The woman who was in charge of Haringey Childrens services

[Occam's Razor]

It's a fairly straight forward calculation of basic plus compensatory award for future losses, plus past losses, plus pension and benefit losses.

I see. Could you post exactly what this "fairly straightforward calculation" was, please.

 

[Her Ivory Tower]

I'm not disputing that she was unfairly dismissed, although I'm unsure why she was deemed entitled to such a large sum. My point was a broader one, that people in all sorts of fields who receive huge salaries, in return for bearing great responsibility, are reluctant to take actual responsibility when things go wrong.

Things did go horribly wrong, quite clearly, under Shoesmith's tenure as head of Haringey children's services and she should have resigned; failing that she should have been dismissed. That the actual method of her dismissal turned out to be illegal doesn't change that. The main beneficiary of that error turns out to have been Sharon Shoesmith who is now nearly three-quarters of a million pounds better off because of it. Meanwhile the main losers are presumably the vulnerable children of Haringey who, having been let down once by the body supposedly in place to care for them under Shoesmith's watch, are now suffering commensurately with the diversion of that money plus legal costs away from frontline services.

Unfair hardly seems to cover it.

Yes but the term "unfair" is often mistakenly taken to mean that it only relates to the dismissal itself ie it should not have happened. Often though (except in the case of discrimination cases or the exercising of statutory rights etc) it is not the reason for the dismissal which is unfair but the process undertaken to achieve it - eg failing to following company/contractual polices for discipline etc. In short, unlawful.

As I said in my previous post, the sums involved are based on awards which apply to everyone.

But I agree it was right to dismiss her.

I see. Could you post exactly what this "fairly straightforward calculation" was, please.

Well as I said.... it's the Basic Award (age/years of service/salary) capped at 20 years and £464pw plus the Compensatory award (net weekly pay/how long it will take you to find work) usually Tribunals pitch this at about 6-12 months depending on various factors like age, profession, skills, economy etc, plus pension and benefit losses, plus past losses between the dismissal and the Hearing. If she threw in any injury to health/feeling claims there might be Vento or DaBell to consider, or even aggravated damages, but I don't believe her claim contained any of the qualifying headings.

Maybe a 25% uplift for failing to follow ACAS procedure.

Sorry, ACAS Code of Practice for the pedants.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Well as I said.... it's the Basic Award (age/years of service/salary) capped at 20 years and £464pw plus the Compensatory award (net weekly pay/how long it will take you to find work) usually Tribunals pitch this at about 6-12 months depending on various factors like age, profession, skills, economy etc, plus pension and benefit losses, plus past losses between the dismissal and the Hearing. If she threw in any injury to health/feeling claims there might be Vento or DaBell to consider, or even aggravated damages, but I don't believe her claim contained any of the qualifying headings.

Maybe a 25% uplift for failing to follow ACAS procedure.

Sorry, ACAS Code of Practice for the pedants.

Hang on. First of all none of that resembles any kind of "fairly straightforward calculation", it looks mainly like vague guesswork. Secondly Shoesmith's payout wasn't decided by any sort of tribunal. The only independent body to put forward a figure for compensation was the Court of Appeal in 2011 when Lord Neuberger suggested that three months' salary plus pension contributions was appropriate.

This figure was privately agreed between Haringey and Shoesmith and was confidential, only emerging with the release of the council's accounts. Presumably the council were nervous of an even greater award at a tribunal, but imo there was every chance of a Polkey reduction given that there should have been a fair dismissal anyway, strengthened by the Court of Appeal statement.

 

[Her Ivory Tower]

Hang on. First of all none of that resembles any kind of "fairly straightforward calculation", it looks mainly like vague guesswork. Secondly Shoesmith's payout wasn't decided by any sort of tribunal. The only independent body to put forward a figure for compensation was the Court of Appeal in 2011 when Lord Neuberger suggested that three months' salary plus pension contributions was appropriate.

