Ex Chief Exec - Dave Clark

[jaydee67]

lol!

[Skunnered]

you would not be mrs clark by any chance.

Well, my guess is, not unless she comes from (or came from) Whittlesey, which is near Cambridge.

[north]

Well, it looks like this sad state of affairs is entering it's final act.

 

Mainlander suggested that the removal of Mr. Clark might be a cause for celebration for many; but I personally feel sad that this situation has ever arisen, both for him, and the rest of us - he is a real live person.

 

That said, many of these issues originate from his own actions and decisions - and life and his position demand responsibility and accountability for this.

 

In reviewing this thread, I have read a number of things that have been quite surprising, so I started looking a little deeper. Anyone know more?

 

Paul Gatrill is an employee (perhaps owner?) of Kingsley Associates, not Kingsley and Associates. One appears to be a small operation, the other a large international organisation! I have no idea of his past or current dealings, but have no reason to doubt his description on the Dalzell website.

 

Indeed, he gets an excellent reference form another of Dalzell's associates.

 

 

Ian R Clark

 

- Founding Director of Britoil and BNOC, as Chief Executive of Shetland Island's Council he oversaw the Sullom Voe development - the largest construction project in Europe at the time. He also directed the construction of Britoil's Glasgow Headquaters - a spectaular development later sold on by a certain Mr Gatrill...

 

His current activities however, seem to be on a much smaller scale - renovating a basement flat in London. http://www.crambanddean.co.uk/cd6.htm

 

But perhaps far more interesting and enlightening to me, is the following from 29 July 199; http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/bs-stonewalls-over-dalzell-plant-1.748933

 

SNP industry spokesman David Clark, who is also an official in the Steel and Industrial Managers Association, asked whether BS would keep both Dalzell and S{by the way, do you realise I tried to swear here?}horpe open.

 

I had no idea that Mr. Clark had ever been involved in politics at this level before!

[Guest Anonymous]

its a shame in human terms that the poor fellow is come to loose his wife and his job n his credibility , but also couldnt go on, kinda feel sorry for him on a personal level

[Symbister]

is there anyone out there versed in employment law that can answer why the SIC can't just sack the neep rather than give him a pile of our money????

 

I think others maye touched on this earlier, but unless there's a single act of gross misconduct that would warrant instant dismissal OR there has been a series of acts of misconduct, each of which has been the subject of a warning (and preferably a final warning), the dismissal could be unfair. I don't know if there have been any warnings; if there haven't, it would be quite a leap to move to dismissal, which is why pay-offs may come into play.

[sheona]

is there anyone out there versed in employment law that can answer why the SIC can't just sack the neep rather than give him a pile of our money????

 

I think others maye touched on this earlier, but unless there's a single act of gross misconduct that would warrant instant dismissal OR there has been a series of acts of misconduct, each of which has been the subject of a warning (and preferably a final warning), the dismissal could be unfair. I don't know if there have been any warnings; if there haven't, it would be quite a leap to move to dismissal, which is why pay-offs may come into play.

 

This is wrong. See http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/monster/empf1.html

[Treeplanter]

Fleabee.......ehh..???!!!!....

 

The potential "loss" of his wife would apparantly be a consequence of his own actions....and nothing to do his performance / non perfoirmance as CE.

 

The potential "loss" of his job would appear to have been initiated by himself...it is the CE who has instructed his solicitors to commence dialogue with the SIC.

 

The potential "loss" of his reputation is a largely a consequence of his actions associated with both of the above.

[DePooperit]

is there anyone out there versed in employment law that can answer why the SIC can't just sack the neep rather than give him a pile of our money????

 

I think others maye touched on this earlier, but unless there's a single act of gross misconduct that would warrant instant dismissal OR there has been a series of acts of misconduct, each of which has been the subject of a warning (and preferably a final warning), the dismissal could be unfair. I don't know if there have been any warnings; if there haven't, it would be quite a leap to move to dismissal, which is why pay-offs may come into play.

 

This is wrong. See http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/monster/empf1.html

 

Do we know that the common employment rules which apply to us plebs are still applicable once one has crossed the managerial rubicon?

[MuckleJoannie]

^^^

If you are an employee regardless of where you are in the hierarchy they apply.

[unlinkedstudent]

Blimey, I disappear down to Co. Durham, England, for a week and look what I miss? Gawd, loads of catching up to do on this thread alone!

 

For what it is worth, my understanding of employment law (yep, from when I was a Legal Secretary and from typing up insurance reports in the present day) on the situation is this:-

 

The law deems everyone as on "probation" during their first year of employment. Therefore, an employer can basically turn around and say your face doesn't fit and give you said number of weeks notice unless it is related to sex, race or disability discrimination. Occasionally, but rarely, Health & Safety reasons are cited by the person being sacked.

 

So, SIC could sack DC and just say that upon reflection, he is not suitable for the position. Alternatively, whilst some of you may hold the view that he has brought the Council into disrepute by his (alleged) affair, they could deem it to be gross misconduct (along the lines of wotshisface being stripped of the position of the England Captain).

 

If DC wasn't happy with the way councillors had treated him, he would have to file a grievance. All the SIC have to do is have a grievance hearing within so many days. DC could then appeal against said decision. If they didn't hold a grievance hearing, an Employment Tribunal would fine them (I think the maximum is £500).

 

If SIC just said "your face doesn't fit, bye bye" and DC believed it was to do with the (alleged) affair, I reckon he could only go for sex discrimination if a high ranking female civil servant within the SIC in the past had kept her job in similar circumstances (hypothetically speaking).

 

We don't know what is in his Contract of Employment which may state different but even if it did re probationary period/reasons for dismissal, that would probably become a civil matter or if an Employment Tribunal looked at it, would amount to a breach of contract.

 

Bullying comes under Health & Safety but is hard to prove in employment tribunals. Again, he would have to raise a grievance.

 

It is not uncommon for Solicitors to be involved in order to reach a Compromise Agreement. If DC was dismissed and he appealed against his decision; again, because in statute he has not been in post for a year or more, it means very little.

 

But again, SIC should notify their Insurers that they envisage a potential claim may come about and, once more, the Insurers of SIC will probably decide the course of action to take.

[Vik]

Interesting all this cus a few SIC worker pals of mine all tell me that you don't have to be drunk to be dismissed as even smelling of it at work will get you a P45, this aparently even covers going in on a day off hoochin of drink.

 

If this is correct and the muckle neep didn't get his marching orders for being in breach of a fairly widely accepted breach of contract, this makes our beloved SIC negligent in their employer role - or some SIC employees get a finger wagging for smelling of drink whilst others get the boot? How does this work.

 

Seems to me our elected numpty's and or the official upholders of the rules are also negligent and should themselves be taken to task. Following on from this, if the muckle neep gets a 6 figure handshake shouldn't the elected members cough up as they were / are in breach of doing the correct thing by not sacking him in the first place.

[Brian]

Snore

[daveh]

You are getting tired, Brian?

[Keedle]

Brian don't fall asleep . Look what happened to C.E. when he fell asleep on Bressay Ferry !

[Vik]

Sorry to bore you Brian perhaps you should start a new topic or have an early night. Toodle pip