the 'mystery buyer' will be subject to proceedings - which they will either defend or settle. I expect the latter.
I don't think 'just get another job and get on with life' is an acceptable response to people who have been sacked with no notice for no other reason than to save money. I expect they would have all doen exactly that had the team closed down.
So has your friend contacted ACAS ? the UK tribunals service ? even talked to the citizens advice bureau ? Have they raised an employment tribunal ? If its as simple as you make out its a slam dunk for unfair dismissal at a tribunal and monies would change hands. I have yet to see any explanation for not following this route.I have seen the letter of dismissal. The employee in question had an employment contract. That contract did not allow the employer (Caterham Sports Limited) to terminate the contract on no notice. The reliance of 'some other substantial reason' might fly if the employer had not breached the notice provisions. But they have breached the notice provisions, so they have an issue.
Had Caterham Sports Limited merely followed the most basic consultation and redundancy procedures or used the 'some other substantial reason' and dismissed them on notice or paid them in lieu of notice they would have got away with paying statutory minimum or PILON (subject to individual's terms of employment of course - as the senior guys may have had substantially more generous provisions on termination or redundancy that the junior guys).
So, yes, it is as clear as we make out. Either Caterham Sports Limited or the 'mystery buyer' will be subject to proceedings - which they will either defend or settle. I expect the latter.
I don't think 'just get another job and get on with life' is an acceptable response to people who have been sacked with no notice for no other reason than to save money. I expect they would have all doen exactly that had the team closed down.
Funnily enough the only reason I was made redundant was to save money. Having sorted myself out and gone and found alternative employment I just moved on, frankly the company wasn't worth my time bothering with.
johnfm said:
The lawyer made the press statement, no doubt as part of his strategy to get them to the table for a settlement. A settlement is the best result for all parties and will cost Caterham a lot less than defending the claims.
My point was there are lots of processes and procedures that are usually followed long before one starts employing a lawyer and issuing writs. I am still curious to know why the ex caterham employees have decided to skip all of that.As an aside, F1 is a small industry, I'm not sure its a good idea for these guys to be getting punchy if they wish to work in the sport again.
I think your last point is what Caterham are relying on - "don't expect to work in F1 if you go legal" might work if their action was vexatious or without merit.
I get the impression that you think the teams should be able to not pay their bills in order to compete. I think if they can't afford to play they should close or agree new terms with their employees.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff