"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 21:51:32 on Wed, 22 Jun
2011, tim.... remarked:

The tribunal basically said that LU were right to find him guilty of
abusive behaviour and that the sacking was nothing to do with his union
activities.

I don't see that the tribunal has the evidence to assess that.

They probably had more evidence than we do.

Yes, but still not enough.


If TfL sacked the guy wrongly on the basis of a trivial offence it is
quite
likely that they had an ulterior reason for doing so. There isn't likely
to
be any obvious evidence what that reason was, is there?

Tribunals weren't born yesterday.

But did they actually listen to any evidence on that point and actually come
to that conclusion.

or did they say absolutely nothing and leave TfL to infer something that
wasn't there.

tim