IO, there is a lot more to job security and employment rights than just sueing a company.

But, if you are able to sue a company if you are treated poorly, then you are less likely to be treated badly in the first place since the company knows what could happen. Would they put their business at risk just to be an ar*e? They can get away with a lot more if you are self employed and with as many to**ers as we have in this business, the FI's need as much protection as they can get!

What extra money can you get if you are sick? If I don't work then I don't get paid. Simple as that.

I am always amazed at people's ignorance as to their rights. Employment rights were hard won and they are worth a lot more than most of you imagine. I am, like most of you, self employed but let me tell you, I wouldn't do it for what an FI gets. I would have been bankrupted when I was ill. I would never have had a decent holiday and I would challenge anyone to live on income related benefit when work dried up. Self employement is the way we keep a lot of you cheap and "flexible". Unless you are paid good consultancy rates it isn't worth it. Health and safety, insurance, security, sickness and holiday wages are only some of the issues. Many of the employment practices that are in this industry are probably illegal. Zero hours contracts are a case in point.

If the tax man tells you that you should be employed, then that's it as far as I'm concerned.

From the directgov website.

"If you are still unsure, you should ask to talk to the Status Officer at your Tax Office. There's no legal definition of employment or self-employment, so if there's doubt about someone's status the decision is made by referring to previous judgments (known as 'case law').Whether you are employed of self-employed depends upon the facts of your working arrangements, what your contract says or a combination of both."

Since most FI's have never seen a contract, it all becomes even muddier!

There isn't really an excuse for not learning about employment if you are an employer, otherwise you will end up in a situation like Sherburn and that could end up being very expensive and probably unnecessary.

You have a point but an employment tribunal, arbitrary though it can be, would certainly take the tax positin into account, though they may say that you were employed when the tax man didn't. The tax and benefits people now have an interest in enforcing certain aspects of employment law.

I know nothing about Sherburn, but a bit about employment law. Two general points are: the label you put on the arrangement, i.e. employed or self employed, is in no way determinative of the question of whether someone is employed for unfair dismissal purposes. Secondly, it is quite possible for you to be employed for tax purposes and self-employed for Tribunal purposes (or vice versa).
Whether you are an employee depends on a number of factors which the Tribunal will weigh up:

1. Did you pay your own tax and NI, i.e. did you hold yourself out to the revenue as being self employed
2. Did you ask to be self employed or was it forced on you
3. Did you invoice your services
4. Are you vat registered
5. Length of service in the position
6. How key was your position to the operation, e.g. a CFI is unlikely to be self employed because he is necessary for the operation
7. Were you free to determine your own hours of work
8. Were you able to determine the manner of your work and what degree of control did the "employer" have over you
9. Was there an expectation that you would work when required or could you turn down work
10. Were your hours and days of work regular
11. Could you substitute someone else to do your work
12. Did you also work elsewhere
13. Were you made subject to disciplinary and grievance procedures

None of these factors is conclusive and some would clearly not apply to flying instructors. There may be other relevant factors in particular employments.
By the way, there is nothing illegal about a zero hours contract and they are quite common in some industries. The are however still employment contracts.

Important, I think, notwithstanding the legal arguments, to look at the substrate upn which this is happening - i.e. Sherburn Aero Club.

As an ex-student there, now moved away and consequently no longer a member, I have considerable sympathy with Pilotdom's post. As far as I can see there is sometimes a disjunction between the club and its flying training activities.

The club is large in terms of membership, and carries out a lot of social and socio-aviation activities. Many members find it easy to join in with these, others don't for many and various reasons. Members must make up their own minds whether their membership fee is worth it from this point of view - as with any members' organisation. It is not alone in having a situation where its rank and file members feel somewhat isolated from their committee, I am aware of several clubs or societies in this situation. (The remedies are probably as disparate as the causes!)

The flying training side was certainly, in my time, a very friendly and well run setup for the customer (student, hirer, etc.)

As I said at the outset, I have little or no recent experience to go on. But it seems that, for one reason or another, the club has lost the services of two fine instructors who were not inclined to go of their own volition. The people concerned also provided valuable continuity as long serving workers there. All in all, their departure is a matter for regret, surely?

I don't pretend to know the reasons, and am unable of course to make specific comments, nor would I wish to do so. Nevertheless, there is one thing which I guess we can all agree - for Sherburn Aero Club and its loyal members and employees (of all kinds) to face these difficulties is a great pity, it would be a greater pity if the organisation were to go the way of so many others. I hope the matter can be resolved quickly to the mutual satisfaction of all parties in the dispute.

Firstly I will point out that I am not a member of the SAC comittee.

David it appears that your timing of posting this is good for your own disagreement against SAC but not for the comittee or members. It strikes me as though you have deliberatley timed this to cause maximum trouble for all concerned.

The status of Flying Instructors at SAC has been well established for a period well exceeding your relatively short time at the club (and is similair in nature to all other flying schools that I know of), you and other Instructors knew the terms and conditions when YOU offered your services to the club, no one else seems to be crying foul of this and why did it take your departure from the club for this to become an issue? You knew what you were getting in to, so it was completely your choice I find it very sad that you now turn round and twist the original agreement around to suit you own ends especially as presumably you will be seeking financial compensation from the club which will affect all its members.

