 Poster: A snowHead
|
| davidof wrote: |
Hi Horgand,
Do you know any of this for a fact? As far as I can tell Club Med comply with French minimul wage legislation and hours for seasonal workers, at least in France. Club Med were one of the original prosecutions for leading groups on piste without using a qualified instructor and all on snow activities use instructors these days. I doubt they would get French people to work for the without paying as there is too much other work in the Alps during the winter. Again as far as I can tell they are a normal plc, are quoted on the Paris stock exchange and pay a dividend. |
Hi Davidof,
I only know you have to become/renew as a member to book a holiday with them(or at least I did each time I've holidayed with them), & that they include food & accommodation as part of the package for their 'GO' reps, & that they may have been a not for profit outfit, by design rather than circumstance as it were. (Thanks Comedy G for details on that).
All the rest of my post was pure postulation on my part, which I did try to convey as such in my post, but which seems to have been a little lost due to the uneditable formatting of messages in this thread once posted. So hopefully that's as clear as a French court judgement then!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
So, the latest date for the accused SC leader is Dec 8th in Albertville, have to wait and see what transpires, not looking good by all accounts, SC will stand by him tho, and take the appeal if necessary to Chambery at the next level..........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
@KenX, according to the rules under which the 'Contract of Employment' is signed between the SCGB and the Leader at the start of the season. The SCGB have know choice but to stand by him. He has done nothing wrong and was working on their behalf. The SCGB are not doing him any favours they are legally bound to support him in this case, besides which it is not really him as a person that is being taken t court, it is the SCGB. It is just that French law must target a person as well as a company. It was the same with the tour op ski host that was arrested who represented the company. Nothing really happened to the person, in the higher courts it was the company that was held responsible. Remember SCGB is a Limted Company under UK law and this case is likely to establish if this is also the case in France.
IMO if SCGB take this to appeal should they loose this first case I think they will be wasting members money. How many members really ski with leaders. Not that many according to the last Annual report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I think it's only fair for the SC to fight his case as this is a criminal offence that has been levied and they are keen to avoid the leader being tarnished with that on his record......
As you say, he was only following their guidelines, so they are culpable
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@snowcrazy, You say that leaders sign a Contract of Employment with the SCGB. I wasn't aware of that. If so that hardly helps the SCGB case in court that leaders are volunteers and not employees....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Alastair Pink, exactly. The document (Contract) has or did have till recently the title 'Contract of Employment' at the top. I would guess it is likely not to be called that now for one clear reason. As you say it makes it very difficult to claim it is not a job when both parties sign a contract whether for a week, a month or the whole season. I have been told it was a mutual agreement between two equal parties. Yes, right!! The trouble is one of those parties is a Limited Company under British law which makes it rather one sided. Not exaxtly like two friends signing an agreement.
@KenX, Yes Ken I agree the SCGB must fight his case. but my point is that this is not something they have any choice over. They have a contract with the leader and unless he has broken the rules, by their own code of practise they MUST defend him in court.
This is why IMO the SCGB may find it difficult to argue that they are any different to a Tour Operator. This is a very interesting point of French law and we shall soon see what the French courts think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unbelievable
I sometimes wonder what the SCGB has spent on lawyers over the years, as the tide steadily advances and the sandcastle erodes away. Have never heard a member ask that question at an AGM [a golden opportunity arises this Thursday for anyone wishing to make themself popular]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm having a lot of trouble understanding why a club would need an employment contract with its club leaders?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
This I think all stems from changes a number of years ago when many clubs were advised (or maybe forced I don't know) to become Limited Companies to help protect them in the event that someone decided to sue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@davidof, That is exactly my point. As a business contracts of employment are the norm. If the SCGB was really a club then I would have also thought they would have used some other way of engaging leaders without a formal contract. I would not be surprised if they do not have them this year.  Just like the sudden change in rules for reps after the death in Verbier some year back.
