Desperate Dan
Senior Jockey
Cannot believe he`s fighting this. Can only believe it`s another attempt at self-publicity.
McCririck's Damages Suit
- Thread starter Grasshopper
- Start date
Flagship uberalles
Journeyman
Why should she assume otherwise? She had been employed in that role for any number of years - she had not been made aware by her employer of any problems with her performance until that point.
The only difference is that she is older - I would have thought this is a valid point to argue?
My personal opinion is that she wasn't very good when she started and didn't get any better - but C4 had a long time to get rid of her and didn't. If they had performance management reviews, then any problems with herself or McCririck should have been raised - if the employee didn't subsequently improve or change their performance / behaviour, then it's easy to let them go and justify it for this reason.
I'm guessing this didn't happen based on McCriricks comments and it should have been mentioned by now.
As far as employment law goes, I'm not sure how it a role of this type can be considered different to any other job - if there have been no concerns raised about their ability to do said job, how can it be justified to let them go just because management fancied a change?
I should add I have no idea what the contract situation was as mentioned above, which would obviously have an impact.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,037
I don't know either but it can happen in the so-called bombproof public sector.
In my first teaching job, I was having an extremely successful time of it. I was very popular with the pupils - even some of the boys were crying when I left - and my line manager had told me I was a head of department waiting to happen and he couldn't believe the boss was making a decision that necessitated my leaving. That decision was change. He wanted to expand the "aesthetic area" of the curriculum at the expense of the "academic area", which meant increasing staffing in things like music, drama, art, etc and reducing it in other departments, including mine (Modern Languages). I was 'last in' (five years earlier) so I was 'first out'. End of. For me it meant having to re-establish and re-prove myself all over again in a different school. OK, I still had a job, but it was a crap decision he had to reverse a couple of years later when the results went down the tubes, by which time I had moved to Further Education and had become Senior Lecturer.
If they were on a contract they can be let go at the end of that contract period without any reason given. I dont believe any of them were employed by Ch4. My information is that they (or in actual fact their company) were engaged to carry out a service for Ch4 for a period of time. Its totally different to the standard permanent employee arrangement that many of you may be used to. They could drop GC and Nick Luck if the fancy it at the end of this contract.
No - not renewing a fixed term contract is a dismissal .
I'm not sure i get the point raised. LG and Fat Mac were re-engaged on new contracts on less days per year. These were accepted and at the end of those contracts they were told they wouldnt be required. No-one was dismissed. They just werent re-engaged. IF Fat Mac wants employment rights then as has been stated he better be ready to pay back all the tax that a full time CH4 employee would pay.
Roddy Owen
At the Start
Jamie Aitchison said McCririck had a "propensity to offend
The man who dropped John McCririck from Channel 4's horse racing programmes has said the decision was "entirely unrelated to his age".
Jamie Aitchison, commissioning editor for sport, told a tribunal that the pundit's "exaggerated tone" was "out of step" with the channel's coverage.
Mr McCririck was "seen by many as a comic act rather than a serious horse racing journalist," he added.
The 73-year-old is accusing his former employers of age discrimination.
Channel 4 and IMG Media deny the claims.
'Irritating' style
In a statement to an employment tribunal, Mr Aitchison said: "John McCririck's exaggerated tone and style and propensity to offend was out of step with the vision for the programme, and also unappealing and irritating to many current and potential viewers."
He added that the decision to drop him from the line-up last year was taken for "legitimate and justified reasons".
Speaking earlier this week, Mr McCririck told the tribunal his image as a bigot and a sexist went "side-by-side" with his career as a serious journalist.
Channel 4 says it dropped the presenter for his 'pantomime style'
The 73-year-old claimed his appearances as a "pantomime villain" on reality TV shows did not reduce his "gravitas" and denied they damaged horse racing.
While admitting there had been plenty of complaints to Channel 4 about his behaviour, Mr McCririck said he was "aware that Channel 4 approved of it because they kept on having me on their programmes".
Channel 4 landed the rights to air all UK horse racing events, including the Grand National and Royal Ascot, in 2012 and began their coverage a year later.
Mr McCririck was subsequently axed from the coverage, as a new-look team led by Clare Balding took over.
Mr Aitchison said he and others at Channel 4 felt that, while the broadcaster's coverage up to 2012 had catered well for "a contingent of dedicated horse racing fans, it was niche and non-inclusive at times".
"Channel 4 set out to create a tone that was a little more serious, measured and inclusive," he added.
Mr Aitchison, who has worked previously as a producer on BBC and ITV sports shows, rejected Mr McCririck's claim that he was sacked because of his age.
