|
||||||||
Ex-Apprentice winner Stella English sues Alan Sugar (& has now lost) |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#176 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
|
Quote:
The point is though, it hasn't been the same job every year. He has always had a different position in mind for the winner, and he has made his decisions accordingly. I think any of the people who have been fired on the show could have potentially won had they been on another series. The one thing that they all have in common though is that they are always bright and sparky, but not necessarily overly experienced - except for Stella really. And if that had worked out, I'd respect his decision and say that he knew what he was doing, but considering what happened, he obviously didn't, and made a terrible mistake. I suppose it had to happen at some point.
The problem is that the nature of the job seems to decline as his business interests decline. The first 4 winners seem to get the job of doing something new, By series 6 there doesn't seem to be anything new or equivalent to do. They fit the jobs - though, by the finals stage there'e either no one else left who isn't much more controversial, or the job argues for them rather than the opponent , or there's someone more experienced who probably should have won anyway. When one winner gets a project that proves unviable as soon as its thought through, you reportedly end up with the same problem of a winner with nothing winner worthy to do. The point is that watching the TV show suggests something very different. It suggests a major job, or even a significant role requiring experience. It suggests doing well on the tasks matters - when what matters is getting through to the end, and thats shaped by luck, being one of the character types who tend to make it to the end, and fitting the job spec for that series. The show implies a willingness to look at a range of people from various backgrounds - but from his comments, there's contestants who seem to stand no chance just because of what they are. If he doesn't want those experienced people, or economists, or lawyers, or scientists they would do better to just not let them compete. As series pass, we just see more high flyers and experienced people removed, often to save people who fit the job better - or because the job actually requires someone like Lee. And to make it worse, he aso finally avoids the abrasive, entrepreneurial types - who you might justify winning on need for guidance, drive and ability - because he always rejects them too for someone safer, even when they do have substance. By series 6 , you may be right that Stella is overqualified , but that may be because there's no new specific job for her to have been matched to. There's also no alternative left. Liz the obvious high flyer has gone bizarrely - possibly because she is far too high a flyer for the job on offer. Stuart isn't a contender and is dismissed as a mistake. Joanna logically fits the apprentice model, but they dismiss her for needing training - which seems to miss the point. Its either Chris or Stella, and they have had problems already hyping some of Chris's performances to make him look a contender. His other options were possibly Laura and Sandeesh . But Laura probably went because he couldn't fire Liz on her record, or Stella because she had a better record too, and fitted the life story mould of past winners better. Sandeesh goes because she brings two stronger people into the boardroom with her, instead of someone to go instead of her. There's no room for manouver there. And with no other contenders by the final for whatever job there may be left, its pretty inevitable that someone overqualified who was described as too corporate, even in the later stages, will get it. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#177 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,484
|
Quote:
The tribunal makes its findings based on the evidence before it. It states these in the judgment. These may look like "facts" but it is simply the tribunal setting out what they believe happened. This is how all legal judgments are written.
The case got so far because Stella English and her lawyers pursued it and Alan Sugar refused to back down. Many of these cases settle out of court with a payment to the claimant to make it go away. Alan Sugar made it clear he wanted to defend the action and was prepared to see the court case through. Many respondents do not want the publicity or hassle. AS has commented to the effect that he believes some of these tribunal cases are without merit but are pursued because claimants see their chance to make some money. He has made some comments about Ms English's lawyers too that imply he felt he was pursued because of his money and status. There is an implication by the tribunal in their judgment that Ms English was badly advised but she was obviously keen to see it through and AS felt the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#178 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
|
Quote:
I've read the whole judgment (I'm a lawyer - I am not sure whether that makes it less sad or more so!).
