Hypocrisy

[Thracian]

As  you've clearly not read everything I have said in this thread I will repeat:

 

 

Your whole agenda seems to be that people are being forced to employ unsuitable to meet some diversity quota.

 

If anyone does that then they are an idiot as they are jeopardising their business for no reason other than an incorrect assumption, or a desire to be "right on".

 

Personally I view positive discrimination as just discrimination, and the only consideration for a job is ability.

I have since revised my view slightly after this post:

 

 

Which I further agree with that a company like Morrison's will have insurance to cover the behaviour of their staff, whereas an individual may not have the capacity  to pay compensation to the victim, so in these cases the courts decide on what will best suit the victim, which is to pursue damages against a huge organisation, to ensure the best deal for the victim.

 

There is no mention of criminal responsibility, just financial.

The company having insurance doesn't make it justice - it offers a convenient get-out that sees the burden fall on the party most able to pay, rather than the real culprit.

I can't answer for the reasons this particular employee was recruited but I certainly don't believe it was to behave as he did.

Nor do I see that the company could reasonably have predicted or been responsible for his actions. I do see that the judge has a predicament.

But since when did two wrongs (the employee and the verdict) make a right? They don't, they make the "convenience" or "get out" I mentioned.

It's frightening to think of the concepts that serve as being "just" nowadays. And how many people would defend them. I'm all for corporate responsibility and due diligence but there's nothing "just" in finding excuses for firms to become victims.

One day a big firm will respond to such indefensible liberty-taking by closing its doors and putting everyone out of work. I wonder what you'd say then.

[Captain...]

The company having insurance doesn't make it justice - it offers a convenient get-out that sees the burden fall on the party most able to pay, rather than the real culprit.

 

The ability to sue the employer doesn't prevent them from suing the culprit, the culprit has most likely been arrested and given a criminal conviction, and maybe even ordered to pay damages, the victim may already have sued him for damages. This is unknown and separate from a victim's ability to sue a company for failing in a duty of care to their customers.

 

Maybe it does reflect the claim culture, and from my understanding of the case the victim wasn't significantly hurt, but imagine a similar scenario where the victim was involved in an incident at Morrison's and ended up in a wheel chair. This resulted in significant costs and loss of earnings. The employee responsible is unable to pay any damages, does the victim not deserve compensation? Does the company not share some of the blame? Do companies big and small not take out insurance to cover these cases and is it not part of being a reputable company that they do everything they can to protect their customers and when they fail to do so pay out compensation.

 

Even assuming there was no way the employer could reasonably have expected the actions of the culprit, the incident took place on their premises by someone they had put there. It is a fine line between compensating victims sufficiently and creating a blame and claim culture, and in this case, whilst I agree with the ruling I would not expect the victim to be awarded a huge settlement in terms of damages.

[Thracian]

The ability to sue the employer doesn't prevent them from suing the culprit, the culprit has most likely been arrested and given a criminal conviction, and maybe even ordered to pay damages, the victim may already have sued him for damages. This is unknown and separate from a victim's ability to sue a company for failing in a duty of care to their customers.

 

Maybe it does reflect the claim culture, and from my understanding of the case the victim wasn't significantly hurt, but imagine a similar scenario where the victim was involved in an incident at Morrison's and ended up in a wheel chair. This resulted in significant costs and loss of earnings. The employee responsible is unable to pay any damages, does the victim not deserve compensation? Does the company not share some of the blame? Do companies big and small not take out insurance to cover these cases and is it not part of being a reputable company that they do everything they can to protect their customers and when they fail to do so pay out compensation.

 

Even assuming there was no way the employer could reasonably have expected the actions of the culprit, the incident took place on their premises by someone they had put there. It is a fine line between compensating victims sufficiently and creating a blame and claim culture, and in this case, whilst I agree with the ruling I would not expect the victim to be awarded a huge settlement in terms of damages.

I entirely understand the dilemma and the problem of compensation for the victim of this and a perhaps more serious situations.

I've also wondered if this kind of ruling might prompt criminal consequences that could really put the legal principles right under the spotlight.

But while there may well be a case for rethinking the concepts of compensation I find absolutely no way of seeing the verdict we're talking about as anything but the "get out" I've referred too.

Yes, firms have responsibilities. No they are not answerable for the unforseeable or many other things just to satisfy compensation claimants.