He told the tribunal that all the production firms bidding for the contract to make Channel 4's racing programmes had scaled back - or entirely eliminated - Mr McCririck's role in their pitches.
"Not one of those companies came back to Channel 4 and said 'we would like to use John McCririck as a betting pundit in the afternoon'," he said.
John McCririck with his wife Jenny McCririck has been attending the tribunal in London with his wife Jenny
"I was considering John for another role at this point, but everybody else had said 'no'.
"I would be foolish to ignore that kind of expertise."
In his witness statement, he said concerns over Mr McCririck's style were supported by audience surveys, press coverage and viewer complaints.
"None of the decisions taken in respect of who to invite and who not to invite to be in the on-screen team for Channel 4 Racing from 2013 were taken on the grounds of their age, or indeed for any reason other than merit, including the decision not to invite John McCririck to be part of the team," he added.
The man who dropped John McCririck from Channel 4's horse racing programmes has said the decision was "entirely unrelated to his age".
Jamie Aitchison, commissioning editor for sport, told a tribunal that the pundit's "exaggerated tone" was "out of step" with the channel's coverage.
Mr McCririck was "seen by many as a comic act rather than a serious horse racing journalist," he added.
The 73-year-old is accusing his former employers of age discrimination.
Channel 4 and IMG Media deny the claims.
'Irritating' style
In a statement to an employment tribunal, Mr Aitchison said: "John McCririck's exaggerated tone and style and propensity to offend was out of step with the vision for the programme, and also unappealing and irritating to many current and potential viewers."
He added that the decision to drop him from the line-up last year was taken for "legitimate and justified reasons".
Speaking earlier this week, Mr McCririck told the tribunal his image as a bigot and a sexist went "side-by-side" with his career as a serious journalist.
Channel 4 says it dropped the presenter for his 'pantomime style'
The 73-year-old claimed his appearances as a "pantomime villain" on reality TV shows did not reduce his "gravitas" and denied they damaged horse racing.
While admitting there had been plenty of complaints to Channel 4 about his behaviour, Mr McCririck said he was "aware that Channel 4 approved of it because they kept on having me on their programmes".
Channel 4 landed the rights to air all UK horse racing events, including the Grand National and Royal Ascot, in 2012 and began their coverage a year later.
Mr McCririck was subsequently axed from the coverage, as a new-look team led by Clare Balding took over.
Mr Aitchison said he and others at Channel 4 felt that, while the broadcaster's coverage up to 2012 had catered well for "a contingent of dedicated horse racing fans, it was niche and non-inclusive at times".
"Channel 4 set out to create a tone that was a little more serious, measured and inclusive," he added.
Mr Aitchison, who has worked previously as a producer on BBC and ITV sports shows, rejected Mr McCririck's claim that he was sacked because of his age.
He told the tribunal that all the production firms bidding for the contract to make Channel 4's racing programmes had scaled back - or entirely eliminated - Mr McCririck's role in their pitches.
"Not one of those companies came back to Channel 4 and said 'we would like to use John McCririck as a betting pundit in the afternoon'," he said.
John McCririck with his wife Jenny McCririck has been attending the tribunal in London with his wife Jenny
"I was considering John for another role at this point, but everybody else had said 'no'.
"I would be foolish to ignore that kind of expertise."
In his witness statement, he said concerns over Mr McCririck's style were supported by audience surveys, press coverage and viewer complaints.
"None of the decisions taken in respect of who to invite and who not to invite to be in the on-screen team for Channel 4 Racing from 2013 were taken on the grounds of their age, or indeed for any reason other than merit, including the decision not to invite John McCririck to be part of the team," he added.
The law states that non- renewal of a fixed term contract of employment is a dismissal .
For that to be not unfair it has to be for reasons of conduct, capability , redundancy or some other substantial reason. It also has to be in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case.
AS I understand it McCririck is arguing that in fact he was dismissed not for the some other substantial reasons that C4 are putting forward but on grounds of his age
Flagship uberalles
Journeyman
That's more or less what I understood about it as well - but will C4 not find it hard to argue their point unless they have demonstrated there was a previous problem with his conduct / capability? If they didn't record or raise any problems during the time of his employment, how can they suddenly state this at the time of contract renewal without previously advising him of this?
EC1
On a break
this is why he can win
Ok IF he was EMPLOYED by CH4 on a Fixed Term Contract then YES you are correct. BUT it is my understanding that he is SELF EMPLOYED and his Company were engaged to carry out work by CH4. In that set up there is no dismissal at end of contract. Its just end of contract. There was no Employment contract between CH4 Ltd and Fat Mac as an employee.
