Douglas Borough Council - Employment Tribunal case

[The Voice of Reason]

On 4/13/2021 at 12:02 PM, Non-Believer said:

Yes, just found mine on the doormat. Complete with the handwringing enclosure from Calric Randall expressing sympathy to all the poor unwashed who didn't get paid full-whack (or very much at all) during lockdown and suggesting that any of those unwashed who have difficulty paying their Rates this year contact the Rates Section of the Treasury to be accommodated.

Failing that, the advice right at the bottom is that debt counselling is available at the Office of Fair Trading or for good measure there's the Salvation Army phone number too.

You missed out The Samaritans, Calric.

Oh, and please don't send cheques, it should be cheaper for you. Plus we struggle with paperclips and staples.

Since when did being understanding and helpful become a subject for derision?

[the stinking enigma]

Handwritten or typed is the litmus i generally use in these instances.

[the stinking enigma]

I'll take signed in ink at a push.

[N3Wzk0nzum3r]

On 4/14/2021 at 6:28 PM, Declan said:

How long has been council leader. It seems like most of my life.

LOL agree. It feels like this person has been council leader for decades.

[display name]

10 hours ago, SleepyJoe said:

What kind of legal people don't accept the rulings of an employment tribunal?

The petulant and pompous kind.  They're quite common

[Augustus]

Asked if he was concerned how the press release was published, and whether this was a simple administrative failure or a more serious error, Mr Christian said: ’On this occasion it was the fact it was drawn up by the legal people - they obviously felt it didn’t need to be checked by anybody else.

 

Whatever can he mean by "the legal people"?

My point is that we were previously told that that the supposedly errant press release "was emailed to us by the man who usually prepares council press releases." They've got a man whose job is to prepare press releases? A little tinpot organisation like that? That must be a grand job.

Now, he seems to be shifting it onto the "legal people". Is he saying DBC have in-house lawyers or is he blaming it on outside lawyers? Or is he saying there barrackroom lawyers in DBC who claim to have some legal knowledge and thus qualify as the "legal people"? Clear as mud to me.

[Andy Onchan]

10 hours ago, the stinking enigma said:

I'll take signed in ink at a push.

I normally insist on blood.

[Max Power]

Glad to see our rates are being wisely spent!!

https://taxpayersalliance.im/douglas-council-spent-over-24000-in-legal-fees-for-losing-battle-to-cut-workers-salary-by-3500/

[Annoymouse]

39 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Glad to see our rates are being wisely spent!!

https://taxpayersalliance.im/douglas-council-spent-over-24000-in-legal-fees-for-losing-battle-to-cut-workers-salary-by-3500/

It’s a tough one though, if you don’t fight a claim because the legal representation costs are more than the initial claim (probably the vast majority of claims) then we would end up in even more of a culture claim situation.

 

 

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

13 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

It’s a tough one though, if you don’t fight a claim because the legal representation costs are more than the initial claim (probably the vast majority of claims) then we would end up in even more of a culture claim situation.

 

 

Interesting that they give the cost breakdown but there's no factoring in of staff time.

The wider debate here probably is whether it was really worth taking 3500 quid off him.

[John Wright]

30 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Glad to see our rates are being wisely spent!!

https://taxpayersalliance.im/douglas-council-spent-over-24000-in-legal-fees-for-losing-battle-to-cut-workers-salary-by-3500/

It’s the legal duty of the advocate to give an estimate in advance and to update it. Or if they can’t give an estimate to update costs regularly.

If the Council had tried to instruct me I’d have written advising that as costs would not be recoverable in an Employment Tribunal  of this nature that if I took more than 10-15 hours it would cost more than the amount the council hoped to save.

As an advocate you have, or should have, a pretty good idea how many hours it’s going to take to prepare a defence, examine all the papers, decide which are relevant, research legal points, prepare witness statements, prepare a chronology and submissions, prepare for the hearing and attend the hearing and present the case.

No brainier to say, “There is no economic justification on a value for money basis for defending the case”

[Max Power]

33 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

It’s a tough one though, if you don’t fight a claim because the legal representation costs are more than the initial claim (probably the vast majority of claims) then we would end up in even more of a culture claim situation.

 

 

Any business or individual would weigh up the costs before entering into a court action, no matter how strongly they felt that they were in the right. The difference here is that it wasn't their money, it was the ratepayer's, and there are no consequences for blowing their cash!

[Pipsqueak]

1 hour ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Interesting that they give the cost breakdown but there's no factoring in of staff time.

The wider debate here probably is whether it was really worth taking 3500 quid off him.

whether they were legally  or procedurally correct in doing so is the real question .

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

46 minutes ago, Pipsqueak said:

whether they were legally  or procedurally correct in doing so is the real question .

No it isn't.

We know the answer already?

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

No brainier to say, “There is no economic justification on a value for money basis for defending the case”

I'm sure they were told that very thing, by their lawyer.  Rather than using their in-house legal 'expertise' they got in an employment law specialist from Callin Wild - I surprised they got away with £24k for a three day sitting - and they would be punctilious in making such things clear.  I imagine lots of raised eyebrows and weary explaining going on.

So this was always going to cost more than any possible 'savings'.  Even if they had won it would have been bad publicity for them, because of the pettiness of it, bullying a long-standing worker who had been the victim of the Covid crisis.  But they had no chance of winning especially given the way top management then chickened out of appearing at the Tribunal.

On little thing puzzles me about the FoI.  It says: The cost of the award to the employee was £1,672.36 and that entailed 12.8% Employer’s NI Contribution bringing the total to £1,886.  But although the award was equivalent to four weeks wages (the maximum that could be awarded in the circumstances), I would have thought it was paid as a lump sum and not subject to tax or NI (employers or employees) as it is not the same as normal wages.  Have they ironically gone and made illegal deductions?