I'd far rather there was a pegged national compensation levy (with payouts refundable in the case of insured companies being found negligent etc) than I'd see justice mocked - and this is little short of a mockery.

As I've said before and, indeed have personal experience of, the consequences of court decisions can go much further than the plaintiff. If the law is to have principles they need to be fair and just. This might offer some kind of warped justice to the claimant, but it's certainly not fair on the firm from my understanding.

Irrespective of their own benefits from running a supermarket, companies provide a massive service to this nation in employing people and shouldn't be taken advantage of for doing so.

One way or another the culprit should pay or a central fund. Courts shouldn't be compromised or be pushed into searching for contrived faults that don't exist.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Thanks for your research. That's exactly what I believed the thinking was. Compensation linked. The real offender could likely never pay, so the employer gets shafted on the flimsiest grounds. Some justice.

You cannot have read the full case notes then because if you had, you'd realise the historic grounds for such a decision are quite substantive.

It would appear the judgement reached on appeal is correct within the boundaries of the law as they stand (I think there are some international presidents cited within too) and what you disagree with is the formation of law... Or the lack of modernisation, but that is not what the judges in this case have to consider, they can only deal with the law as it stands.

There is also comment within concerning child abuses undertaken under 'company care' I believe and the importance of maintaining this kind of link so that victims within this area are still able to come forward and make claims for the costly care they are likely to need.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

I should also point out... The claimant in question has passed on I believe (sure it said not as a result of the injuries sustained, but I can't imagine they helped).

Edit: Yes, sadly he has passed on

In this case the victim was a customer. I will call him the claimant although he sadly died from an illness unrelated to his claim before his appeal was heard by this court.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability

I suggest all that wish to comment further take in the full case notes I've linked earlier on and understand the concept of vicarious liability above.

Thracian - you may not like the position, but it would appear the best way we have for securing some kind of 'justice' (I use inverted commas as I'm not sure justice is the right word here - maybe redress would be more suitable) for the victim. It's also key to note that an employer will carry liability insurance for just this type of reason.

The other key point of note, cases like these are no doubt few and far between, so the effect something like this will have on employers selection of employees is likely to be minimal - unless there were some failings in the employment process in which case lessons can be learned and applied, Morrisons and other companies will continue employing people in line with their normal vetting procedures.

[Captain...]

I entirely understand the dilemma and the problem of compensation for the victim of this and a perhaps more serious situations.

I've also wondered if this kind of ruling might prompt criminal consequences that could really put the legal principles right under the spotlight.

But while there may well be a case for rethinking the concepts of compensation I find absolutely no way of seeing the verdict we're talking about as anything but the "get out" I've referred too.

Yes, firms have responsibilities. No they are not answerable for the unforseeable or many other things just to satisfy compensation claimants.

I'd far rather there was a pegged national compensation levy (with payouts refundable in the case of insured companies being found negligent etc) than I'd see justice mocked - and this is little short of a mockery.

As I've said before and, indeed have personal experience of, the consequences of court decisions can go much further than the plaintiff. If the law is to have principles they need to be fair and just. This might offer some kind of warped justice to the claimant, but it's certainly not fair on the firm from my understanding.

Irrespective of their own benefits from running a supermarket, companies provide a massive service to this nation in employing people and shouldn't be taken advantage of for doing so.

One way or another the culprit should pay or a central fund. Courts shouldn't be compromised or be pushed into searching for contrived faults that don't exist.

 

I still think when you walk into a shop you become covered by the owners of those premises and I would assume they are legally required to be insured against personal injury that happens in that shop.

 

If you go to Morrison's and someone has left a wet floor without a warning sign and you slip and break your leg, you would sue Morrison's and not the individual, partly because you wouldn't know who the person responsible was, so there is a collective responsibility by the employer for the  actions of their staff. 

 

Now the argument in this case is that the actions were not part of his job, and he wasn't doing his job negligently, he just decided to attack someone. This for me really depends on whether the petrol station offered a photo copying service. If so then the request was a commercial one and so his actions were as a result of mis-handling a commercial transaction. If you went to a shop to buy something and you were told to fvck off you would complain to the employer and get an apology.