I don't think the decision was at all biased; in fact it looked pretty correct to me. Stella might have thought the job was a waste of time, effectively non-existent, that she wasn't appreciated, that the TV show didn't reflect reality and that people didn't always communicate in the best possible way that they could with her - but none of those things give her a winnable case at an employment tribunal. Any job is basically a trade-off between inconvenience and hassle in exchange for an acceptable amount of money and if you can enjoy the work and feel valued then so much the better. When that "bonus" in the form of job satisfaction and appreciation doesn't arise, it's not actionable. If an employer is fulfilling their duties and not mistreating employees then that is that. And I can't really see what Lord Sugar or his companies and team did wrong other than possibly not living up to the picture painted by the TV show. They abided by the letter of Stella's contract which is all they (like any employer) need to do. They arranged for her to go from Viglen to YouView (which she seemed to like more), and continued to pay her the £100,000 salary even though that appears to have been very high pay within YouView as a business. If you look at the judgment, Stella claims at one point she was "reprimanded"; really all that happened was someone seemed to tell her that he didn't agree with a point she had made in an email and didn't like how she had expressed it. Stella says it was humiliating and degrading for her to have to report to a particular colleague who she considered more junior; the tribunal thought the guy actually had quite a lot of experience that Stella could learn from. And so on. For the tribunal to actually say (as they do in closing) that the claim should never have been brought is pretty strong language. Sometimes these decisions are in the balance, but they are unequivocal here. Presumably anything said on the show by anyone else is irrelevant, and the contract, being later, triumphs over anything anyone says on the show about the nature of the job or the potential for training? Makes you wonder though what the limits are on how you can advertise a TV show? |
|
|
|
|
|
#179 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In my Opinion
Posts: 10,057
|
Really glad she lost. She was a terrible winner and wouldn't even have made my shortlist of the top 5 in that series. So in that sense it serves Sugar right too...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#180 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
|
Quote:
That does seem to be the point doesn't it. The show may suggest that the job will be A B and C and the person winning it may think they will get D E and F as part of that . But if the contract says nothing about getting A to F, or there's no set definition of them, and you end up with a job thats the pits, I imagine there's not much you can do about it?
Presumably anything said on the show by anyone else is irrelevant, and the contract, being later, triumphs over anything anyone says on the show about the nature of the job or the potential for training? Makes you wonder though what the limits are on how you can advertise a TV show? |
|
|
|
|
|
#181 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,305
|
Quote:
sorry if I'm not grasping the point here.... but is there no point at which the court (tribunal) can throw it out as 'without merit' sort of thing? perhaps I am likening it to my own case too much; I had to jump through hoops and then backwards to provide the evidence to prove I had a case against my former employers.... perhaps I was fortunate to have legal reps that were as concerned about their own reputation
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#182 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,550
|
Quote:
I see what you mean. I would have thought an application could be made right at the beginning by Alan Sugar's lawyers that the case was so weak it couldn't proceed to a full hearing. Reading through the evidence, I am really surprised that any lawyer submitted the email she complained about as evidence of a "reprimand." More tersely-worded emails land in my inbox every other day!
I want to know who her lawyers are so I can avoid. |
|
|
|
|
|
#183 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,305
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#184 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,550
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#185 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,484
|
Quote:
![]() http://www.39essex.com/resources/news.php?id=206 the representing barrister boasts on her CV She is also currently instructed in a number of appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal against decisions of the ET. I wonder if she acted in the original cases Do you think there will be an appeal UnlikelyHeroine? |
|
|
|
|
|
#186 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
|
Quote:
Do you think that Lord Sugar said anything on the show concerning the job that was factually incorrect? I don't think that there was... he's usually quite vague about the job specifically, probably to avoid situations like this. Stella may have felt that the job did not require as much from her as he implied, but at the end of the day that is just her own personal opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#187 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
|
Quote:
Exactly. The majority of the population got that the position wouldn't probably be high flying but would pay £100k. I question her judgement. Can't understand why Stella didn't just get another job as you do if you find a job is not your cup of tea.
I want to know who her lawyers are so I can avoid. |
|
|
|
|
|
#188 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
|
Quote:
I've read the whole judgment (I'm a lawyer - I am not sure whether that makes it less sad or more so!).
