Red Bull fights departure of aero chief Dan Fallows

[Ryar]

An employee declaring he is quitting and not coming to work, doesn't mean he is out! There are basic rules governing employment and NOT serving notice period and all other contractual obligations, makes him guilty under the the court of law. As the article already mentions, the first round of hearing has gone in Red Bull's favor. So there is every reason for Red Bull to keep Fallows off Aston Martin until 2023.

I mean, he is out, it literally says as much in the article and court papers. Either he's still employed by Red Bull and "working" through gardening leave which would mean he's in compliance with his contract, or he has left before the notice period and breached the contract. It's quite clearly the latter in this case. The judge may award an injunction to prevent him from working at Aston Martin, I highly doubt that would be any longer than 6 months. Just because the contract says 6 months from the end of 2022 doesn't mean that's automatically what the judge would award.

An employee's dissatisfaction of the job, is just a reason for resignation. It's not a legal ground to get out of contract clauses. It doesn't work like that in any country. An employer can put an employee in any division/business unit/project as deemed fit. Courts cannot overrule a contract violation, because an employee was dissatisfied with the work.

[Big Tea]

I would think this will be viewed as similar to the forces contract, where you commit to a period for 'perks', and if you do not complete that period without good reason or full agreement you have to repay a set amount and lose pension rights that come with the promotion because they do not get the 'benefit' they based they rate on.

It is the same if you lease a car. You are given a cost for a lease of that time. Had you asked for half the time they time would have wanted a much higher rate for the period in question and you are expected to pay up if you return it early. He was given a rate that covered a period, as would a lease, and if the time is different, then so would be the payment.

It will end up as a financial adjustment, there is little else they can do

[pb6797]

An employee declaring he is quitting and not coming to work, doesn't mean he is out! There are basic rules governing employment and NOT serving notice period and all other contractual obligations, makes him guilty under the the court of law. As the article already mentions, the first round of hearing has gone in Red Bull's favor. So there is every reason for Red Bull to keep Fallows off Aston Martin until 2023.

I mean, he is out, it literally says as much in the article and court papers. Either he's still employed by Red Bull and "working" through gardening leave which would mean he's in compliance with his contract, or he has left before the notice period and breached the contract. It's quite clearly the latter in this case. The judge may award an injunction to prevent him from working at Aston Martin, I highly doubt that would be any longer than 6 months. Just because the contract says 6 months from the end of 2022 doesn't mean that's automatically what the judge would award.

An employee's dissatisfaction of the job, is just a reason for resignation. It's not a legal ground to get out of contract clauses. It doesn't work like that in any country. An employer can put an employee in any division/business unit/project as deemed fit. Courts cannot overrule a contract violation, because an employee was dissatisfied with the work.

I seem to recall there was a case where a welder was given no welding to do and won his case, it being considered unreasonable to employee someone skilled in a particular trade and then not allow them to practice that trade. A restraint on their abilities, as it were.

[west52keep64]

An employee's dissatisfaction of the job, is just a reason for resignation. It's not a legal ground to get out of contract clauses. It doesn't work like that in any country. An employer can put an employee in any division/business unit/project as deemed fit. Courts cannot overrule a contract violation, because an employee was dissatisfied with the work.

I think you are confused. Both parties are claiming the other party breached the contract. Dan Fallows is claiming constructive dismissal, and Red Bull are claiming he didn't work his notice. It wouldn't be going to court if nobody had breached the contract. The court will not "overrule" the contract, they will decide if it has been breached, who breached it and then most likely apply a financial penalty and possibly an injunction.

An employer can put an employee in any division/business unit/project as deemed fit.

This completely depends on the contract, and taking this to an extreme would certainly be grounds for constructive dismissal.

Anyway, it seems you don't know this subject matter particularly well and this thread isn't really about employment or contract law in the UK so it's probably best we just leave it there.

[Ryar]

An employee's dissatisfaction of the job, is just a reason for resignation. It's not a legal ground to get out of contract clauses. It doesn't work like that in any country. An employer can put an employee in any division/business unit/project as deemed fit. Courts cannot overrule a contract violation, because an employee was dissatisfied with the work.

I think you are confused. Both parties are claiming the other party breached the contract. Dan Fallows is claiming constructive dismissal, and Red Bull are claiming he didn't work his notice. It wouldn't be going to court if nobody had breached the contract. The court will not "overrule" the contract, they will decide if it has been breached, who breached it and then most likely apply a financial penalty and possibly an injunction.

An employer can put an employee in any division/business unit/project as deemed fit.

This completely depends on the contract, and taking this to an extreme would certainly be grounds for constructive dismissal.

Anyway, it seems you don't know this subject matter particularly well and this thread isn't really about employment or contract law in the UK so it's probably best we just leave it there.

That's a nice way to say, I have no clue so i quit. It started with you claiming Courts will rule in favor of Fallows to nobody broke rule and everything is hunky dory.

