Stephen Jackson dismissed as director of BBC Symphony Chorus

[ahinton]

http://slippedisc.com/2015/12/bbc-sacks-chorus-director/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+slippedisc%2FnICW+%28Slipped+Disc%29

[Alison]

I'm still confused by this.

Are people suggesting this post is a job for life?

If the LPO doesn't renew Jurowski's contract beyond 2018 are they dismissing him?

[ardcarp]

Yes it's weird isn't it, Alison? Notwithstanding my earlier post (#28) in which I expressed surprise at all this legal stuff on The Choir, it does appear that this example holds true:

1. You are given a 5 year contract
2. After 5 years are up, your contract is not renewed
3. You have been dismissed.

https://www.gov.uk/fixed-term-contracts/renewing-or-ending-a-fixedterm-contract

[french frank]

1. You are given a 5 year contract
2. After 5 years are up, your contract is not renewed
3. You have been dismissed.

Isn't 'dismissal' a question of legal terminology? As with Alison's Jurowski example: do you have a right to have your contract renewed as long as your performance has been satisfactory (or better) and you are popular with the musicians you're in charge of??

There is a mystery: the poster on Lebrecht's blog offered two explanations: BBC incompetence or malice. Neither convinces.

I wonder whether the BBCSC has a chip on its shoulder about 'not being valued' by the BBC? They are a professional standard choir: that is tacitly confirmed by the way the BBC uses them. But if orchestral managers don't renew the contract of a professional conductor, even though the professional musicians want him/her to stay, do they then renew the contract?

There is some mystery as to why the contract wasn't renewed, but we don't know what it is.

[Barbirollians]

As a dismissal it will be unfair unless it can be shown it is for reasons of capability, conduct ,redundancy or some other substantial reason e.g business reorganisation - so if for example there were conductors of two choirs and it was decided that the job could be done by one the potentially fair reason would be redundancy or SOSR . If it was said to Conductor A - sorry we are skint we can only renew your contract at a 10% pay cut that would be a dismissal but it might be fair if it could be shown that it fell within SOSR .

Procedural fairness is also very important - hence in a redundancy case one normally has to show that there has been consultation , the adoption of fair redundancy criteria and consideration of whether suitable alternative employment should be offered .

As explained above one also has to consider whether they are an employee or an independent contractor .

[french frank]

As explained above one also has to consider whether they are an employee or an independent contractor .

That may be the key point: Jurowski will be a 'freelance' (as are most BBC presenters). I believe orchestral players have a 'continuing contract'.

But what more one can say without knowing the circumstances, I don't know …

[Gabriel Jackson]

But what more one can say without knowing the circumstances, I don't know …

That is the thing - no-one except Stephen Jackson and the management knows what the reason was.

[Beef Oven!]

As a dismissal it will be unfair unless it can be shown it is for reasons of capability, conduct ,redundancy or some other substantial reason e.g business reorganisation - so if for example there were conductors of two choirs and it was decided that the job could be done by one the potentially fair reason would be redundancy or SOSR . If it was said to Conductor A - sorry we are skint we can only renew your contract at a 10% pay cut that would be a dismissal but it might be fair if it could be shown that it fell within SOSR .

Procedural fairness is also very important - hence in a redundancy case one normally has to show that there has been consultation , the adoption of fair redundancy criteria and consideration of whether suitable alternative employment should be offered .

As explained above one also has to consider whether they are an employee or an independent contractor .

You've left off statutory bar from your list of potentially fair reasons for a dismissal.

The question of whether Jackson's contact was for service or services (employee or self-employed/business) is interesting, because he has been engaged in the role since 1989 (if I'm correct). interesting to see how the criteria for a contract for services could be met over such a long time in role that doesn't vary very much, month to month, year on year.






.

[Beef Oven!]

There is a mystery: the poster on Lebrecht's blog offered two explanations: BBC incompetence or malice. Neither convinces.

He's disgruntled, for whatever reason, so he offers a false dichotomy.

