"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

In message , at 17:57:25 on Thu, 23 Jun
2011, tim.... remarked:
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

Why don't you look it up and see? I'm content that the BBC's lawyers
wouldn't allow a massive misstatement (even from a 3rd party) and also
point at an apparent lack of challenge or retraction. LUL would be ill
advised to misquote the tribunal to that extent as well.

Anyway, the driver is reinstated, and the strikes called off.
--
Roland Perry

"tim...." wrote in message
...

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

"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

BBC now reporting strikes are called off (for now?)...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13896546

Paul S

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 17:57:25 on Thu, 23 Jun
2011, tim.... remarked:
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

Why don't you look it up and see? I'm content that the BBC's lawyers
wouldn't allow a massive misstatement (even from a 3rd party) and also
point at an apparent lack of challenge or retraction.

You're joking of course :-(

LUL would be ill advised to misquote the tribunal to that extent as well.

Where did they say that they were quoting the tribunal. They were putting
their own spin on it as all PR agents do.

Anyway, the driver is reinstated, and the strikes called off.

So I see

tim

In message , at 18:51:36 on Thu, 23 Jun
2011, tim.... remarked:

Why don't you look it up and see? I'm content that the BBC's lawyers
wouldn't allow a massive misstatement (even from a 3rd party) and also
point at an apparent lack of challenge or retraction.

You're joking of course :-(

Of course not. Especially when you've got the union on hand to jump in
and say the quote was wrong. Another really easy stick to beat LU with,
but they haven't.

LUL would be ill advised to misquote the tribunal to that extent as well.

Where did they say that they were quoting the tribunal.

Haven't you read the news reports *at all*? BBC, yesterday:

Mike Brown, the managing director of LU, said ....

"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."

They were putting their own spin on it as all PR agents do.

Making up such a quote is way beyond spin. It would be a direct and
easily verifiable lie.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:51:36 on Thu, 23 Jun
2011, tim.... remarked:

Why don't you look it up and see? I'm content that the BBC's lawyers
wouldn't allow a massive misstatement (even from a 3rd party) and also
point at an apparent lack of challenge or retraction.

You're joking of course :-(

Of course not. Especially when you've got the union on hand to jump in
and say the quote was wrong. Another really easy stick to beat LU with,
but they haven't.

LUL would be ill advised to misquote the tribunal to that extent as
well.

Where did they say that they were quoting the tribunal.

Haven't you read the news reports *at all*? BBC, yesterday:

Mike Brown, the managing director of LU, said ....

"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."

They were putting their own spin on it as all PR agents do.

Making up such a quote is way beyond spin. It would be a direct and
easily verifiable lie.

It's still what they do.

tim

In message , at 21:01:03 on Thu, 23 Jun
2011, tim.... remarked:

They were putting their own spin on it as all PR agents do.

Making up such a quote is way beyond spin. It would be a direct and
easily verifiable lie.

It's still what they do.

Look at it from the other point of view (assuming the quote is true):

The RMT would be spinning the result, if they failed to mention that the
tribunal had said the dismissal was nothing to do with union activities.

But they'd be lying if they said the tribunal had found that the
dismissal *was* a result of the union activities.
--
Roland Perry

*From:* "Paul Scott"
*Date:* Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:15:47 +0100

"tim...." wrote in message
...

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

"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

BBC now reporting strikes are called off (for now?)...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13896546

Paul S



TfL's response:
http://tinyurl.com/5wournk

rmt's response:
http://www.rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/

Roger