I don't think the decision was at all biased; in fact it looked pretty correct to me. Stella might have thought the job was a waste of time, effectively non-existent, that she wasn't appreciated, that the TV show didn't reflect reality and that people didn't always communicate in the best possible way that they could with her - but none of those things give her a winnable case at an employment tribunal. Any job is basically a trade-off between inconvenience and hassle in exchange for an acceptable amount of money and if you can enjoy the work and feel valued then so much the better. When that "bonus" in the form of job satisfaction and appreciation doesn't arise, it's not actionable. If an employer is fulfilling their duties and not mistreating employees then that is that. And I can't really see what Lord Sugar or his companies and team did wrong other than possibly not living up to the picture painted by the TV show. They abided by the letter of Stella's contract which is all they (like any employer) need to do. They arranged for her to go from Viglen to YouView (which she seemed to like more), and continued to pay her the £100,000 salary even though that appears to have been very high pay within YouView as a business. If you look at the judgment, Stella claims at one point she was "reprimanded"; really all that happened was someone seemed to tell her that he didn't agree with a point she had made in an email and didn't like how she had expressed it. Stella says it was humiliating and degrading for her to have to report to a particular colleague who she considered more junior; the tribunal thought the guy actually had quite a lot of experience that Stella could learn from. And so on. For the tribunal to actually say (as they do in closing) that the claim should never have been brought is pretty strong language. Sometimes these decisions are in the balance, but they are unequivocal here. |
|
|
|
|
|
#189 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19,566
|
Didn't this case suggest that Lord Sugar can make bad decisions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#190 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
|
Quote:
Didn't this case suggest that Lord Sugar can make bad decisions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#191 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
|
Quote:
Didn't this case suggest that Lord Sugar can make bad decisions?
In series 6 though he had no real choice by the end, and where he might have saved some of the people more suited to a low level job earlier on, he had no real choice to keep them in those weeks and didn't seem to want to train anyone like joanna. up to a higher level. . His alternative winner had gone and was even more capable, and equally corporate, and the runner up, though less capable, had a similar background too. There's a problem there too though in his use of the term corporate. He means it as a comment on their mindset to work in large organisations, but its often seemed as if its used to rule out the high quality, high flyers who have already had major responsibilities and would notice if they were put in a dull, unchallenging job with less to do than they had done before. By series 4, the job is one that someone of Lee's ability can do. By series 6 the argument, from Stella, is that there wasn't a significant job at all. Its not clear who might have found the job on offer more acceptable. |
|
|
|
|
|
#192 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
|
Quote:
He's made a long list of terrible judgements, and silly decisions over the years - both in who he kept and who he fired.
In series 6 though he had no real choice by the end, and where he might have saved some of the people more suited to a low level job earlier on, he had no real choice to keep them in those weeks and didn't seem to want to train anyone like joanna. up to a higher level. . His alternative winner had gone and was even more capable, and equally corporate, and the runner up, though less capable, had a similar background too. There's a problem there too though in his use of the term corporate. He means it as a comment on their mindset to work in large organisations, but its often seemed as if its used to rule out the high quality, high flyers who have already had major responsibilities and would notice if they were put in a dull, unchallenging job with less to do than they had done before. By series 4, the job is one that someone of Lee's ability can do. By series 6 the argument, from Stella, is that there wasn't a significant job at all. Its not clear who might have found the job on offer more acceptable. I can't speak for the winners, but in terms of who he has fired, I think it is impressive that there have only been two occasions that he has openly regretted his decision later - firing Miriam in Series 1 and firing Liz in Series 6. |
|
|
|
|
|
#193 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
|
Quote:
In terms of Series 6, I agree with you. He did make some very odd decisions, and maybe because he was getting bored with taking on employees (as he changed the prize on the very next series) he went for the person who was the most obviously capable as opposed to the person who would actually best be suited to his job.
