>>
>> There is NO defense for giving an employee a hard time. To even treat that
>> employee differently they would have to prove both the non/under -performance and that he had been informed, explanation, and targets/goals with criteria and dates.
>>
I don't know whether you're deliberately misunderstanding me or...... ;-)
I put the phrase "getting a hard time from management" in quotes deliberately, and in the following paragraph then rather defined what you've set out above but in different words.
==============
Anyway, I think we'll have to agree to differ on the implications. As I see it (ignoring any bias on the merits of either party's actions):
There patently are irreconcilable differences (which may or may not have resulted in behaviour which crossed the threshold of grounds for Constructive Dismissal. Sir Philip will now have to plead that case to an Employment Tribunal; there are defined grounds for success; and he will have to deliver proof).
The Government may simply choose not to contest (which would be a bit of a Pyrrhic victory) or it may choose to defend, along the lines I've set out, or others, in which case things could get nasty, for either/both sides. It may provide a bit of entertainment, but I doubt it will provide much enlightenment.
The Government (actually the Civil Service) have already offered Sir Philip, by his own admission, a severance package. Given Government lawyers will have been looking at the possibility of Constructive Dismissal, and they can calculate just about to the penny what a maximum award would be at a Tribunal, I can't believe that any offer significantly undercut that amount. Any decent advice to Sir Philip would also have him understand the financials. Given that, I can't see that any motivation in pursuing a Constructive Dismissal claim is likely to revolve around money.
Even if he had accepted a Compromise Agreement with an NDA it would be "known" (note the quotes) that this was a substantial pay-off. (You've been around, Mark. I can't believe that you don't know people who have left under an NDA, and that you don't substantially know the terms, if not quite to the last letter/number, under which they left).
Frankly, with his views on the background still warm, if not even hot, IMO his interests would have been best served by accepting severance, playing his connections relatively "unsullied" and pursuing a senior post in private industry.
If one eliminates the financial motive, then there are really only two others that come to mind, neither of which (IMO) place him in a good light.
The 'altruistic' motive of exposing what he feels is a wider toxic culture in his department or the Civil Service as a whole. He's already (prior to any offer) exposed such thoughts. Accepting the offer and leaving would be almost as seismic as prolonging any discussion to a point of Tribunal. It would certainly invoke widespread discussion in the media (it has). In reality, though, any protest is unlikely to make much difference in this arena. The Government has declared its hand, and I'm pretty sure is ready for more such culls, either the easy way or the hard way (and I'm not convinced they care which - It's the Trump playbook). Given this, if this is his motive, then I think his judgement is questionable. (I do wonder at the FDA involvement, though).
The revenge motive of getting at Ms Patel. Given his emotive resignation, and my feelings above, this seems the most likely. If that is the motive, however, revenge isn't a "good look" for an ex-senior Civil Servant in want of a job, and, whilst there is potential to damage Ms Patel, I'm not entirely sure it will happen with this Government. I'm also not sure that any action will damage her much more than accepting the severance, since the only people who can really bear on that would be full party to the background and agreement anyway. She is already "damaged goods" from previous actions in office, but has risen again. She fits the Government agenda, and might just survive. If the Government choose to attack, even if they don't successfully defend the case, there may well be scope to further damage Sir Philip.
So, in summarising, I think any prospective future employer is likely to be looking at his actions, pondering on any motivation, and potentially deciding that it hasn't put him in a good light. (That's my view, it differs from Mark's, and I'm no longer a prospective employer, so it probably matters not a jot).
I still think he is being driven more by emotion than logic.
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Sat 29 Feb 20 at 16:33
|
