Manchester Derby (football) racism arrest.

[chrispmartha]

stitched said:

Keoparakolo said:

stitched said:

I work for a German multinational company, coincidentally I hold a CIPD qualification, if my firm tried to dismiss me for behaviour outside work with nothing tying me to the company then I would, quite rightly imho, take them to the cleaners.

That’s great. Assuming you work within the UK then your definition of the cleaners might be quite disappointing. The maximum you can claim is probably a lot lower than you think it is.

I’m quite aware what an employee can claim in an unfair dismissal case thanks, the question of course was whether the firm were correct in disciplinary action of an employee on their day off who wasn’t visibly an employee.
I say not.

Suspending the employee can also to be to help the employee until they have been found guilty or indeed not guilty, he may have had a lot of abuse had he gone straight back to work after he had been splashed all over the National Media.

You don't know what is in his contract and you don't know what communication has been had between him and his employer.

[stitched]

Keoparakolo said:

stitched said:

I’m quite aware what an employee can claim in an unfair dismissal case thanks, the question of course was whether the firm were correct in disciplinary action of an employee on their day off who wasn’t visibly an employee.
I say not.

That’s fine. Look further up the thread and you’ll see that my thoughts are very similar to yours from an employment perspective, from a personal perspective I believe he deserves to lose his job. There’s a distinct possibility this could happen. If he is working on contracts in some aspects of the public sector then he’ll need a CRB, if he’s prosecuted and found guilty this could be a simple way to dismiss him. Kier may simply be awaiting the police outcome before proceeding whilst leaving him suspended on full pay in the meantime.

Of course, they may choose to act beforehand. It’s up to them.

My point around limits was just your choice of words about “taking them to the cleaners”, that really doesn’t happen given the limits. Depending on your salary I’ve seen a lot of company’s simply ignore the whole worry of employment law and offer more than could possibly be won. You’d be a fool to risk that for a 50/50 chance of a lower sum.

The place we differ is his companies right to discipline him for behaviour out of work wearing no work gear, in his place I would fight this and imho win at tribunal.
Whether I agree with this or not is immaterial.

[Keoparakolo]

stitched said:

The place we differ is his companies right to discipline him for behaviour out of work wearing no work gear, in his place I would fight this and imho win at tribunal.
Whether I agree with this or not is immaterial.

If he’s dismissed them he’ll have a chance to argue his case there. I don’t think he would win at a tribunal if the correct process has been followed. A tribunal is normally more interested in company process being adhered to, rather than the specifics of the reason for dismissal. That isn’t always the case and a case I linked earlier regarding a football hooligan and Royal Mail proved that.

To make the score 1-1 I don’t think he will ever go back to work at Kier. Whether that’s through disciplinary or a compromise payoff we’ll probably never know. His suspension is as stated above, it should be non-punitive, it will be on full pay and only done if the employer believes there is a risk to the employee, or the investigation by allowing him to continue to attend work.

I don’t know how senior he is, but at site level there would be plenty who could threaten him, or refuse to work with him. At a more senior level the latter is quite likely. I would certainly object to working alongside him given his behaviour no matter how contrite he claimed to be so soon after the incident.

[stitched]

Keoparakolo said:

stitched said:

The place we differ is his companies right to discipline him for behaviour out of work wearing no work gear, in his place I would fight this and imho win at tribunal.
Whether I agree with this or not is immaterial.

If he’s dismissed them he’ll have a chance to argue his case there. I don’t think he would win at a tribunal if the correct process has been followed. A tribunal is normally more interested in company process being adhered to, rather than the specifics of the reason for dismissal. That isn’t always the case and a case I linked earlier regarding a football hooligan and Royal Mail proved that.

To make the score 1-1 I don’t think he will ever go back to work at Kier. Whether that’s through disciplinary or a compromise payoff we’ll probably never know. His suspension is as stated above, it should be non-punitive, it will be on full pay and only done if the employer believes there is a risk to the employee, or the investigation by allowing him to continue to attend work.

I don’t know how senior he is, but at site level there would be plenty who could threaten him, or refuse to work with him. At a more senior level the latter is quite likely. I would certainly object to working alongside him given his behaviour no matter how contrite he claimed to be so soon after the incident.

In order to fall foul of the usual ‘bringing the company into disrepute’ clause it is generally held that it is not behaviour which is judged but the deliberate identification of the company.
I failed to see him in the kier corporate box, a kier t shirt or a corporate banner behind him.

[stitched]

FrenchCarFan said:

stitched said:

I work for a German multinational company, coincidentally I hold a CIPD qualification, if my firm tried to dismiss me for behaviour outside work with nothing tying me to the company then I would, quite rightly imho, take them to the cleaners.

What about if you where caught doing a Nazi salute?

I wouldn’t need to worry about work anymore as a prince.

[Keoparakolo]

stitched said:

In order to fall foul of the usual ‘bringing the company into disrepute’ clause it is generally held that it is not behaviour which is judged but the deliberate identification of the company.
I failed to see him in the kier corporate box, a kier t shirt or a corporate banner behind him.

That’s not true. It might have been given as an example, but bringing the company into disrepute is not exclusive to what you’ve described. It has a very broad meaning, deliberately so. It allows for a wide variety of actions to fall under the umbrella and give the employer options.