I can't speak for the winners, but in terms of who he has fired, I think it is impressive that there have only been two occasions that he has openly regretted his decision later - firing Miriam in Series 1 and firing Liz in Series 6. He's never gone for the most able person, either on the tasks or on capability, since he brought in the new prize. Tom was the least effective finalist on task, and the worst as PM, possibly ever.He even managed to prove useless at developing things for other PM, and, judging by their CVs, he wasn't even the best qualified engineer. He also offered a nonsensical proposal in the final, and Susan's product looked as if it had more potential . He had a nail file that fitted the type of product wanted - which was patented, ready to go and costed. Ricky is, if anything, one of the weaker finalists throughout the show, and vastly weaker than Helen. He wins because Helen has no idea at all, and his other compettion offes two toxic ideas and one that seems pointless to Lord Sugar. I think Lord Sugar goes for the new prize because he hasn't got a realistic job to offer - but its not a very successful idea when he only gets one safe business idea a year, and the rest are either silly, toxic, in need of a lot more investigation, or non existant. |
|
|
|
|
|
#194 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 13
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-22123912
Sugar is really ripping shreds out of this woman in the media. She would already have had a hell of a time trying to get another job after all this, but comments like the ones Sugar's now making will surely make it impossible. It's not nice to see someone's life being ruined. So, is the timing of the this year's series due to this tribunal? The first TV advert for the show started airing on the same week the case was dismissed. |
|
|
|
|
|
#195 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
|
Quote:
They are not the only ones though. Just watched parts one and two of series 4 and he firss two people who.literally did what their error strewn PMs told them to - and both of those PMs are dismissed later for the same things as they display in their first outing as PM. There's all sorts of people who went for no good reason over the series , and all sorts of people who were kept in with obvious faults until the obvious faults meant they were fired abruptly in the later stages.
Quote:
He's never gone for the most able person, either on the tasks or on capability, since he brought in the new prize. Tom was the least effective finalist on task, and the worst as PM, possibly ever.He even managed to prove useless at developing things for other PM, and, judging by their CVs, he wasn't even the best qualified engineer. He also offered a nonsensical proposal in the final, and Susan's product looked as if it had more potential . He had a nail file that fitted the type of product wanted - which was patented, ready to go and costed. Ricky is, if anything, one of the weaker finalists throughout the show, and vastly weaker than Helen. He wins because Helen has no idea at all, and his other compettion offes two toxic ideas and one that seems pointless to Lord Sugar.
Ricky was a satisfying winner because he had a great business plan - I can't claim to know that much about business, but it was so good that even Claude was impressed, and he is a difficult person to prove oneself to. I don't see how his win had anything to do with Helen's business plan. Helen and Ricky weren't even on the same series. |
|
|
|
|
|
#196 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 954
|
Quote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-22123912
Sugar is really ripping shreds out of this woman in the media. She would already have had a hell of a time trying to get another job after all this, but comments like the ones Sugar's now making will surely make it impossible. It's not nice to see someone's life being ruined. So, is the timing of the this year's series due to this tribunal? The first TV advert for the show started airing on the same week the case was dismissed. Yes, it does look like this year's series has been delayed by Stella's case. The series usually airs in March, with some notable exceptions (e.g. Series 6 premiered in Oct due to the general election, resulting in Series 7 commencing in May 2011). |
|
|
|
|
|
#197 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 954
|
delete double post
|
|
|
|
|
|
#198 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
|
Quote:
Yes, it does look like this year's series has been delayed by Stella's case. The series usually airs in March, with some notable exceptions (e.g. Series 6 premiered in Oct due to the general election, resulting in Series 7 commencing in May 2011).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#199 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19,566
|
Quote:
He's made a long list of terrible judgements, and silly decisions over the years - both in who he kept and who he fired.
In series 6 though he had no real choice by the end, and where he might have saved some of the people more suited to a low level job earlier on, he had no real choice to keep them in those weeks and didn't seem to want to train anyone like joanna. up to a higher level. . His alternative winner had gone and was even more capable, and equally corporate, and the runner up, though less capable, had a similar background too. There's a problem there too though in his use of the term corporate. He means it as a comment on their mindset to work in large organisations, but its often seemed as if its used to rule out the high quality, high flyers who have already had major responsibilities and would notice if they were put in a dull, unchallenging job with less to do than they had done before. By series 4, the job is one that someone of Lee's ability can do. By series 6 the argument, from Stella, is that there wasn't a significant job at all. Its not clear who might have found the job on offer more acceptable. |
|
|
|
|
|
#200 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1
|
Quote:
The thing I don't get is that she was on a fixed-term contract. Once that runs out there's no obligation on either party to renew, so where's the constructive part of the dismissal?
If anything bad happens before the contract expires, it may render further employment untenable. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:09.