Nothing vague about it, I don't know the actual figures involved but the calculation ( in Tribunals) is always the same as far as I'm aware, in my experience, and it is fairly straightforward if you have anything above a primary education.

I understood that she had in fact taken her case to an employment tribunal claiming unfair dismissal, that this was unsuccessful, that she then appealed and three Appeal Court judges ruled that she was indeed unfairly dismissed, it was procedurally unfair, they ruled on a singular employment issue (Haringay not Ofsted). Shoesmith, R (on the application of) v OFSTED & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 642 If this was not the case I stand corrected.

Is this award then another award entirely separate from her EAT?

I fear we may be talking at cross porpoises.

 

[monkeytassle]

People enjoy the rewards that come with positions of great responsibility, but when it comes to actually accepting any real responsibility if things go catastrophically wrong, it never seems to have been anything to do with them.

Certainly the case in my business. Good post. Even a banker would be pleased with that payout

 

[Occam's Razor]

Nothing vague about it, I don't know the actual figures involved but the calculation ( in Tribunals) is always the same as far as I'm aware, and it it fairly straightforward if you have anything above a primary education.

There was no "fairly straightforward" calculation because there was no calculation at all.

I understood that she had in fact taken her case to an employment tribunal claiming unfair dismissal, that this was unsuccessful, that she then appealed and three Appeal Court judges ruled that she was indeed unfairly dismissed, it was procedurally unfair, they ruled on a singular employment issue (Haringay not Ofsted). Shoesmith, R (on the application of) v OFSTED & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 642 If this was not the case I stand corrected.

This is correct as far as it goes, but again it was at the very Court of Appeal hearing which found she was unfairly dismissed (and gave the council/DofE no further right of appeal) when Lord Neuberger suggested that she was entitled to three months' pay. This figure has only emerged now because of the council publishing their accounts. It was known that Shoesmith and the council had settled out of court/tribunal in October last year, just not how much for.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24715666

The size of the (then only rumoured) settlement was surprising then, as reported in that article and everywhere else. It's disgraceful that Haringey agreed on such a sum, in common with most commentators I doubt a tribunal would have awarded her anything like that much, regardless of your nonexistent "fairly straightforward calculation".

 

[Her Ivory Tower]

There was no "fairly straightforward" calculation because there was no calculation at all.

Well there must have been a fairly straightforward calculation involving the sums representing the salary, fees and allowance, compensation for loss of office, and for employer pension contributions that we are told that she was purportedly awarded money for, unless they just tossed a coin in the air or wrote a cheque for a random sum based on some unknown permutation?

 

[Skandhaless]

Aye, I get that but it doesn't get away from the fact that if it had been done properly, she'd have still been sacked for being f***ing useless at her job. She's now £680,000 richer and a vulnerable child under her watch is still dead.

The child will always be dead sadly as enraging as that might be . It was that kind of hyperbole that caused her to be summarily dismissed rather than affording her proper process ( and then dismissing her as incompetent with nothing if warranted )

 

[Her Ivory Tower]

The size of the (then only rumoured) settlement was surprising then, as reported in that article and everywhere else. It's disgraceful that Haringey agreed on such a sum, in common with most commentators I doubt a tribunal would have awarded her anything like that much, regardless of your nonexistent "fairly straightforward calculation".

My initial comment in this regard was in relation to the fairly straightforward calculation that most definitely does exist for the purposes of calculating compensation awards in dismissal cases in Employment Tribunals.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Well there must have been a fairly straightforward calculation involving the sums representing the salary, fees and allowance, compensation for loss of office, and for employer pension contributions that we are told that she was purportedly awarded money for, unless they just tossed a coin in the air or wrote a cheque for a random sum based on some unknown permutation?

Well seeing as we're already dealing with a council whose children's services department proved wholly incompetent, and which then proved equally incompetent (albeit along with the DofE) in dealing with an employee, I'll stand by my belief that the decision to hand Shoesmith such an enormous payout which surprised almost everyone was a further example of incompetence rather than some sudden unexpected lurch into rational decision making.