 

If the victim was asking for a favour, to be able to use a photocopier that isn't available for use by customers, then the man would be right in telling him to go away, and what isn't known is how the victim acted and if he got personal. He could have known the employee and was the sort that was always asking for favours and taking advantage and was a bit of a dick, in which case it is a private matter that happened on commercial property.

 

Employers are responsible for ensuring their employees carry out their duties in a proper manner.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Captain - liability insurance is mandatory I believe when serving members of the public.

Bit below is the key conclusion section

In the present case it was Mr Khan’s job to attend to customers and to respond to their inquiries. His conduct in answering the claimant’s request in a foul mouthed way and ordering him to leave was inexcusable but within the “field of activities” assigned to him. What happened thereafter was an unbroken sequence of events. It was argued by the respondent and accepted by the judge that there ceased to be any significant connection between Mr Khan’s employment and his behaviour towards the claimant when he came out from behind the counter and followed the claimant onto the forecourt.

I disagree for two reasons. First, I do not consider that it is right to regard him as having metaphorically taken off his uniform the moment he stepped from behind the counter. He was following up on what he had said to the claimant. It was a seamless episode. Secondly, when Mr Khan followed the claimant back to his car and opened the front passenger door, he again told the claimant in threatening words that he was never to come back to petrol station. This was not something personal between them; it was an order to keep away from his employer’s premises, which he reinforced by violence. In giving such an order he was purporting to act about his employer’s business. It was a gross abuse of his position, but it was in connection with the business in which he was employed to serve customers. His employers entrusted him with that position and it is just that as between them and the claimant, they should be held responsible for their employee’s abuse of it.

Mr Khan’s motive is irrelevant.

[Thracian]

I still think when you walk into a shop you become covered by the owners of those premises and I would assume they are legally required to be insured against personal injury that happens in that shop.

 

If you go to Morrison's and someone has left a wet floor without a warning sign and you slip and break your leg, you would sue Morrison's and not the individual, partly because you wouldn't know who the person responsible was, so there is a collective responsibility by the employer for the  actions of their staff. 

 

Now the argument in this case is that the actions were not part of his job, and he wasn't doing his job negligently, he just decided to attack someone. This for me really depends on whether the petrol station offered a photo copying service. If so then the request was a commercial one and so his actions were as a result of mis-handling a commercial transaction. If you went to a shop to buy something and you were told to fvck off you would complain to the employer and get an apology.

 

If the victim was asking for a favour, to be able to use a photocopier that isn't available for use by customers, then the man would be right in telling him to go away, and what isn't known is how the victim acted and if he got personal. He could have known the employee and was the sort that was always asking for favours and taking advantage and was a bit of a dick, in which case it is a private matter that happened on commercial property.

 

Employers are responsible for ensuring their employees carry out their duties in a proper manner.

The "wet floor" comparison has no bearing on the case whatsoever. Washing the floor is an entirely normal and predictable event and one which would have specific, checkable procedures attached. Of course the company would have some responsiblity.

There is no way Morrisons could have anticipated, prevented or acted against the actions of their employee and any effort to pretend otherwise is contrived, whether he was acting in uniform or otherwise.

[Thracian]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability

I suggest all that wish to comment further take in the full case notes I've linked earlier on and understand the concept of vicarious liability above.

Thracian - you may not like the position, but it would appear the best way we have for securing some kind of 'justice' (I use inverted commas as I'm not sure justice is the right word here - maybe redress would be more suitable) for the victim. It's also key to note that an employer will carry liability insurance for just this type of reason.

The other key point of note, cases like these are no doubt few and far between, so the effect something like this will have on employers selection of employees is likely to be minimal - unless there were some failings in the employment process in which case lessons can be learned and applied, Morrisons and other companies will continue employing people in line with their normal vetting procedures.

Explain or quote vicarious law how you like, but this wasn't fair and it wasn't justice. At best it was a judge snookered into making what he considered the least damaging decision based on bad alternatives.

Because the culprit was perhaps thought unlikely to have sufficient money he (presumably) couldn't take the financial burden of blame so there had to be some other scapegoat. I'm not impressed.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

There is no way Morrisons could have anticipated, prevented or acted against the actions of their employee and any effort to pretend otherwise is contrived, whether he was acting in uniform or otherwise.

