Wow! Now your crew are actually employees - or so says a lawyer!

[dom]

I'm saying get a grip; you're reading far too much into everything that's said and are really twisting things in a way that's not, quite frankly, right.

JD is simply calling a spade a spade; claiming that a woman might be brought to her senses with a good kick in her "cli*", or might secretly enjoy being "bent over a stanchion" and gang raped need absolutely nothing "reading" into them.

 

[GlennG]

JD is simply calling a spade a spade; claiming that a woman might be brought to her senses with a good kick in her "cli*", or might secretly enjoy being "bent over a stanchion" and gang raped need absolutely nothing "reading" into them.

Damn, sorry, I'm wrong. I just realised I've violated rule one...

 

[Seajet]

When did anyone mention such nasty violence, beyond jokiing about nudging a silly greedy person into reality ?!

 

[JumbleDuck]

When did anyone mention such nasty violence, beyond jokiing about nudging a silly greedy person into reality ?!

Ah, the old "we were only joking" defence. Because it's so hilariously funny to suggest (the following are not from Seajet's postings) that her fellow crew members would have been justified in drowning her

Lucky she didn't fall overboard during the night!

or that the skipper would have been justified in shooting her

On 'Suhaili', R K-J carried a Lee-Enfield .303 rifle to deal with hideous deep sea monsters.

or that she - and by implication all women - want to be raped

[Her expectations were of] Having her clothes cruelly rent asunder then bent over the capstan and being roughly and repeatedly taken by a drunken mob of horny-handed pirates. Before breakfast, every day.

to which the appropriate response is violent sexual assault.

... why didn't someone on board give her a mind-altering kick in theXXXX( or the politically correct modern equivalent) to calm her down and put her sea lawyer inclinations on the back burner?

You're normally a pretty sensible chap. What evidence do you have to support your clear belief that her claim is unjustified? I have seen no evidence whatsoever, either way.

 

[Sandgrounder]

I think what seems to be going on here with the more sensible among the "this has to be wrong" crew is that they are working on the basis that this is an action against RKJ himself rather than with a company he owns or is associated with.
I think I can safely say that none of us on the other "wait and see the evidence" group believe that RKJ has done anything wrong. However the company may, and I emphasise MAY, have allowed a situation to develop where a client/ crew member suffered treatment of some kind which is potentially legally actionable. In that situation the best thing for all concerned, Clipper included, is for the issue to be tested in a court or tribunal. Before that can happen the courts need to determine whether the situation is covered by employment law or some other area; that will dictate in which tribunal the substantive issues will be examined.

 

[Lakesailor]

On the other hand this has become a great thread. It was only a couple of weeks ago people were saying that Scuttlebutt was tumbleweed city.

 

[Sandgrounder]

On the other hand this has become a great thread. It was only a couple of weeks ago people were saying that Scuttlebutt was tumbleweed city.

Yes; a bit like watching a bunch of drunks arguing incoherently at a bus stop

 

[GlennG]

Yes; a bit like watching a bunch of drunks arguing incoherently at a bus stop

You lookin at me or chewing a brick....?

 

[Daydream believer]

I'm saying get a grip; you're reading far too much into everything that's said and are really twisting things in a way that's not, quite frankly, right.

One of the great things about life is differences between people and their interactions. We all enjoy sailing which is a wide-ranging sport with chilled out cruisers at one end and ocean-girdling racers at the other. Whilst it sounds like a wonderful life-enhancing experience to race around the world, the reality will be completely different -- hard work with fractious teams in an extreme environment. The slightest issues, including personality defects, will be magnified beyond all reality and the team, under extreme pressure and stress, are very likely to turn on people.

Personally, it doesn't appeal. But then again, I've enough experience to work out that it would be damn unpleasant.

As for paying £40k which, I assume, doesn't grow on a tree, *and* giving up a year of one's life/career, I too would be quite disappointed if not angry if the experience wasn't that which I expected (especially if I wore my rose-tinted spectacles).