[ringo]

An employee declaring he is quitting and not coming to work, doesn't mean he is out! There are basic rules governing employment and NOT serving notice period and all other contractual obligations, makes him guilty under the the court of law. As the article already mentions, the first round of hearing has gone in Red Bull's favor. So there is every reason for Red Bull to keep Fallows off Aston Martin until 2023.

I mean, he is out, it literally says as much in the article and court papers. Either he's still employed by Red Bull and "working" through gardening leave which would mean he's in compliance with his contract, or he has left before the notice period and breached the contract. It's quite clearly the latter in this case. The judge may award an injunction to prevent him from working at Aston Martin, I highly doubt that would be any longer than 6 months. Just because the contract says 6 months from the end of 2022 doesn't mean that's automatically what the judge would award.

An employee's dissatisfaction of the job, is just a reason for resignation. It's not a legal ground to get out of contract clauses. It doesn't work like that in any country. An employer can put an employee in any division/business unit/project as deemed fit. Courts cannot overrule a contract violation, because an employee was dissatisfied with the work.

No an employer doesnt own people to that extent. Employment is not slavery. Unless they negotiate a new contract for the reassigned position then you could say the team has all right to let him do what they want. But you cannot be employed as an engineer for 5 years then assigned to be janitor after year and forced to accept it and work for those 3 years.
Once your contract is not honoured it means your employer breached the agreement.
Only if there is some loop hole wording that basically says fallows agrees to do anything redbull tells him to do for the length of the contract, then he does have a point that in moving him its constructive dismissal.
Its pretty much frustrating the worker with something they did not sign up to do so that they resign from the job. And thats exactly what happened. So if he can prove that then its likely he can leave and go work somewhere else with them even paying him for 2023.

[Ryar]

I mean, he is out, it literally says as much in the article and court papers. Either he's still employed by Red Bull and "working" through gardening leave which would mean he's in compliance with his contract, or he has left before the notice period and breached the contract. It's quite clearly the latter in this case. The judge may award an injunction to prevent him from working at Aston Martin, I highly doubt that would be any longer than 6 months. Just because the contract says 6 months from the end of 2022 doesn't mean that's automatically what the judge would award.

An employee's dissatisfaction of the job, is just a reason for resignation. It's not a legal ground to get out of contract clauses. It doesn't work like that in any country. An employer can put an employee in any division/business unit/project as deemed fit. Courts cannot overrule a contract violation, because an employee was dissatisfied with the work.

No an employer doesnt own people to that extent. Employment is not slavery. Unless they negotiate a new contract for the reassigned position then you could say the team has all right to let him do what they want. But you cannot be employed as an engineer for 5 years then assigned to be janitor after year and forced to accept it and work for those 3 years.
Once your contract is not honoured it means your employer breached the agreement.
Only if there is some loop hole wording that basically says fallows agrees to do anything redbull tells him to do for the length of the contract, then he does have a point that in moving him its constructive dismissal.
Its pretty much frustrating the worker with something they did not sign up to do so that they resign from the job. And thats exactly what happened. So if he can prove that then its likely he can leave and go work somewhere else with them even paying him for 2023.

That's taking too far away in the argument for the heck of it. To be specific to this subject, as long as an engineer is used as an engineer, whether it is on a race car or road car (which is the case for Fallows), there is no question of any issue in terms of fair employment of the skils of the individual. So I don't think we have an argument here.

[dans79]

That's taking too far away in the argument for the heck of it. To be specific to this subject, as long as an engineer is used as an engineer, whether it is on a race car or road car (which is the case for Fallows), there is no question of any issue in terms of fair employment of the skils of the individual. So I don't think we have an argument here.

Actually No, it depends on what's in the contract. Without going into details, I know people who have negotiated very specific job requirements/constraints. One person in particular is contracted to do one specific task, and anything other than that's task means the employer has to let him walk, or negotiate a new contract (and even then he might decide to walk). His contract is so locked down they can't even change his job title!

[west52keep64]

That's taking too far away in the argument for the heck of it. To be specific to this subject, as long as an engineer is used as an engineer, whether it is on a race car or road car (which is the case for Fallows), there is no question of any issue in terms of fair employment of the skils of the individual. So I don't think we have an argument here.

This is impossible to know without seeing the wording of his contract, which you and I will never get to see.

The court will assess the wording of the contract, and then decide if one party or the other has breached that contract. If they do decide Fallows is in breach of the contract i.e. he was not constructively dismissed, they will then assess if the notice period and restrictive covenant clauses in the contract are reasonable.

In terms of outcome, typically the employer would need to demonstrate financial loss, which the court would then order defendant to compensate the employer for. However, I believe Red Bull are possibly pushing for an injunction to prevent Fallows from joining Aston Martin and possibly any other F1 team. For this to happen, Red Bull will need to demonstrate the injunction is necessary to protect their business interests. The length of the injunction will be determined based on what is reasonable, not necessarily exactly what is specified in the contract.