Your "departure" from the club was among other things I believe due to you using internet forums to discredit the new CFI at Sherburn, a post which both you and Ray Price applied for unsucessfully one could suspect sour grapes coming in to play.

You could have instead pulled together and got behind the new CFI and moved the club forward during some difficult times.

Very sad indeed, attitudes such as yours will not be missed by the club, please move on and leave the club alone!:{

Come on Rupers, let's see your real name. Don't hide behind a pseudonym, but give some weight to your argument.

This sort of thing isn't good for either the club or the individual concerned.

I have no idea of the facts of this case, but if any organisation relies on employment status only, then it is likely that they have acted improperly in some way.

Just because it is a club, doesn't mean it is exempted from employment law. If it is found to be in the wrong, quite frankly it will deserve to get taken to the cleaners.

The sad thing is, is that in the vast majority of cases like this, a clear head and timely discussions between both parties would solve everything long before a tribunal is necessary. Nobody really wins and if you lose, it can be devasting for a small organisation..

It's simply bad management to have let it get to this stage and to rely on a judgement about employment status. There really should be no need for it and the fact it is going ahead suggest uncomfortable times for Sherburn.

May I suggest an "off the record" meeting between the two parties as if it goes badly for club, it could be very expensive and as Bogbeagle has already made a reconcilliatory offer, it may be better to come to an agreement rather than pushing the big button marked "NUCLEAR".

Sherburn
 

You reallly should get on with sorting the future and not looking back. Everyone is fully aware that you and all other instructors before you were self employed. You and many others enjoying the privalige that this provided, which included not turning in when often needed. I hope you loose your tribunal as you are using a free of charge process and abusing it, i.e. you know you were self employed. There are many things wrong at Shurburn, and there always will be, but you and many others have taken advantage of a committe led organisation. If there was anything between those ears you, and others, would work out that to have just sat tight and concentrate on the tasks in hand all would would soon change. Its chnaged in the past, and it will chnage in the future.

come off it averageaviator, give the guy a break, its his livelihood! you dont sound like an employment expert to me!

sheburn "to do"
 

Before David Turner goes to get his cumuppance, i think that he ought to ask himself a number of questions:
1Did he have a contract of employment?
2Did he pay tax or was that paid by Sherburn?
3Did he ever submit any invoices to Sherburn for payment?

These questions clearly have a bearing on self employment/employment. Some of the contributors to this topic clearly think the man is totally wrong. If he has spit his dummy out of the cot, without thinking the ramifications through properly, then he will get what he deserves. I doubt that, whatever the outcome of this tribunal, no one will welcome him back at Sherburn, after dragging a very good flying club into the gutter, quite unnecessarily, to seek vengeance on hard working staff and former colleagues!!!

So what was the result of the Pre Hearing Review last month?

I have no axe to grind with Sherburn nor do I know anything of this matter, but I hope this tribunal progresses as relying on arguments such as 'every other club operates like this' and 'you knew the unwritten rules before agreeing to work here' will hopefully make all clubs wakeup up to commercial reality and remove the ego driven management style of most places. This can only help improve ALL clubs as instructors will be less likely to bail at the first sniff of a 'real' commercial flying job if flying school employment conditions are brought into line with the real world.

The truth of the matter is that the way most clubs currently operate is a joke, and it needs fixing.

i think vauxhall, you may find that a lot of people would welcome him back:D i understand he was a fine instructor... thats what he was paid to do... instruct !!!!!!!!!

And T Cut you sound just like him posting under another name with 2 posts........

Hi chaps,

Just looked in to the thread after a few days' away.
I can assure you that I am posting only as Bogbeagle, but I do welcome the support of T-cut et al.

There has been no Pre-Hearing Review as yet. June 11th is fixed as the date for this hearing....the tribunal will take place on the same day if the Review finds in my favour.

Lawyers and Insurance companies are involved in this case and it could be that an out-of-court settlement is reached. If an appropriate settlement can be agreed, the case may be dropped...I have no say in this matter. My insurance company is meeting my legal fees and it can compel me to cease my action if a good settlement is reached.

A condition of any settlement may be that I have to sign a confidentiality agreement.

These to-and-fro arguments are quite fascinating. However, it's perhaps best to let the Judge decide the merits of my claim. Sherburn has either acted properly or it hasn't. I have either acted properly or I haven't. I'm content to let the professionals decide my fate.

Now, if Steve Fletcher is out there and reading this, perhaps he'd PM me.

David Turner

sorry to dissappoint you bose-x,:= , i'm just another ppl who appreciates a fine instructor. you do seem rather bitter for some reason!!

Curious as to how you got on with this and did you ever get in contact with Steve Fletcher?

I believe an out of court settlement was reached.

Steve Fletcher
 

I can forward Steve's contact details if he has'nt been in touch already.