@D G Orf, They used contracts with reps for some years before they became a limited company. The forming of a company steams back to when they became Fresh tracks holidays as well and so had to be a Limited Company I believe. For me it was when the SCGB was 'taken over' by Fresh Tracks in effect that it really stopped being a real Club IMO. Fresh Tracks is a profit making company and the profits are used (so it is reported) to support the Club activities. At least that is what the annual report seems to show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
@snowcrazy, you may well be right, I know the DHO members were pretty much told we had to turn the club into a Limited Company some time ago, but we are very much still a club, I do not consider the SCGB to be a club as such any longer, it is a company that offers a limited range of benefits to subscribers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ONE final point.  I have just been told that over on the SCGB forum a certain Gerry Aitken said I am lying and there is not such a thing as a 'Contract of Employment' between Ski Club Leader and the SCGB Ltd. Sorry to disappoint SCGB members that are reading this thread. I do not tell lies and this document does exist and is signed by the SCGB. Until last year this type of document was used between the SCGB and the Leaders. I do not know if it is used this year.
This is a legal document and not as I mentioned in an earlier post, 'just a voluntary agreement between to equal parties' as Gerry and the SCGB would like you to believe. I wonder what the French Court will make of such a document. Gerry if you are reading this. Please do come on here and join in this discussion, but not as someone else. Have the guts to join in as yourself. I have a question for you. Why would the SCGB require it's leaders to sign such a document if they really are 'just' volunteers giving up their time for nothing in return? Please do reply!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
@snowcrazy, currently I'm an assistant to one of the DHO committees doing posters and leaflets for the coming 90th anniversary, all good fun ! I've even been a voted in committee member for a while but I felt at the time I was essentially useless, now I'm doing practical stuff so much happier
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
those extra staff jobs on London wages
|
Going by the job adverts posted on here recently they don't even pay South West wages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
It is a real pain that we cannot edit our posts on this thread. I wanted to add that I have replied to you other point re. the SCGB being more of a business than a club now. But here is a copy of that post.
I believe it is the latter. As the SCGB is now basically a business with as I think you said, other activities added on. i.e. The club side. They will have a hard time arguing the opposite. I think it all steams from when Fresh Tracks took over. I understood why, but did not agree then and still do not agree it should have been done now.
As I said above. Leaders sign a 'Contract of Employment' with the SCGB Ltd (they might call it something different now). If they are not a business why do Leaders have to sign such a document? I think having such a document, however they want to argue it is meant to be interpreted. It shoots quite a large whole in their argument that they are not a business first and only a club second.
Might I suggest that we continue this discussion over on the main SCGB Forum thread in the Piste section as we can edit our posts there and it also seems to attracted more peoples interest which adds to the value of this discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
@snowcrazy, paid ... err no but they do at least cover expenses and I get to experiment with things like banners and flags which I don't normally get involved with
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@D G Orf, sorry I was only teasing you. I know almost everyone at DHO does what they do for the love of the club. Not sure, but I think you only have one paid person. Is that correct? Do you have a resident leader this winter and if so, who is it? I might come over for a ski. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| snowcrazy wrote: |
| Do you have a resident leader this winter and if so, who is it? I might come over for a ski. |
Yes, the Wengen Manager (based in Wengen for the season) who often leads groups of adult DHO members is Andrew Davies. Bob and Rachel Eastwood (who are instructors with the ski school) spend most of their DHO time with the children's race training though Bob does sometimes take adult groups as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Alastair Pink, thanks for the info. Are you a member of DHO as well? Do you ski over in Wengen much?
Plus I presume you are still a member of SCGB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I presume you saw that dear Gerry has now admitted that there is a 'Contract' between a leader and the SCGB for when they work in resorts. He says they are called 'Leading Contract' or 'Resort Leading Contract'. I will be interested to see how they argue this is not a 'Contract of Employment' under a different name. I wait and watch with interest,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| snowcrazy wrote: |
| He says they are called 'Leading Contract' or 'Resort Leading Contract'. I will be interested to see how they argue this is not a 'Contract of Employment' under a different name. I wait and watch with interest, |
It is odd for a club to have this in place and I agree with you that it seems to take them into a grey area bordering on employment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I've looked a bit more into the situation with SCGB reps. There are similar cases involving Emmaüs and the Red Cross. The "contract" may be a key piece of evidence. The provision of accommodation and food could well be considered an "avantage en nature" as was the case with a trial involving Emmaüs. More damning might be "the contract" if this specifies duties and hours it could be considered an employment contract as Snowcrazy suggests. A "volunteer" should be free to decided his own hours and actions; under French law SCGB reps could well be disguised employees. Of course I've not seen a copy of this famous contract. The title is immaterial though - it is the contents that will count. Is the rep under the control and direction of the ski club in return for accommodation, lift pass and food?
