Sir Philip Rutnam quits

[sir nige]

17 minutes ago, P.K. said:

You mean just like I said here:

 

nope......

"Even despite this campaign I was willing to effect a reconciliation with the home secretary, as requested by the cabinet secretary on behalf of the prime minister.

But despite my efforts to engage with her, Priti Patel has made no effort to engage with me to discuss this."

he doesn't give a stuff about the staff......

he'll still gets his full package as well.....

[manxman1980]

15 minutes ago, sir nige said:

nope......

"Even despite this campaign I was willing to effect a reconciliation with the home secretary, as requested by the cabinet secretary on behalf of the prime minister.

But despite my efforts to engage with her, Priti Patel has made no effort to engage with me to discuss this."

he doesn't give a stuff about the staff......

he'll still gets his full package as well.....

This is all perfectly sensible stiff from Sir Philip.    

Employees can bring claims for constructive dismissal due to a breakdown in trust and confidence between them and their employer caused by various complaints which can include bullying.  ACAS defines bullying as "offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power through means that undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient" .

On the surface it would appear that Sir Philip has attempted to resolve the matter internally, probably through a grievance procedure, and also appears to have attempted to reconcile the differences in an attempt to move on.  If Priti Patel has failed to engaged in this then she may have opened the door for the claim to be successful. 

Obviously, we are all stood on the outside looking in and do not have the details.  If this case goes before the Employment Tribunal it will be very interesting to see the reporting on the case (although the UK press are notoriously bad at following up on Employment Tribunal claims).

[Rog]

3 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

This is all perfectly sensible stiff from Sir Philip.    

Employees can bring claims for constructive dismissal due to a breakdown in trust and confidence between them and their employer caused by various complaints which can include bullying.  ACAS defines bullying as "offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power through means that undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient" .

On the surface it would appear that Sir Philip has attempted to resolve the matter internally, probably through a grievance procedure, and also appears to have attempted to reconcile the differences in an attempt to move on.  If Priti Patel has failed to engaged in this then she may have opened the door for the claim to be successful. 

Obviously, we are all stood on the outside looking in and do not have the details.  If this case goes before the Employment Tribunal it will be very interesting to see the reporting on the case (although the UK press are notoriously bad at following up on Employment Tribunal claims).

The creep is obviously politicised up to his neck. Just as so many are who attempted to derail BREXIT and came up with the cost of half a mil to get Big Ben to Bong to celebrate UK independence.

He should be the first of many to be disposed of. 

[manxman1980]

11 minutes ago, Rog said:

The creep is obviously politicised up to his neck. Just as so many are who attempted to derail BREXIT and came up with the cost of half a mil to get Big Ben to Bong to celebrate UK independence.

He should be the first of many to be disposed of. 

That is your view on this matter and one that is coming from your own views on Brexit rather than the considering the relevant employment legislation.

At this stage no evidence has been presented to suggest that he was being subjected to a formal disciplinary process, which would be expected if he had committed acts of alleged insubordination or any other form of misconduct in his role.  Perhaps that will come out as this progresses.  

 

[Rog]

3 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

That is your view on this matter and one that is coming from your own views on Brexit rather than the considering the relevant employment legislation.

At this stage no evidence has been presented to suggest that he was being subjected to a formal disciplinary process, which would be expected if he had committed acts of alleged insubordination or any other form of misconduct in his role.  Perhaps that will come out as this progresses.  

 

The fact that the creep is even considering going down that path let alone publicising it speaks volumes about him.  

[manxman1980]

19 minutes ago, Rog said:

The fact that the creep is even considering going down that path let alone publicising it speaks volumes about him.  

He is asserting a statutory right.  When did that make him a creep?  Most employees would publicise their complaints if the media were interested in an attempt to force the employer to issue a settlement agreement and pay them for their silence.

If he really was blocking reasonable ministerial requests then I would expect that to be dealt with via one of two routes.  As I have mentioned previously one would be a disciplinary process on the basis of misconduct, it is plausible that this process was started and his resignation was a reaction to this.  Should that be the case then potentially he has a weaker case.

The other route is very similar but rather than conduct would be on the basis of "some other substantial reason".  That being that he and Priti Patel are unable to work together due to a personality clash.  If this was the case then alternative employment should have been a consideration.  

None of this is difficult and it strikes me that in a rush to reform the Civil Service the Tory Government are running the risk of breaching employment law.

For those who are not aware there are five potentially fair reasons for dismissal in the UK.  These are;

1. Conduct;

2. Capability (Includes competence and ill health);

3. Redundancy;

4. Statutory Bar;

5. Some other substantial reason (essentially a catch all option which is often a secondary reason to the others listed above);

[Rog]

3 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

He is asserting a statutory right.  When did that make him a creep?  Most employees would publicise their complaints if the media were interested in an attempt to force the employer to issue a settlement agreement and pay them for their silence.