EC1
On a break
the problem they have now though is that they are coming up with all these reasons why he wasn't suitable anymore..but have never mentioned it to their "employee"
what makes that worse for C4 is that his behaviour has always been the same..and for years they have been happy with it..which makes them now look like they are clutching at straws
just on this alone means they will be paying out imo
what makes that worse for C4 is that his behaviour has always been the same..and for years they have been happy with it..which makes them now look like they are clutching at straws
just on this alone means they will be paying out imo
Colin Phillips
At the Start
But, surely, no job is for life!?
Change of management, change of style, it happens in other industries.
His gravy train has reached the end of the line, he should accept that fact with a little dignity.
Change of management, change of style, it happens in other industries.
His gravy train has reached the end of the line, he should accept that fact with a little dignity.
Roddy Owen
At the Start
Dignity is something he just wouldn't understand
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
Hasn't the question of whether or not it constitutes a dismissal not been settled? Isn't that what the pre-trial hearing that he won was partly about?
Have to agree with EC - think C4 are screwed here, even though I doubt his age had much to do with the decision.
Have to agree with EC - think C4 are screwed here, even though I doubt his age had much to do with the decision.
The pre trial judge is obv mental and claimed that as CH4 used his pictures in promos for racing etc then he was obvisouly an employee of CH4. So if that is the case and he is going to get employee status I fully expect HMRC to screw him for full PAYE and NI that he hasnt paid for many many years.
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
The direction of this case will depend on whether C4R employed 'John McCririck' or 'John McCririck Ltd'.
If the former applies, they probably have no obligation to retain somone Lready past retirement age (though there may be a severance-payment issue to answer).
If the latter, Mac does not have a leg to stand on, and it will be laughed out of court. The fact that he was paid a day-rate strongly suggests his engagement was via a limited company arrangement.
And even if the former does apply, there is no guarantee that this alone will help him win his case.
He is still a billion, in my book.
If the former applies, they probably have no obligation to retain somone Lready past retirement age (though there may be a severance-payment issue to answer).
If the latter, Mac does not have a leg to stand on, and it will be laughed out of court. The fact that he was paid a day-rate strongly suggests his engagement was via a limited company arrangement.
And even if the former does apply, there is no guarantee that this alone will help him win his case.
He is still a billion, in my book.
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
Again, didn't the pre-trial hearing answer those questions?
From: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/jun/28/victory-john-mccririck-ageism-channel-4
Surely it wouldn't have got this far if the fundamentals of the case were still in doubt?
So C4 will have to show that they had good cause to let him go; but as others have already pointed out they can talk all they like about him being unserious and even offensive, but without ever going through a proper disciplinary process, they can't just sack him for it (they don't seem to be claiming gross misconduct that would justify summary dismissal).
From: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/jun/28/victory-john-mccririck-ageism-channel-4
Surely it wouldn't have got this far if the fundamentals of the case were still in doubt?
So C4 will have to show that they had good cause to let him go; but as others have already pointed out they can talk all they like about him being unserious and even offensive, but without ever going through a proper disciplinary process, they can't just sack him for it (they don't seem to be claiming gross misconduct that would justify summary dismissal).
simmo
Senior Jockey
They can't sack him but they can refuse to renew his contract. They don't need to provide a reason or a body of evidence for doing so. They can also negotiate a reduced volume contract as would have been the case when they cut his appearances.
The pre-trial evidence does not state that he is to be considered an employee of Channel 4, it states that Channel 4 had the responsibility for choosing to hire him or not - that this responsibility does not lie with Highflyer.
The pre-trial evidence does not state that he is to be considered an employee of Channel 4, it states that Channel 4 had the responsibility for choosing to hire him or not - that this responsibility does not lie with Highflyer.
No - it was held that he was an employee of Channel 4 that was what the preliminary hearing was about .
For the hundredth time - refusing to renew a fixed term contract is a dismissal ! It is also a dismissal if the terms are changed - the question then is whether you agree to go on working under the new terms.If you do , without protest, you are deemed to have accepted the new terms .
Last edited:
Totally depends on if HE was employed on a Fixed Term or if his company were. It is 100% NOT dismissal if it was his company who were not offered a new contract. But they seem to be ignoring that fact and basing it all on them doing away with his right to work based on age.
Ardross that is only the case if the contract is with the individual.
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Myself and Digger make our living from fixed-term contracts, and I can assure you that failure to extend assuredly does NOT equate to dismissal.
Of course, there is more than one type of fixed-term-contract.