ChatterBank2 mins ago
A victory for free speech.
18 Answers
http://
/// "Mr Smith was taken to task for doing nothing wrong, suspended and subjected to a disciplinary procedure which wrongly found him guilty of gross misconduct, and then demoted to a non-managerial post with an eventual 40% reduction in salary. ///
So was it right for him to receive less than £100 in damages?
/// "Mr Smith was taken to task for doing nothing wrong, suspended and subjected to a disciplinary procedure which wrongly found him guilty of gross misconduct, and then demoted to a non-managerial post with an eventual 40% reduction in salary. ///
So was it right for him to receive less than £100 in damages?
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Don't know didn't hear the case but I note it was a final written warning so you'd need to know the details and context.
There has been to much legal attention paid to people's private postings similar to those cases of people being arrested for posting pictures of burning poppies.
Some clarification from the CPS is long overdue
There has been to much legal attention paid to people's private postings similar to those cases of people being arrested for posting pictures of burning poppies.
Some clarification from the CPS is long overdue
RedGrant
That is exactly what the compensation was:
// ?..the "very modest" damages due to Mr Smith was the very small difference between his contractual salary and the amount actually paid to him during the 12 weeks following his assumption of his new, but reduced, role. //
He got compensated for his loss of pay.
That is exactly what the compensation was:
// ?..the "very modest" damages due to Mr Smith was the very small difference between his contractual salary and the amount actually paid to him during the 12 weeks following his assumption of his new, but reduced, role. //
He got compensated for his loss of pay.
"was it right for him to receive less than £100 in damages?"
Well, it was according to law. As the judge pointed out, he could have been awarded substantially more if he gone to a tribunal, but he chose to go to court.
And, as he pointed out, he didn't do it for the money, but for the principle.
Good for him.
As I pointed out in your original thread about this case, the stance of his employers in this cas was entirely Kafkaesque.
Well, it was according to law. As the judge pointed out, he could have been awarded substantially more if he gone to a tribunal, but he chose to go to court.
And, as he pointed out, he didn't do it for the money, but for the principle.
Good for him.
As I pointed out in your original thread about this case, the stance of his employers in this cas was entirely Kafkaesque.
The comments were not visible to the general public, and were posted outside work time, but the trust said he broke its code of conduct by expressing religious or political views which might upset co-workers.
Sorry, but what a load of balls. What the hell are the management of Trafford Housing Trust smoking? It cannot possibly be legal.
Absolutely disgraceful. If it were me, I would get a lawyer and sue them personally for emotional distress. And whoever reported the post should...should...well, I don't know - but they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
All the bloke did was say that he disagreed with same sex church weddings. That is a popular position even amongst those who are campaigning for marriage equality. The problem is, C4M are deliberately confusing people by trying to say that the campaign is battling for religious same sex weddings.
Absolute nonsense.
I feel sorry for this man.
Sorry, but what a load of balls. What the hell are the management of Trafford Housing Trust smoking? It cannot possibly be legal.
Absolutely disgraceful. If it were me, I would get a lawyer and sue them personally for emotional distress. And whoever reported the post should...should...well, I don't know - but they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
All the bloke did was say that he disagreed with same sex church weddings. That is a popular position even amongst those who are campaigning for marriage equality. The problem is, C4M are deliberately confusing people by trying to say that the campaign is battling for religious same sex weddings.
Absolute nonsense.
I feel sorry for this man.
Here is your previous posting on the case AOG, 3 weeks ago.
http://
It's official, you're losing it :-)
http://
It's official, you're losing it :-)
Based purely on the facts as presented, His employers were clearly in the wrong to take this case forward, and Mr. Smith was treated poorly by his employers.
Its right that employers have policies that enforce equality and offer some protection from discriminatory behaviour, but those policies should not be used as gagging orders.
Not being familiar with employment law, I cannot understand why he did not take the employers to the employment tribunal for unfair treatment.
It does appear that there was more to this whole action than is actually being expressed in the story though. There is a suggestion that Mr. Smith had received written warnings before, and was on a final warning or whatever.
Its right that employers have policies that enforce equality and offer some protection from discriminatory behaviour, but those policies should not be used as gagging orders.
Not being familiar with employment law, I cannot understand why he did not take the employers to the employment tribunal for unfair treatment.
It does appear that there was more to this whole action than is actually being expressed in the story though. There is a suggestion that Mr. Smith had received written warnings before, and was on a final warning or whatever.
1 to 18 of 18