I wonder whether the BBCSC has a chip on its shoulder about 'not being valued' by the BBC? They are a professional standard choir: that is tacitly confirmed by the way the BBC uses them. But if orchestral managers don't renew the contract of a professional conductor, even though the professional musicians want him/her to stay, do they then renew the contract?

I was wondering the same.

There is some mystery as to why the contract wasn't renewed, but we don't know what it is.

Exactly. And without further and better details, we'll not know whether he was 'sacked' or not (we all agree by now that a dismissal is taking place!)

[underthecountertenor]

Sorry Fr F, I didn't mean you. You as forum Administrator, are being punctilious, although I think a tad too punctilious. Entirely understandable.

I appreciate, however, that you are not saying the issue cannot be discussed in the terms of the Eye piece....which I think has been said or implied by some.

That's certainly not what I was saying, given that I referred to the Eye piece in the first place. I was merely saying that I always read an Eye story with an internal caveat as to sources. And I think that ff was saying much the same, certainly about O'Boulez's work.

[EnemyoftheStoat]

With apologies for the paywall...

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/article4659093.ece

[french frank]

I wondered if it was because he would be 65 this year and they just wanted to bring in someone new? (Yes, I know the legislation doesn't allow you to sack someone on account of age, but what's the purpose of short term contracts if they have, by law, to be automatically renewed? Aren't most BBC presenters in the same position?).

[P. G. Tipps]

I wondered if it was because he would be 65 this year and they just wanted to bring in someone new? (Yes, I know the legislation doesn't allow you to sack someone on account of age, but what's the purpose of short term contracts if they have, by law, to be automatically renewed? Aren't most BBC presenters in the same position?).

The often loaded word 'sack' is used too often these days. Maybe this is an understandable reaction to absurdly euphemistic management terms like 'being let go'

As you say, a 'termination of contract' is clearly different from a 'failure to renew contract'. Surely a fresh contract has to be mutually agreed and if one party fails to do that, well ...

However, the actual legal position on such matters might be somewhat more complicated, especially when a reasonable amount of notice for either form of dismissal presumably would be required.

I discovered in my time in business that, short of a criminal offence, it is well nigh impossible these days just to 'sack' someone (no matter how bad/unsatisfactory the employee) without having to 'pay off' that employee rather than go through an expensive court case and then quite possibly lose on some technical issue. I have known dismissed employees getting 'pay-offs' even after final written warnings.

So 'money to go' (the amount rarely revealed to third-parties) is often the way things turn out in the end, and on the condition that is the complete end of the matter for both employer and dismissed employee.

Of course, only Mr Jackson and a few others will know what actually happened in his case.

[Cockney Sparrow]

Firstly, just to point out, posts which are (only) links to The Times online, are in essence addressed to those who already have a subscription or intend to get one. The other option, for those who steer clear of News International's offerings as much as practicable, particularly as substantial as taking out a subscription** is to buy a copy if its not too late in the day, or find a public library......
(**there being no other option so far as I am aware for online access; I certainly don't want any support from me as showing up in their subscription sales figures) (And BTW I also avoid links to the The Mail online, a similar outfit run under the direction of another UK non resident proprietor (non resident for tax and other purposes)).

And as far as the thread topic goes, I wonder how it all appears from the view of the members of the BBCS Chorus. The BBC hires and fires or fails to renew - that is for the professional and his legal advisors (hard as that is). However, it did appear that the BBC had overlooked the chorus themselves, something of an oddity in the BBC corporate behemoth - a group who freely give their time and expenses to the BBC, who have been treated as minions (which would otherwise have to be bearable if accompanied by fee income or a pay cheque). Certainly not consulted or taken into account, from the available information.

[french frank]

A third option is having it 'shared' by someone who has a subscription - by which means I've read the article. Incendiary stuff! But - it's not clear where the information is coming from. More precisely, battle lines have been drawn between two loosely defined 'sides' and I doubt we are hearing the whole story. As I gather the features are: personality clash, alleged failure to stick to letter of contract (twice) with ensuing disgreements, contract not renewed. So at the centre is the alleged/disputed 'breach of contractual undertaking', exacerbated by 'years of minor skirmishes'. It's easy to see how both sets of supporters see 'right on their side'.