So I agree that the SCGB is likely to lose its case; an appeal will only succeed if the first court misinterpreted the law. The scgb's lawyers already saying they will go to appeal seems a little bit premature and not likely to get any sympathy from the legal system.
I think teaching by "normal" ski clubs is only tolerated because it is a marginal and fairly restricted activity which doesn't have a huge impact on professional guides and instructors. The SCGB is a large structure with extensive resources - witnessed by the fact it is able to put reps into resort for most of the season. It is a limited company. It could therefore be seen as providing unfair competition (social dumping if you like). It looks like a business hiding behind rules for volunteers. Emmaüs and the Red Cross are both registered charities in France but this didn't stop them coming under legal scrutiny in much less controversial areas as "ski instruction". Both are also well known and operating under a French legal structure, not a foreign company operating in France (ok under EU rules this should not matter but will make the SCGB more opaque to the French authorites).
Note: this is just my thoughts at this stage. There may be completely different arguments in court. I'm not sure the EU is going to be much help to them really as it seems to concern the right of professional establishment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
@davidof, I think your take on this is correct. I am very pleased that the truth about 'contracts' existing between the SCGB and their Leaders now, just as they did when called 'Reps' has now been admitted. Yes they did exist and still do. I have tried very hard in all my posts to only write what I can prove and to best of my knowledge is true.
Maybe now we can continue with a real debate without people trying to score cheap points with personal attacks. I hope so. This is a discussion about SCGB Leaders. When I have more details to support @davidof comments, I will share them. On the other hand I am sure some of those reading this thread, could if they wished post details of this years 'contract'. between Leader's and the SCGB. Please do share them , you can always remove your peronnal details first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but all this conjecture is predicated on a contract specifying things like hours, duties & things like 'terms of employment' for SCGB leaders.
But the actual contract may just cover things such as insurance, safety, duty of care, representing the club, adherence to SCGB rules such as not teaching members, agreed codes of practice etc, etc, etc.
Tbh, I would have been very surprised that some form of contract didn't exist to at least cover these exact type of issues. A well established club would hardly let unsupervised volunteers represent the club in overseas locations on their own, without at least an agreed code of practice, safety statement and a document (i.e. contract) covering insurance & liability issues!? Indeed it would be completely negligent and irresponsible not to have such a contract in place imho.
So as Davidof stated, it's what's in this now famous contract which will be the substantial matter. I mean every time I ski with SCGB I sign a contract with them to say I have insurance (covering off piste), etc, that doesn't make me a quasi under paid worker now does it!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
No but it may mean that the rep is a underpaid worker
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| davidof wrote: |
| horgand wrote: |
| So as Davidof stated, it's what's in this now famous contract which will be the substantial matter. I mean every time I ski with SCGB I sign a contract with them to say I have insurance (covering off piste), etc, that doesn't make me a quasi under paid worker now does it!? |
That seems a bit OTT for a club though. If you ski with a French club you don't sign all the US style waiver clap trap - again maybe the culture difference has caught the SCGB out and they will win their day in court when it comes down to details? |
agree with this - when I led trips for a UK ski club (NOT SCGB), I don't recall signing anything. there may have been some sort of "guidance for leaders" which would have said things like:
"you are covered by our insurance up to £X, you get £X of expenses, here's how to arrange getting in deposits etc..."
not sure whether that is still the practice
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| snowcrazy wrote: |
OK folks, after one person over on the other SCGB thread admitted he was wrong about what he posted regarding my connexions with a company of the same name. I publicly thank him for being fair and apologising. As it has also now been clearly demonstrated that the 'contract' I mentioned does exist. Despite various people questioning the truth of what I was saying.
Before I start posting more information, please would anyone stand up an be counted and tell me politely if anything else I have posted on this thread is technically incorrect. I agree we can all interpret some facts in different ways, but that is what debate is all about. What I object to is being told I am making things up or not telling the truth. So here is your chance. Without trying to just score cheap points by trying to make this personal again. If you think anything I have posted is actually incorrect, please tell me. If you are right I will also be fare and admit I have made a mistake. I do not think I have made any mistakes, but I could be wrong.
I will come back on in a couple of days to see what has been posted. If anything shows up that I need to correct, I will do so. Over to all of you. Time for me to hit the snow! |
Why don't you tell us yourself!?