I'll part with this: if I were on a boat doing serious sailing and one of my watch wasn't pulling their weight or were causing problems, I would be exceedingly hacked off as it puts more pressure on me. Unfortunately you can't just throw them overboard along with the chocolate fire-guard and umbrella. Words would be exchanged and they would be unpleasant.

So if the words were unpleasant & bullying did occur ( possibly unfairly) would one not feel inclined to do something about it especially if ones life savings & job plus a year of ones life had been wasted
Can you blame her for not biting back
What of she wins her case or RKJ settles out of court ( quite possible )
What would the forums reaction be then

 

[NealB]

Why are you so keen to back the side of a fat lawyer against a world renowned sailor ?!

Andy, JD, like you, is totally ignorant of what exactly happened to this woman.

Neither of you know what training she undertook beforehand, you know nothing of the selection procedure she went through, nor do you know anything about her treatment during the race.

There the similarities end.

JD is open-minded about what took place onboard. Maybe she's a lazy trouble maker, looking for a nice fatd compensation award, or maybe, at the other extreme, she was subject to nasty, cruel, harassment. We don't know.

You, on the other hand, seem to have leaped to all sorts of totally unfounded conclusions, purely because RKJ is a world renowned sailor.

I find that bizarre.

Other comments about kickings and bollards seem wholly inappropriate to me, and not in the least amusing.

My 2p worth.

 

[shaunksb]

There are two completely separate issues. The only one under consideration at this time is. Was she an employee.

I think not. But good for you for having an open mind and not jumping to conclusions about her complaint

I think she could easily argue that she was a worker (as opposed to an employee) for the benefit of protection by employment law. I really don't think she will have a problem with that.

However I think that then going on to prove a case of Bullying or discrimination would be much more difficult unless she had some pretty sound testimony from some of the other crew.


__________________________

 

[Uricanejack]

I think she could easily argue that she was a worker (as opposed to an employee) for the benefit of protection by employment law. I really don't think she will have a problem with that.

However I think that then going on to prove a case of Bullying or discrimination would be much more difficult unless she had some pretty sound testimony from some of the other crew.


__________________________

The question of employment does appear to be the crux of the matter.

In my simple view to be an employee you have to have entered into an agreement to provide your Labour in exchange for a reward.

I suppose tribunals have more ability to interperate meaning than courts which will follow. Statute and common law. Taking a lead from precedent.

To my mind by paying a fee to join a vessel,s crew to participate in an event is quite different from being paid to crew a vessel.

If she is found to be an employee. Would this mean anyone paying to crew a boat to take a course, race, adventure or to gain miles and experience would be considered an employee.

Regardless of her status. If she has a complaint there should be an appropriate way to address it.

 

[Biggles Wader]

I think she could easily argue that she was a worker (as opposed to an employee) for the benefit of protection by employment law. I really don't think she will have a problem with that.

However I think that then going on to prove a case of Bullying or discrimination would be much more difficult unless she had some pretty sound testimony from some of the other crew.


__________________________

Correct.See post #81
Which would narrow things down to whether she had been bullied by others on board,and if she was,good luck to her and her case.
Its a shame the defendant has to be RKJ though,as he wasnt there to do any bullying.

 

[shaunksb]

In my simple view to be an employee you have to have entered into an agreement to provide your Labour in exchange for a reward.

<snip>

Regardless of her status. If she has a complaint there should be an appropriate way to address it.

Don't confuse "employee" with "worker" for the benefit of employment law.

A simple definition of a worker

A worker is defined in regulation 2 (1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 as someone who works under a contract of employment or "any other contract, whether express or implied...whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract", provided they are not a client or customer of the individual's profession or business.

I agree that there should be an appropriate way to address complaints of this manner and there is every likelihood that the tribunal would be the place to do it.

It still doesn't mean her case will stand up.


______________________________

 

[Uricanejack]

Don't confuse "employee" with "worker" for the benefit of employment law.