 

[monkeytassle]

My initial comment in this regard was in relation to the fairly straightforward calculation that most definitely does exist for the purposes of calculating compensation awards in dismissal cases in Employment Tribunals.

Do you think it's somewhat generous based on circumstances?

 

[Occam's Razor]

My initial comment in this regard was in relation to the fairly straightforward calculation that most definitely does exist for the purposes of calculating compensation awards in dismissal cases in Employment Tribunals.

No it wasn't, it was specifically in response to my questioning why Sharon Shoesmith had received such a large payout.

 

[Her Ivory Tower]

The size of the (then only rumoured) settlement was surprising then, as reported in that article and everywhere else. It's disgraceful that Haringey agreed on such a sum, in common with most commentators I doubt a tribunal would have awarded her anything like that much, regardless of your nonexistent "fairly straightforward calculation".

The awards she received do not appear prima facia to be a "settlement" in my understanding of an out of court settlement. But again, happy to be corrected on this.

 

[stephen cartwright]

at the time of 'Baby P's' death has just been awarded £680,000 for unfair dismissal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28454800

is she single?

 

[monkeytassle]

Well seeing as we're already dealing with a council whose children's services department proved wholly incompetent, and which then proved equally incompetent (albeit along with the DofE) in dealing with an employee, I'll stand by my belief that the decision to hand Shoesmith such an enormous payout which surprised almost everyone was a further example of incompetence rather than some sudden unexpected lurch into rational decision making.

Wholly agree. In fact it's a slap in the face for those who do the job for maybe 3-4% of that figure. At best.

Interesting question. The arbitration panel at a tribunal, who would be on that?

 

[Her Ivory Tower]

No it wasn't, it was specifically in response to my questioning why Sharon Shoesmith had received such a large payout.

Because I understood that the amount had been "awarded" through an Employment Tribunal process. You now say that it was in fact a "settlement" and as per my previous post 33, this seems odd given the way the "awards" were broken down for different things. If there was a "settlement" there would by definition, be no "awards".

 

[monkeytassle]

Because I understood that the amount had been "awarded" through an Employment Tribunal process. You now say that it was in fact a "settlement" and as per my previous post 33, this seems odd given the way the "awards" were broken down for different things. If there was settlement there would by definition, be no "awards".

Can I have an award for being shite at my job?

 

[Occam's Razor]

The awards she received do not appear prima facia to be a "settlement" in my understanding of an out of court settlement. But again, happy to be corrected on this.

You may technically be right, I'm not aware of any such distinction if there is one. But the Guardian ("A financial settlement between Haringey and Shoesmith was agreed last October"), BBC quoting Haringey Council ("The terms of the settlement are confidential...") and every other source I can find are all going with "settlement" so that'll do for me.

Because I understood that the amount had been "awarded" through an Employment Tribunal process. You now say that it was in fact a "settlement" and as per my previous post 33, this seems odd given the way the "awards" were broken down for different things. If there was a "settlement" there would by definition, be no "awards".

They've been broken down only according to where they appeared in Haringey's financial accounts, I'm guessing.

 

[Her Ivory Tower]

It's disgraceful that Haringey agreed on such a sum, in common with most commentators I doubt a tribunal would have awarded her anything like that much, regardless of your nonexistent "fairly straightforward calculation".

You can easily work this out yourself if you know her age, years of service and weekly pay. It's a fairly straightforward calculation!

 

[Cockney Mackem]

She was sacked as a result of pressure from the Labour government in a way that ignored the law that protects every employee in this country. It's easy as piss to sack incompetent people without legal risk. If her employers, under pressure from the government, screwed up those very straight forward procedures, then she's entitled to her money. The law protects all of us. Anger in this case is appropriate but should be directed at the knee-jerking politicians who, to satisfy a populist agenda, rode roughshod over the law.

This. It's a disgrace though