And according to them, not just Newey but they are also negotiating with Max Verstappen. My Italian is a little rusty but I’m pretty sure that is what it says.
autosprint.corrieredellosport.it
Indeed. They are drawing parallells to the exodus of Schumacher, Brawn, Byrne, and numerous engineers from Benetton to Ferrari after the 1995 season.And according to them, not just Newey but they are also negotiating with Max Verstappen. My Italian is a little rusty but I’m pretty sure that is what it says.
F1, clamoroso: Newey andrà in Aston Martin - Pagina 2
Niente Ferrari per l'ex progettista della Red Bull, che ha scelto di sposare il progetto di Lawrence Stroll. Tutti i dettagli
I don't know, don't think he will give up on George. I wouldn't myself. And the second 2025 driver isn't known yet.
I still find it odd that if she was so certain she didn't take it to an employment tribunal. That is the way to resolve such matters in the UK (out of the press) if you can't come to an agreement with your employers. She has, in my opinion either been ill advised, or already knew that was not a road she wanted to go down and was hoping for a settlement.The appeal against Horner has been dismissed
Christian Horner: Red Bull employee fails in appeal against verdict that cleared boss
The woman who complained about Christian Horner's behaviour has her appeal against the investigation that cleared him dismissed.www.bbc.co.uk
Appeal against probe clearing F1 chief Christian Horner thrown out
Horner was previously accused of controlling behaviour by a female member of staff at the British-based Formula 1 team - the 50-year-old has always denied the allegations against him.news.sky.com
I wonder if this is the end of it because we know from the first case against Horner the complainant was not happy with him being found innocent of all charges against him and that the complainant had been suspended from their job.
This means it's the end from an employment perspective, Grievance raised then an appeal put it. I wonder if the complainant will take it to a private prosecution?
The complainant can still take it to an employment tribunal because it is only the companies internal grievance procedure that has been completed. First you have to raise a grievance. The company then investigates that grievance at the manager level. If the result of the investigation goes against the complainant they can make an appeal that is then investigated by a more senior level manager. If that investigation goes against the complainant it can now go a number of ways. The company would now be able to start disciplinary action against the complainant if they felt there was enough information from the investigations to warrant such action. They could either give the complainant a reprimand or they can sack the complainant. If they were to sack the complainant the complainant could claim unfair dismissal and start an employment tribunal against the company or the complainant could resign and start and employment tribunal claiming constructive dismissal.
I've been in them as well as an employer, and seen them work well. An employment tribunal takes a dim view of a dishonest employee. It is too easy for an employee to go down that road with a lot of work for an organisation. But, yes, totally agree procedures are there to be followed. But private prosecution, that is a big and costly step when you have a fair and objective system already.
If there is actual evidence that the complainant was dishonest then the complainant only has themselves to blame for any action the company takes against them.
Very true but those of us with years of working experience know that when a lower ranked employee makes an official complaint about a higher ranking employee, it always creates a toxic/hostile working environment for the lower ranked employee because that employee is now seen by others as being a trouble maker all because they had the audacity to complain about the actions of a senior employee. It also creates a lot of tension because other employee's who are loyal to the senior person start to take offence at having to work with the complainant.
I have also seen the same but I have not delved into that because that it not what is being debated/discussed here. because doing so involve the debate moving into a different direction which would put it being off topic.
Not if there is cause, backed up by evidence, and properly dealt with. If anyone still see that person as a trouble maker I would deal with that very swiftly and precisely as that is not acceptable.
So the complainant came back; but was that when there was cause or no cause? What about the person who caused it?
The employee needs to communicate clearly, the company bosses aren't mind readers. Other than dealing with it upfront and pro-actively, they do rely on getting the right information as well.
The reality is that in today's employment laws in the UK it is never finished for an employer. That is good for employee rights, but also has consequences. As long as everyone is acting with integrity that doesn't have to be a problem at all.
All that has happened so far is that there has been two internal investigations that have found in favor of Horner. Internal investigations are rarely fair when it involves a senior member of staff. We read about it time and time again where a lower member of staff felt they have been unfairly treated by a senior member of staff, an internal investigation finds in favor of the senior member. The lower member of staff takes it to an employment tribunal which finds the company was in error and finds for the lower employee.
A bit of a populist stance in my opinion when using language like the lower member of staff. I guess I’m lucky that I’ve worked in a lot of companies where such distinction isn’t made in matters like these.
It should not be allowed BUT there does need to be something in place that does allow decisions made by stewards to be criticized and judged. Look at the terrible situation in Football, Rugby and Cricket. Anyone criticizing the refs/judges can get a fine or a game ban. They are not perfect, they make mistakes and sometimes bad ones and yet no one is allowed to speak out against the bad decisions they make because they will get into trouble otherwise.
source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cm2ndn4xmnmo
I do think that constructive criticism should be allowed. I also think that getting your point of agreement, disagreement, when done in a respectful matter should be allowed, and be recorded on the record. Perhaps some need to be given a training on how to criticize.
www.motorsportmagazine.com
