22-09-2005 22:30									#31
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

was there a boycott of the company, or was one in the process of being organised because of mr redfurn being employed by the bus company?

	22-09-2005 22:55									#32
	Increase the size of your Attachments

This is where those magical contractual phrases "likely to.." or "..would reasonably expect..." come into play. Have a look at your own employment contract and see how often you spot them.

With such terms, the question becomes "would the employer have reasonable grounds to suspect their business interests would be damaged". It doesn't have to be a reactive process- it can be proactive.

Meanwhile, does a boycott look likely? With an emergency measure being tabled and debated at TUC congress 2005 because of this case, you can bet that publicity and protests would increase, as well as media attention. Coupled with the fact that it's in an area with a sizeable ethnic presence, and you're looking at a lot of weight to support such a belief.

	23-09-2005 00:33									#33
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

without actually seeing the terms of mr redfurn's contract it's hard to say anything definite.

your final paragraph is a case of putting the cart before the horse. had mr redfurn not been sacked there would have been no case, no emergency measure at the TUC congress and no publicity surrounding the whole affair. the question the court will consider is 'at the time of mr redfurn's dismissal was there a likelihood of a boycott'. the answer is almost certainly no, but it will be interesting to see how they approach it.

let me put forward a scenario here - say you have a man who works for a bus company in tottenham, he has been a driver but no longer works directly with the public. he's a member of an organisation which condones suicide bombings in israel and is considered by most to be anti-semitic, though it does nothing illegal. would the company be able to fire him, because his membership of that organisation might damage their business interests, owing to the large jewish community in the area. following your line of reasoning the answer is obviously yes, however i'm not convinced the courts would be comfortable taking such a view.

	23-09-2005 00:53									#34
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by C0ckney without actually seeing the terms of mr redfurn's contract it's hard to say anything definite. your final paragraph is a case of putting the cart before the horse. had mr redfurn not been sacked there would have been no case, no emergency measure at the TUC congress and no publicity surrounding the whole affair. the question the court will consider is 'at the time of mr redfurn's dismissal was there a likelihood of a boycott'. the answer is almost certainly no

I can't say I agree with you there. Controversy does tend to surround BNP activists who get elected as councillors in areas with a lot of ethnic presence, as Mr Redfearn did. Remember that he was elected prior to his sacking.
In any event, it's not just boycotts that would be examined- it would be the wider remit of damaging business interests, of which boycotts would be just one factor- albeit a significant one.

quote: let me put forward a scenario here - say you have a man who works for a bus company in tottenham, he has been a driver but no longer works directly with the public. he's a member of an organisation which condones suicide bombings in israel and is considered by most to be anti-semitic, though it does nothing illegal. would the company be able to fire him, because his membership of that organisation might damage their business interests, owing to the large jewish community in the area. following your line of reasoning the answer is obviously yes,

Actually, you'd be wrong. Mere membership, in my opinion, is not enough. However, actively promoting said organisation to the point of successfully getting elected as a councillor in a blaze of local publicity, significantly ups the ante and increases the risk of damaging his employer's interests, don't you think?

	23-09-2005 04:33									#35
	Full PM-box? Change here!

i wouldn't mind knowing the facts of this case and the basis on which it is being fought, do you have a link to the original judgement?