This comment is misleading given this area is never discussed, so to draw any inference of such is on no founding whatsoever.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Explain or quote vicarious law how you like, but this wasn't fair and it wasn't justice. At best it was a judge snookered into making what he considered the least damaging decision based on bad alternatives.Because the culprit was perhaps thought unlikely to have sufficient money he (presumably) couldn't take the financial burden of blame so there had to be some other scapegoat. I'm not impressed.

Fair and justice are two different things.

You can conceivably claim the verdict was unfair to a particular party as that is a held opinion, HOWEVER to claim the verdict was unjust suggests you interpret the current law differently to that of the 3 appeal judges and given your lack of qualification in this regard I question your ability and grounding to say such?

These may be semantics, but they are important nonetheless.

And to move back to your original point of the hyprocrasy, your issue was more to do with the perceived impact on "forced employment" but as has already been discussed your interpretation on this misreads the law in this area.

No company is forced to employ anyone, but a company is prevented from discriminating... if some employers as you say misconstrue this obligation as you have claimed that is their own look out.

[Thracian]

Fair and justice are two different things.

You can conceivably claim the verdict was unfair to a particular party as that is a held opinion, HOWEVER to claim the verdict was unjust suggests you interpret the current law differently to that of the 3 appeal judges and given your lack of qualification in this regard I question your ability and grounding to say such?

These may be semantics, but they are important nonetheless.

And to move back to your original point of the hyprocrasy, your issue was more to do with the perceived impact on "forced employment" but as has already been discussed your interpretation on this misreads the law in this area.

No company is forced to employ anyone, but a company is prevented from discriminating... if some employers as you say misconstrue this obligation as you have claimed that is their own look out.

I'm not talking about anyone's interpretations. There is no justice in penalising anyone for something they had no possible control over and if the laws says there is, then it's a flawed law and I've little respect for it.

And there's no need to call rank cos I've expressed an opinion.

One of my longstanding friends and occasional cricket captains was Sir Geoffrey Vos, former Chairman of the Bar, who always seemed more than happy with my input................

I was his opening batsman and bowler! .

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/20930/geoffrey-vos-appointed-a-high-court-judge

[Thracian]

Fair and justice are two different things.

You can conceivably claim the verdict was unfair to a particular party as that is a held opinion, HOWEVER to claim the verdict was unjust suggests you interpret the current law differently to that of the 3 appeal judges and given your lack of qualification in this regard I question your ability and grounding to say such?

These may be semantics, but they are important nonetheless.

And to move back to your original point of the hyprocrasy, your issue was more to do with the perceived impact on "forced employment" but as has already been discussed your interpretation on this misreads the law in this area.

No company is forced to employ anyone, but a company is prevented from discriminating... if some employers as you say misconstrue this obligation as you have claimed that is their own look out.

There seems a mighty fine line between "forced" and "encouraged" to employ a diversity of personnel but I take youir point and reiterate that all employers face situations where they are not necessarily in the position to employ their ideal recruit. Indeed I'd wonder if the perfect employee exists - and who should be cited as blameworthy for that when the questions arise in every office in the land?

I've forgotten what it was about, but didn't I read recently that one law had been supposedly "misinterpreted" for years by the learned judges whose reasoning has, presumably, been referred to in just the way you've done yourself today.

As so often it would seem that the law is too complicated for its own good and ever more likely to be found wanting.

I've commented as a layman but nothing you've said, and I sincerely appreciate all your efforts in unraveling the facts, has convinced me that the company has been treated fairly.

Presumably, from what you say, that's more to do with the law than the judges, but that doesn't make it any better.

The employee let his employer down and the employer, who could do nothing to prevent that, should not be held responsible under any law that's written to represent fairness.

It's like ruling against an entirely different person to the one who really did wrong.

[Thracian]

PS: I'm sorry about the claimant's passing away and suggest that any further comment is perhaps unwarranted at this time.

I will read anything else you add as a matter of courtesy but won't add anything further myself except to emphasise that your efforts on the subject were entirely appreciated for all that we see things differently.

[MC Prussian]

He may have been British - did I say he wasn't? But he wasn't Caucasian and it may be that the company wanted to employ a non-Caucasian for diversity reasons. The case is illustrated simply to highlight the flaws in the laws rather than this particular incident. Similar cases occur all the time and I don't understand the reasoning behind blaming companies for their choice of employees when they have choice guidelines to follow and where an incident is all but impossible to anticipate.