Your assertions that Fallows must comply with the contract as written, and that the court cannot "overrule" the contract are false. The contract has already been breached, the court is going to determine who breached it and then issue a remedy. The court will decide the remedy, it won't automatically be what's written in the contract, it must be reasonable and the court will determine what is reasonable.

[f1jcw]

That's taking too far away in the argument for the heck of it. To be specific to this subject, as long as an engineer is used as an engineer, whether it is on a race car or road car (which is the case for Fallows), there is no question of any issue in terms of fair employment of the skils of the individual. So I don't think we have an argument here.

In terms of outcome, typically the employer would need to demonstrate financial loss, which the court would then order defendant to compensate the employer for. However, I believe Red Bull are possibly pushing for an injunction to prevent Fallows from joining Aston Martin and possibly any other F1 team.

Courts will rarely do that as they are restricting employment and making someone unemployed, which isn't desireable outcome. As you say, financial penalty.

[mstar]

I think your misinformed. the engineers moved from Mercedes to AM, RB and Ferrari was all negotiated to leave early. As far as i read only RB have these massive notice periods with no get-out clauses. The staff moved from Mercedes HP engines all negotiated earlier release to go to RB. Maybe Dan has some water-tight contract and RB basically want to screw him and AM best they can.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/rena ... 0situation.

Renault: Long Mercedes gardening leave spells are 'unfair'

Renault boss Cyril Abiteboul thinks Mercedes is being ‘unfair’ in the way it is locking down staff to lengthy gardening leave spells to delay them switching to other teams.

With Renault investing heavily to expand its operation, it has faced frustrations that Mercedes in particular is slowing down the arrival of staff that have agreed to join them by up to two years.

Abiteboul believes that such ‘aggressive’ contractual terms are not only frustrating for his outfit, but are bad for the sport because they prevent the spreading of knowledge that keeps the F1 grid competitive.

“Red Bull is not too aggressive in the way they are keeping their people, but Mercedes are the most aggressive,” said Abiteboul during a sponsor event with Infiniti in Austin.

Look at 2019/2020/2021. That old article in the day when Merc was on top. There has been a lot of engineers staff gone to RB starting later this year.

[mstar]

The thing is, he's already left RB, and the court can hardly order him to stop working at AM and return to RB. The likely outcome is some kind of financial penalty for breach of contract, but normally with this sort of thing the employer would need to demonstrate some kind of financial loss. I'm not sure how they would do this.

I expect AM would probably be willing to help him out with any financial penalty he receives.

Exactly the employment laws cannot force Dan to continue to work for RB. So this just be settled with a financial settlement. As i am not sure how RB can prove a financial loss, as he was taken off the F1 program when he resigned.

[Ryar]

The thing is, he's already left RB, and the court can hardly order him to stop working at AM and return to RB. The likely outcome is some kind of financial penalty for breach of contract, but normally with this sort of thing the employer would need to demonstrate some kind of financial loss. I'm not sure how they would do this.

I expect AM would probably be willing to help him out with any financial penalty he receives.

Exactly the employment laws cannot force Dan to continue to work for RB. So this just be settled with a financial settlement. As i am not sure how RB can prove a financial loss, as he was taken off the F1 program when he resigned.

RB is NOT fighting to keep Dan working for them! They just want him to go off work and serve notice period and NOT join AM before July 2023, all as per the contract. This is not hard for Courts to rule in favor of RB.

[f1jcw]

The thing is, he's already left RB, and the court can hardly order him to stop working at AM and return to RB. The likely outcome is some kind of financial penalty for breach of contract, but normally with this sort of thing the employer would need to demonstrate some kind of financial loss. I'm not sure how they would do this.

I expect AM would probably be willing to help him out with any financial penalty he receives.

Exactly the employment laws cannot force Dan to continue to work for RB. So this just be settled with a financial settlement. As i am not sure how RB can prove a financial loss, as he was taken off the F1 program when he resigned.

RB is NOT fighting to keep Dan working for them! They just want him to go off work and serve notice period and NOT join AM before July 2023, all as per the contract. This is not hard for Courts to rule in favor of RB.

Yes it is, cause you are restricting a person from working and making a living.
They will look at the contract terms and make a judgement if they are reasonable or not, it may be found (and possibly will be) that gardening leave off over a year is too much and not acceptable.


https://www.inbrief.co.uk/regulations/r ... e-clauses/

[Jolle]

This will be a very interesting case with Brexit in mind. For the past few decades there were European laws in place that prohibited these kids of very long periods that you can't work for a competitor. I myself had a few of those contracts, stating that "you can't work in the same field for a year, etc etc" but those normally never hold up in court (and no former employer ever held me to them).

So, when this is ramping up, expect it to make the UK/European news, the UK government and courts have to make the rules on this as they go...