A simple definition of a worker

A worker is defined in regulation 2 (1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 as someone who works under a contract of employment or "any other contract, whether express or implied...whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract", provided they are not a client or customer of the individual's profession or business.

I agree that there should be an appropriate way to address complaints of this manner and there is every likelihood that the tribunal would be the place to do it.

It still doesn't mean her case will stand up.


______________________________

I would say I am no expert and quite possibly confused. The rules about employees, workers, supervisors, manager's, contractor's. Such as ways he employed by a contractor or by you when he fell of your roof.

Though in this case would she not be exempted by the provisions you point out.
By paying a fee to the business. Is she not a client or customer.

I suppose the tribunal will decide.

 

[jerrytug]

I would say I am no expert and quite possibly confused. The rules about employees, workers, supervisors, manager's, contractor's. Such as ways he employed by a contractor or by you when he fell of your roof.

Though in this case would she not be exempted by the provisions you point out.
By paying a fee to the business. Is she not a client or customer.

I suppose the tribunal will decide.

Yes she is a customer of a company providing an adventure sport type experience. The clue is in the words 'experience', 'adventure', and 'sport'. She chose to pay, to have a tough time.

The people who were "employed"on the trip could only have been any professional crew on board such as the skipper.

If anybody considers that she has a remotely valid claim, they must be living in a parallel universe, or mentally ill.

I guarantee she will be laughed out of court, and recommended to read a dictionary and stop taking the absolute p*ss.

 

[Sandgrounder]

Yes she is a customer of a company providing an adventure sport type experience. The clue is in the words 'experience', 'adventure', and 'sport'. She chose to pay, to have a tough time.

The people who were "employed"on the trip could only have been any professional crew on board such as the skipper.

If anybody considers that she has a remotely valid claim, they must be living in a parallel universe, or mentally ill.

I guarantee she will be laughed out of court, and recommended to read a dictionary and stop taking the absolute p*ss.

What you seem to be incapable of understanding, is that whatever you believe to be the rights and wrongs of the situation, the Employment Tribunal will determine whether or not she is a "worker" as defined by the legislation. I don't know the answer, and I would guess by your approach that neither do you, but she was an employment lawyer and a partner in a very large practice. People don't get partnerships in that sort of practice without being exceedingly competent so I would guess that she probably has a strong claim to be a worker, if not an employee.
That will only determine where her claim about harassment etc will be heard not the outcome of that claim. All your outraged, and seemingly uninformed, huffing and puffing will make not one scintilla of difference.
How much are you willing to put on her being "laughed oput of court and recommended to read a dictionary and stop taking the piss"? Whatever you might like to imagine, in your fevered brain, the courts tend not use that sort of language.

 

[Talulah]

I wonder if this could be the beginning of the end.
Once the staus of the member of the public changes from "client" to "crew" all sorts of other regulations will pop up. Including the Seaworkers Working Times/Hours regulations. These should already apply to the Skipper who is without doubt an employee.
Clipper fell foul of the minimum manning requirements a few years ago which is why for a short time they had to offer free places to those with Yachtmaster Ocean/Offshore tickets.
The nature of the beast has changed. In the early days of the Whitbread Race and BT Global Challenge it had a certain appeal to it. Now it feels just like any other business and has to meet the regulations imposed upon those businesses.

 

[Wandering Star]

What you seem to be incapable of understanding

Well, I'm with Jerrytug, I am I also incapable of understanding how a Court/Tribunal can define her as an employee/worker and not as a disgruntled paying customer. She's possibly got good reasons for being disgruntled, I really don't know whether she has or hasn't but without seriously bending historically accepted definitions, she's clearly a paying punter and not an employee.

 

[dom]

Once the staus of the member of the public changes from "client" to "crew" all sorts of other regulations will pop up. I

+1 I wonder if there are any employment lawyers on here who could throw some light on how she is likely to get on in going the employment route.