"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 12:17:50 on Thu, 23 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.

Were you there?

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.

I'll give the BBC the benefit of the doubt that they checked this quote:

"The employment tribunal has ruled today that Mr Thomas should have been
disciplined for his actions and that his dismissal was in no way due to
his activities as a union member."

But that was a quote of what LU said.

I still contest that they could have easily (wrongly) inferred the second
half out of things that the tribunal did not say, rather than what they did

tim