GreenLantern22
ULTIMATE Member
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.p...n-internet-unfairly-dismissed-former-ceo.html
If you have time the judgement is quite an interesting read. After reading one thing is certain. No doubt Paul Stobart is a very capable person. Indeed Richard Tang has clearly appreciated his work many times and that's mentioned in the judgement multiples times. But there is one thing he is not and that is a good loser. It's clear to me that Stobart failed to meet the profit targets he was promising he was going to deliver. Whether that's his fault or not is irrelevant. And after 4 years of trying it should have been more graceful and left the post when asked without ending in an employment tribunal. Most CEOs "resign" although we all know they actually are fired and usually get a golden parachute. In fact he was offered the role of Chairman again which paid £31k / year for very little work. He refused that and decided to go suing the company that he was leading on a technicality for what's very likely going to be a 2 month salary compensation. Even the judge ackowledged that the most likely and reasonable outcome of such process would be his employment termination.
While he may have won the judgement he has become unemployable as CEO as no company will want to touch a CEO that does not know how to leave gracefully. If anything this highlights the fact that Zen's internal HR policies did not account for a special lawful process to get rid of the CEO in a quick and effective way which should be clearly noted in the CEO contract of employment. Imagine if every football manager needed to have a 2 month HR process with right to appeal if the club wanted to get rid of them!
If you have time the judgement is quite an interesting read. After reading one thing is certain. No doubt Paul Stobart is a very capable person. Indeed Richard Tang has clearly appreciated his work many times and that's mentioned in the judgement multiples times. But there is one thing he is not and that is a good loser. It's clear to me that Stobart failed to meet the profit targets he was promising he was going to deliver. Whether that's his fault or not is irrelevant. And after 4 years of trying it should have been more graceful and left the post when asked without ending in an employment tribunal. Most CEOs "resign" although we all know they actually are fired and usually get a golden parachute. In fact he was offered the role of Chairman again which paid £31k / year for very little work. He refused that and decided to go suing the company that he was leading on a technicality for what's very likely going to be a 2 month salary compensation. Even the judge ackowledged that the most likely and reasonable outcome of such process would be his employment termination.
While he may have won the judgement he has become unemployable as CEO as no company will want to touch a CEO that does not know how to leave gracefully. If anything this highlights the fact that Zen's internal HR policies did not account for a special lawful process to get rid of the CEO in a quick and effective way which should be clearly noted in the CEO contract of employment. Imagine if every football manager needed to have a 2 month HR process with right to appeal if the club wanted to get rid of them!