If he really was blocking reasonable ministerial requests then I would expect that to be dealt with via one of two routes.  As I have mentioned previously one would be a disciplinary process on the basis of misconduct, it is plausible that this process was started and his resignation was a reaction to this.  Should that be the case then potentially he has a weaker case.

The other route is very similar but rather than conduct would be on the basis of "some other substantial reason".  That being that he and Priti Patel are unable to work together due to a personality clash.  If this was the case then alternative employment should have been a consideration.  

None of this is difficult and it strikes me that in a rush to reform the Civil Service the Tory Government are running the risk of breaching employment law.

For those who are not aware there are five potentially fair reasons for dismissal in the UK.  These are;

1. Conduct;

2. Capability (Includes competence and ill health);

3. Redundancy;

4. Statutory Bar;

5. Some other substantial reason (essentially a catch all option which is often a secondary reason to the others listed above);

Employment law needs to be changed.  It's become much too one sided and being exploited  by smart arsed lawyers with cases being settled out of court which is actually blackmail but saves an employer money.

In the case of this asshole what he is doing is glaringly obvious.

In any case when it comes to bullying, REAL bullying Bercow would be hard to equal let alone beat.

[Manximus Aururaneus]

Constructive dismissal is not as easy to prove as some people assume. In addition, Putnam's resignation letter states that he declined a financial offer from the Cabinet office in favour of speaking via the media to publicise the issue. I can see no evidence that he engaged in the Grievance procedure prior to resignation (that does not mean that he did not). His employers have a duty of care towards him - he also has a duty to them.

In any case, I'm not actually certain that the Home Secretary is his employer??

 

[manxman1980]

@Rog 

I have outlined two methods through which Sir Philip could have lawfully been managed out of the civil service without a need to resort to settlement agreements or employment tribunals assuming of course that the allegations you make against him are factual (or at least on the basis that his employer had a reasonable belief that they are true).

And before you start bleating about the EU introducing employment legislation please remember that unfair dismissal is a UK based right.  It was not introduced via the EU.

[manxman1980]

8 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

Constructive dismissal is not as easy to prove as some people assume. In addition, Putnam's resignation letter states that he declined a financial offer from the Cabinet office in favour of speaking via the media to publicise the issue. I can see no evidence that he engaged in the Grievance procedure prior to resignation (that does not mean that he did not). His employers have a duty of care towards him - he also has a duty to them.

 

As I said, none of us have the full facts.  We are engaging in speculation and the reference to "reconciliation" could be interpreted in a number of ways. 

I also agree with you that constructive dismissal is not an easy case to bring. 

[Rog]

1 minute ago, manxman1980 said:

@Rog 

I have outlined two methods through which Sir Philip could have lawfully been managed out of the civil service without a need to resort to settlement agreements or employment tribunals assuming of course that the allegations you make against him are factual (or at least on the basis that his employer had a reasonable belief that they are true).

And before you start bleating about the EU introducing employment legislation please remember that unfair dismissal is a UK based right.  It was not introduced via the EU.

The creep chose to resign.  

He didn't like having to do what his boss was telling him to do.

If there had been any illegality in her demands there is a formal process he and others can and should follow.

He chose not and  instead to attempt to damage a very fine minister well on track to do what is desperately needed to be done.

Never mind resign, he should have been sacked.

[Rog]

5 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

As I said, none of us have the full facts.  We are engaging in speculation and the reference to "reconciliation" could be interpreted in a number of ways. 

I also agree with you that constructive dismissal is not an easy case to bring. 

That SOB is going to succeed in his obvious intent to defame a wonderful minister doing a wonderful job and indeed adversely impact  the whole government.

[sir nige]

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

That is your view on this matter and one that is coming from your own views on Brexit rather than the considering the relevant employment legislation.

At this stage no evidence has been presented to suggest that he was being subjected to a formal disciplinary process, which would be expected if he had committed acts of alleged insubordination or any other form of misconduct in his role.  Perhaps that will come out as this progresses.  

 

lefty logic at work........they wanted to keep the bercoff while he had claims made against him........but they want pp to stand down....

pure racism is what it is because pp doesn't need saving and gets on with the job and the lefty liberals can't cope with it........

[sir nige]

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

He is asserting a statutory right.  When did that make him a creep?  Most employees would publicise their complaints if the media were interested in an attempt to force the employer to issue a settlement agreement and pay them for their silence.

 

he claims not to know the media yet contacted lk on a saturday morning......gave a interview......held a live tv statement.....and e-mailed every media outlet.....

#fishy

don't forget he was behind windrush......

[manxman1980]

14 minutes ago, sir nige said:

lefty logic at work........they wanted to keep the bercoff while he had claims made against him........but they want pp to stand down....

pure racism is what it is because pp doesn't need saving and gets on with the job and the lefty liberals can't cope with it........

You will notice that I have not commented on Bercow and the allegations against him.