In what way is my "screw loose?"

Have you ever been the victim of such an action?

 

Because the company is to hold liable for whom they hire, especially if they fail to monitor/check up on their employees on a regular basis.

 

Based on your premise, would you as a company simply hire a petrol station franchisee and let him be for the rest of his career?

Wouldn't that be gross negligence on behalf of the company?

 

You can't prevent all incidents with written company guidelines, the employee is an employee for as long as he wears his company's outfit/uniform and/or according to his working hours. His actions are thus actions on behalf of the company. Whether you call this fair or not, that's the way it is.

[Rincewind]

The employee is representing the company. It is true that there are guidelines and criteria when employing somebody but there are ways of getting around it. They cannot put 'Young attractive female wanted for coffee shop.' But they can filter the 50 or so applicants down to the few that are. The unsuccessful ones  will either get no response or a 'We will let you know if another vacancy becomes available. The equal part of it comes in only when two people with the same qualifications and equally fits the criteria needed. It is up to the employer whether to 'give a chance' to someone. They then need to keep an eye on them or ask another employee to assist them to ensure they are fitting in OK.

When applying for a job there is a section usually about health issues and criminal records so the employer should be aware of any potential problem if the application form was correctly filled in. Some even do a CR check so safeguards are in place.

[Thracian]

Because the company is to hold liable for whom they hire, especially if they fail to monitor/check up on their employees on a regular basis.

 

Based on your premise, would you as a company simply hire a petrol station franchisee and let him be for the rest of his career?

Wouldn't that be gross negligence on behalf of the company?

 

You can't prevent all incidents with written company guidelines, the employee is an employee for as long as he wears his company's outfit/uniform and/or according to his working hours. His actions are thus actions on behalf of the company. Whether you call this fair or not, that's the way it is.

In the case in question the company may have made every reasonable check that their recruit was suitable. There is no suggestion of them being at fault in their procedures. What happened was random, unpredictable and entirely the fault/responsibility of the employee.

The ruling - seemingly encouraged by the law - is nothing less than the "convenience" or "get-out" I referred to.

If it were your company being penalised you'd be furious - whether you had insurance or not. But the insurance is the key. The employee was at fault but the company offers the convenient solution to the problem of compensation, or at least would have done. I don't know what happens now!

I maintain that the law is unfair. It penalises the wrong "person" without justification other than to serve the interests of a deserving plaintiff who couldn't otherwise or easily served without recourse to some other compensatory avenue. The law may serve a purpose but it simply isn't fair.

[Thracian]

The employee is representing the company. It is true that there are guidelines and criteria when employing somebody but there are ways of getting around it. They cannot put 'Young attractive female wanted for coffee shop.' But they can filter the 50 or so applicants down to the few that are. The unsuccessful ones  will either get no response or a 'We will let you know if another vacancy becomes available. The equal part of it comes in only when two people with the same qualifications and equally fits the criteria needed. It is up to the employer whether to 'give a chance' to someone. They then need to keep an eye on them or ask another employee to assist them to ensure they are fitting in OK.

When applying for a job there is a section usually about health issues and criminal records so the employer should be aware of any potential problem if the application form was correctly filled in. Some even do a CR check so safeguards are in place.

I can hardly see how the case in question helps anyone with health issues or a criminal record get a job - quite the contrary. And yet that very fact creates further problems in society and ones that are all too familiar. They breed a sense of hopelessness in people.

There's an argument that companies should be praised for helping disabled, disturbed or reform-intent ex-criminals to find their feet again but they're not going to do it if they find themselves punished as a consequence (though I stress there's no evidence or suggestion that this point has nothing to do with the case in question).

"What's it matter," some may ask. Well it does matter because some convicted criminals do want to reform but these days - with all the background checks - they find it virtually impossible to do so.

The result is that they are not only punished through their sentence but through the consequences afterwards of not getting legal work from anywhere.

"Serves them right," say some, but tell that to the next people they burgle next because the offenders see no other options open to them. In the end the burglars get so used to prison they're more comfortable there than on the outside and don't care what they do. That's when burglary gets violent and sometimes turns to murder.

All because we can't inspire something better.

PS: Sorry. Forgot I wasn't going to comment more. Over and out now! .