Speaking Philosophically about the Bahrain Grand Prix

There has been a lot of coverage in the press about whether the Bahrain Grand Prix should go ahead this weekend due to the pro-democracy protests that are taking place in the country. This coverage has however made little mention of the decision of Williams Formula 1 team to dismiss a member of their catering staff because she refused to travel to Bahrain on moral grounds.

Very few facts relating to the dismissal of this employee are in the public domain but it is understood that Williams took the decision to dismiss her because she was contracted to work at all 20 races of the F1 season and by refusing to work at the Bahrain Grand Prix she had breached her contract. If the employee had only started working for Williams at the start of the F1 season she would not have been able to make a claim of unfair dismissal as she did not have the required length of service, but could she instead made a claim that she dismissal was an act of discrimination due to her philosophical beliefs?

Since 2003 employees have been entitled to protection from discrimination on the grounds of their philosophical beliefs. The meaning of “philosophical beliefs” has been the subject of scrutiny by the Employment Tribunal system. There have been some surprising results with various Tribunals finding that beliefs in climate change, anti-fox-hunting, and public service broadcasting amounted to philosophical beliefs that were entitled to protection under the Equality Act. It is not clear what the “moral grounds” were for the employee not to want to travel to Bahrain but if it was a belief in democracy and/or human rights then these are likely to be classed as philosophical beliefs that should be protected.  

So how could Williams argue that the decision to dismiss the employee was not discriminatory? The case of Grainger Plc & others v Nicholson (which found that a belief in climate change could be considered a philosophical belief) set out a list of principles which should be applied to decide if a belief should be subject to the protection of the law. This list included whether the belief held was genuinely held and also whether it had a certain level of certainty or cohesion. If the employee had worked at the Chinese Grand Prix which took place the previous weekend then the genuineness and cohesion of her beliefs could be challenged as she would be questioned why she worked in a country (China) which is governed by one party and has an appalling human rights record but did not feel that she could work in Bahrain. This would potentially create difficulties for the employee if she made a tribunal claim.

As I said above, the facts in the public domain regarding the decision to dismiss this employee are limited. Williams described her departure as being by mutual consent so it may be the case that some form of settlement was reached; however, the dismissal of this employee does highlight the need for businesses to be careful when dealing with an employee who objects to being asked to do something that they feel is immoral.

Bad Management of Football Managers is Bad Financial Management

The administrators at Portsmouth Football Club have published their report this week. It states that Portsmouth have debts in the region of £58 million. There are plenty of other football clubs who have found themselves in administration including Portsmouth’s local rivals Southampton FC, Plymouth Argyle (my team!) and most recently Glasgow Rangers. So how have these clubs got themselves into such trouble?

The cost of dismissing the manager is one contributing factor. It is often very likely that if a sacked football manager was to make a claim of unfair dismissal they would probably have very good prospects of success. This means that more often than not they will be paid off by the club.

Football managers are very well paid and are usually on contracts for a fixed term of 3 to 5 years. If the club decides to dismiss a manager after only a short period they are potentially liable to pay the manager the balance of his contract. They can argue that the manager should try and minimise his losses by finding alternative employment and there is usually horse trading between the club and the manager as to how much the settlement should be but it is the case that such a settlement can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. It is arguable that dismissing the manager can actually be doing the club more harm financially than keeping him on.

What is also often forgotten is that when a manager is dismissed the rest of the coaching staff (who have often come with the manager) will often be dismissed as well meaning that there will be potentially more compromise agreements being handed out. This means that a club with a lot of outgoing managers will quickly find that a lot of money is leaving with them.  

Since Harry Redknapp left Portsmouth in 2008 there have been ten managers at the club and since he left Southampton in 2005 there have been eight managers. This cannot have helped the either club’s finances. There are other reasons for clubs going into administration such as players’ wages and general financial mismanagement; however, having a high turnover of managers cannot have helped both for footballing and financial reasons.

How Cardiff Blues Tackled Henson

Welsh rugby international Gavin Henson was dismissed by his employers Cardiff Blues today following his misbehaving on a plane from Glasgow to Cardiff last Saturday morning. There has been plenty of comment in the rugby press about his departure (one that was particularly good was by Brian Moore); however, from an employers’ point of view how easy was it for the Blues to sack Henson?

The reality was that it was fairly easy for the club to do this. Henson was travelling back from Glasgow having played for the Blues the previous evening. He was in all likelihood travelling back with the rest of the squad on a flight paid for by the club. If this was the case it can easily be argued that at the time of the incident he was “on duty” with Cardiff. I would also be very surprised if there was not a clause in his contract that said he should not do anything that would bring the club’s name into disrepute.

By misbehaving on the flight in such circumstances, Henson had created the perfect storm for himself making it very easy for the club to dismiss him on the grounds of gross misconduct. Henson’s best argument may have been that his behaviour on the plane had not amounted to gross misconduct; however, while what did or did not happen on the plane may have be open to speculation, Henson publicly apologised for his actions indicating that his misbehaviour was serious in nature. Further, Henson being banned by Flybe for six months would not help this argument.

In any event, Henson had only been with the Blues since the start of this season meaning that he did not have the one years’ service (two years from 6 April 2012) required to make a claim of unfair dismissal. He could still claim wrongful dismissal but if successful that would only entitle him to the monies that he would have received had he been given the notice that he was entitled to under his contract.

In reality Henson is unlikely to be making a claim against the Blues and instead will be getting his agent to start contacting potential employers. Maybe we will see him on I’m a Celebrity …..