CITY VARIETIES SCANDAL

BLAKEY · Post by **BLAKEY** » Thu 17 May, 2012 11:30 pm

I read with utter amazement, shock and disgust in tonight's YEP that the General Manager of the City Varieties, Mr. Peter Sandeman has been made immediately redundant. Its impossible to sum up the enormous dedication, imagination and expertise Peter has devoted to keeping this wonderful old theatre alive - and to overseeing its miraculous renovation and restoration to its original glory.Seemingly presumably "spending cuts" are again the cause and the theatre is to be governed by the manager of the Grand. Peter's picture appears in the paper tonight, quite obviously he is distressed and gutted by this lack of appreciation for all that he has done. Anyone who has met him, and possibly enjoyed his "walk round" tours of the theatre, will know how he "lives for the Varieties." I wish there was some way in which this misguided and unjust decision could be reversed - with a king sized apology too.

Cardiarms · Post by **Cardiarms** » Fri 18 May, 2012 8:42 am

A lot of their admin and ticket sales has been run by the grand for a while. May have been a longer term plan conveniently blamed on Gordon Brown. A lot of that is going on.

Leeds Hippo · Post by **Leeds Hippo** » Fri 18 May, 2012 10:03 am

...made immediately redundantsuspicious?

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Fri 18 May, 2012 10:30 am

Leeds Hippo wrote: ...made immediately redundantsuspicious? Unusual that isn't it?The way I see it is Mr. Peter Sandeman would be pretty annoyed by this, and I think I would be too. I doubt very much that the Leeds Grand Theatre and Opera House Ltd have approached the Y.E.P to feature this story.It isn't after all the best publicity for them is it?Making a long serving and dedicated manager immediately redundant actually paints them in a very bad light indeed. In fact I'd go as far as to call them disgraceful. Thanks for everything you've done for us-now shove off!I would think it was Peter who has approached the Y.E.P himself perhaps. I too would think there is more than meets the eye to what we are being told. The Y.E.P story is here. http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... -1-4553737

Riponian · Post by **Riponian** » Fri 18 May, 2012 1:04 pm

I would have thought they'd have to got through the "consultation period" malarkey and have his job "under risk" etc rather than declare him immediately redundant.Should move this item to Kirkgate Market, it smalls a bit fishy.

Cardiarms · Post by **Cardiarms** » Fri 18 May, 2012 1:23 pm

He's 60 so I think he can be immediately pensioned off.

edlong · Post by **edlong** » Fri 18 May, 2012 1:51 pm

"He's 60 so I think he can be immediately pensioned off."I don't think that's the case any more - age discrimination and all that, compulsory retirement age is no longer a legal reason and you have the same employment rights regardless of age.Hence, presumably, the redundancy process.

geoffb · Post by **geoffb** » Fri 18 May, 2012 2:19 pm

He is entitled to 12 weeks notice having worked there for 12 years. They may wish to pay him "gardening leave" for this period. But as Riponian says it smells fishy. I dont think the YEP have all the facts, nothing unusual there then.

Tasa · Post by **Tasa** » Fri 18 May, 2012 3:21 pm

He's not had a good week....http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/Yeovil- ... story.html

electricaldave · Post by **electricaldave** » Fri 18 May, 2012 4:06 pm

There are quite a number of rules on redundancy, and something seems amiss here.First, the post is made redundant, not the person. You can't simply say that such-and-such doesn't have a job any more. To make a post redundant there must be a requirement that the role no longer exists, you can't just fill it with another, perhaps cheaper, person. You can reorganise a company such as in a merger and where you might end up with two people filling the same post - so that one of them has to go, or you could restructure the management set up such that all the duties are devolved to others.Once the decision has been made to remove a post, the incumbent is entitled to 'reasonable consultation' - removing them summarily is not an option. This is generally taken to be 90 days though it can be reduced under specific conditions such as a rescue buy out.The consultation frequently requires the company or organisation to attempt to match the post holder to another broadly equivalent role or post. There is normally a protocol that is part of the HR policies of the company or organisation.If it is a fixed term post then there is no obligation to renew the contract.If there is a performance clause in the contract that has not been met then again the same applies - however the interpretation of performance can be subject to scrutiny.As you can imagine, YEP is not likely to print an accurate story here, partly because much of it would be confidential and contractual and on terms known only by the parties involved.And yes, I am a T.U official, how would you know that?