Was there really a contract signed between SCGB & their always unpaid leaders headed 'Contract of Employment'? (As you claim repeatedly here)
Because tbh I sincerely doubt this for all sorts of simple, common sense reasons..... now I don't know but I sincerely doubt it.
So you tell us, and please do bear in mind, that this is prejudicial to a contested court proceedings between 2 parties, &as such you are not outside the law just cos you are posting under a pseudonym on an internet board. I'm not writing that trying to threaten you in any way, btw, just be sure of your allegations before committing them to public record. Particularly in light of someone from the SCGB already fully and irrefutably denying what you are alleging here.
If you want my advice (& I realise you're unlikely to take it) you should go away & enjoy the mountains more and get over the obvious grudge & baggage you have with SCGB yourself, cos the way you're heading you're just gonna land yourself in trouble or waste your life trying to. And for what!?!
Good luck!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@horgand, I would have guessed you would be the one person to post something like this. I did ask for anyone that could show me any REAL MISTAKES that I had made to point them out politely and I would respond. I see nobody has until now.
I love your comment 'I'm not writing that trying to threaten you in any way, btw,' after you have done exactly that IMO. So all I will say to you is as my young nephew would say, 'bring it on!' More than that I will not comment. After this I think I might just ignore the rubbish you post as you are obviously one of those people that do not want to have a serious debate. Just try and insult people.
I am really pleased to see that there are no other points which people say I have posted incorrectly. I have tried very hard to be factually correct despite what @horgand, would like you to believe. We are all entitled to our own interpretation of these facts. That is what a debate is all about. I look forward to hearing what happens in the court in a few weeks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The SCGB CEO Frank McCusker posted this on skiclub.co.uk 4 days ago ...
"Social skiing under the spotlight again"
http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/news/story.aspx?storyID=9322#.VHLthWfOoig
| Quote: |
| There has until this point been no communication from either the Piemont region nor any other Italian government authority directly to the Ski Club of Great Britain to suggest we need to remove our social skiing programme. |
Discuss!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| snowcrazy wrote: |
@horgand, I would have guessed you would be the one person to post something like this. I did ask for anyone that could show me any REAL MISTAKES that I had made to point them out politely and I would respond. I see nobody has until now.
I love your comment 'I'm not writing that trying to threaten you in any way, btw,' after you have done exactly that IMO. So all I will say to you is as my young nephew would say, 'bring it on!' More than that I will not comment. After this I think I might just ignore the rubbish you post as you are obviously one of those people that do not want to have a serious debate. Just try and insult people.
I am really pleased to see that there are no other points which people say I have posted incorrectly. I have tried very hard to be factually correct despite what @horgand, would like you to believe. We are all entitled to our own interpretation of these facts. That is what a debate is all about. I look forward to hearing what happens in the court in a few weeks. |
Ok I'll bite (bigger fool me I suppose  ). only two FACTUAL questions for you, which can be answered by a simple yes or no, ok!?
1. Are you saying (despite this having been already categorically denied by a representative of the SCGB in writing) that the agreement between the SCGB and their always unpaid volunteer SCGB leaders was headed 'Contract of Employment' as you previously wrote?
And
2. Can you confirm that were previously kicked out of SCGB??
And perhaps so we can understand your angst, you might care to tell us why!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
@horgand, Once again you are personalising this - completely inappropriately. You are clearly some sort of 'insider'/'spokesperson or member' of the SCGB with possibly some sort of official links, but your conduct is out-of-order. Why not identify yourself instead of reinforcing the impression that the SCGB deploys Internet trolls on an official or quasi-official level? OR you are just someone that has no idea what he/she (you never know) is on about. Either way, as I said above. I will not enter into any further discussion with you as you do not understand the concept of polite debate.
In the meantime I hope you continue to enjoy trying to divert every ones attention away from the real discussion.
For the benefit of those polite people reading this thread and to keep this on topic before next weeks hearing. I belive Gerry Aitken (one of the Directors of SCGB) admitted on the SCGB form that a 'contract' does/did exist.
Also as stated above by davidof, it is not the name that matters, but the content. Simple question. Does the contract imply payment (even in kind) or does it support the view that it is just guidelines without payments of any kind being mentioned?
I look forward to hearing the courts findings next week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
or with other friends. However this year I rejoined as they were giving a TO discount that was going to save me some small amount of money overall on a particular holiday.
