The "TaxPayers Alliance". Sounds good, doesn't it? Until you find out it is a front for some questionable people. And is at least as shady as those it tries to attack
Lambeth Council is not the best-run Council. Far from it. But on this particular occasion they have done nothing wrong.
I have the advantage of having advised a lot of employers in exactly the same position as Lambeth. And believe me when I say that compromise agreement was a very good deal for the Taxpayer.
Let's take it bit by bit. Firstly, there is a massive leap between "bringing into disrepute" and being entitled to Summarily dismiss for Gross Misconduct. In exactly the same way as not every act of misconduct is gross misconduct.
Them there is the criminal offences themselves. He was caught on a Sunday morning-so not during work time. And anybody 3 times the Drink Drive limit on a Sunday morning usually has mental health problems.
If you want to get rid, you have to act fast. He appeared in Court 3 months after the offences. He will be far more amenable to leave before sentencing-to try and show remorse and avoid a Prison sentence.
The only other option would be to wait until he is convicted, and then bring Disciplinary proceedings. Just the waiting for conviction would cost the taxpayer most of that £100k. Then you have the significant costs of the investigation and the Hearing. Which is usually postponed for many months due to medical evidence from the guy's advisers. At a time when he now knows he is unemployable elsewhere, and will be playing for time. Then he will start Tribunal proceedings claiming all sorts.
His accrued holiday pay cannot be taken. Nor can his Pension. That only happens in hardline Communist countries.
That was a good deal for the taxpayer. I vividly recall one similar instance where an Authority took the moral high ground, and tried to pay the person £0 and sack them. Why do I remember it? Because it was the highest bill I ever charged anyone in my entire career. Simply because my initial advice was rejected.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TaxPayers'_Alliance
Lambeth Council is not the best-run Council. Far from it. But on this particular occasion they have done nothing wrong.
I have the advantage of having advised a lot of employers in exactly the same position as Lambeth. And believe me when I say that compromise agreement was a very good deal for the Taxpayer.
Let's take it bit by bit. Firstly, there is a massive leap between "bringing into disrepute" and being entitled to Summarily dismiss for Gross Misconduct. In exactly the same way as not every act of misconduct is gross misconduct.
Them there is the criminal offences themselves. He was caught on a Sunday morning-so not during work time. And anybody 3 times the Drink Drive limit on a Sunday morning usually has mental health problems.
If you want to get rid, you have to act fast. He appeared in Court 3 months after the offences. He will be far more amenable to leave before sentencing-to try and show remorse and avoid a Prison sentence.
The only other option would be to wait until he is convicted, and then bring Disciplinary proceedings. Just the waiting for conviction would cost the taxpayer most of that £100k. Then you have the significant costs of the investigation and the Hearing. Which is usually postponed for many months due to medical evidence from the guy's advisers. At a time when he now knows he is unemployable elsewhere, and will be playing for time. Then he will start Tribunal proceedings claiming all sorts.
His accrued holiday pay cannot be taken. Nor can his Pension. That only happens in hardline Communist countries.
That was a good deal for the taxpayer. I vividly recall one similar instance where an Authority took the moral high ground, and tried to pay the person £0 and sack them. Why do I remember it? Because it was the highest bill I ever charged anyone in my entire career. Simply because my initial advice was rejected.