Andrew Lodge - Court Case report

All companies get expenses fiddles to some extent, it's part of their income. Put yourself in this guys shoes. £22000 a year,
Expected to drive right the way down to the long distance clubs. Get a report and pictures in to the paper, then set off back home travelling till late into the night on a Saturday. No hotel, etc expenses. This new Editor is happy for him to suffer these long trips, as long as he gets his report and paper out. IF the Editor had any man management skills he would have bollocked him and come to some agreement with Andrew Lodge. Finishes up with a young bland reporter who is subsidised by his inexperience with Preece and Sir Bobby. I personally think for a minor blip this New Editor wanted him out

 

The main difference is that it is public money MP's fiddle. It does seem very harsh, not only to sack him but to publicly prosecute and hang him out to dry in such a manner. It does sound that they held no value in his services for whatever reasons.

Shall we use fan-power to have him re-instated? Boycott the Chromical?

 

Yes and that is a point I missed earlier in my reply. BY prosecuting him it has gone on his record. So goodbye any future Employment. I am absolutely astounded a Local Community Paper would do that to a local employee. Need to check where this new editor hails from and what his back ground is. A Plonker

 

Obviously wanted shut. Who's the new sport editor?

 

The new editor is a an ex colleague of Lodge's from years ago - my guess is that their was some history between them, hence the malice with which his "fiddle" has been dealt with.

 

The new editor is a an ex colleague of Lodge's from years ago - my guess is that there was some history between them, hence the malice with which his "fiddle" has been dealt with.

 

'It does seem very harsh, not only to sack him but to publicly prosecute and hang him out to dry in such a manner.'

Wouldn't disagree that to then also pursue a criminal case against him was harsh. Certainly his dismissal, while completely justfied, would seem like punishment enough in the circumstances. Perhaps this does point to other issues in the past/background. Maybe this was the tip of the iceberg, yet despite a number of similar concerns regarding his behaviour/conduct/trustworthyness, all they could reasonably evidence were these fraudulent claims. Dealt with many cases like that in the past.

 

looking from the outside in.

i think the chron feel for all the long journeys hes taken and not claimed his hotel and others he could claim they may think hes been doing it for years,and got him to admit to the last 4 times he did it.
he pleaded guilty so the court had to take the action they took.

and the chronicle seem to be justified in there stance by law

do i agree with it then my heart says no/but having worked at a company where someone was filling his car up with diesel on the company diesel card for his van.
it was brought to the attention of the management and nothing was done.when people got laid off, my father and i plus others who had worked there like us for over 12 years. and he didnt then is that fair no.

 

That's a very black and white view of management and application of discipline.

Even the judge passed comment that he had taken in to consideration the net savings that the Chronicle benefitted from by Lodge not claiming other expenses and holidays.

The Chronicle has now set a bench mark and one would assume that they'll now treat every breach of discipline with the same heavy handed, myopic approach.

 

If they only have evidence of the those 4 occasions then anything else is purely assumption and cannot possibly be considered in terms of the action taken.

If over-claiming for mileage by Chronicle employees is such a black and white sackable offence, then even those now found to be claiming just 1 mile extra for any single journey must also be subject to dismissal. Without exception.

They've set a very dangerous precedent on this one.

And god help us all.

 

mike i agree with you i was just passing comment as to why they took such action.

like you say they have set a very dangerous precedent.

if this had happened at the council to one of there top managers i doubt people would feel the same way

 

Once might be an aberration but i'm reading that there are different occasions
I liked the guy, but he was very silly by the look of it

 

Seems that due to spending 25 years there and his family history of working with the paper that he got complacent in thinking he was untouchable in whatever he did. He was good at his job but it was blatant theft and no excuses can be made for him. It's a shame really as if he'd just gone in his car like his boss expected him to he would still be working there most probably.

 

Fair point. However, if every dodgy expenses claim in the UK (and the Chronicle) resulted in a sacking then the welfare state would have imploded years ago with the mile long queue outside the job centre.

 

agreed.

 

Very misleading headline - he was not sacked for travelling on the supporters bus, he was sacked for putting in mileage claims when he hadn't used his car. Why didn't he just put in a claim for the cost of the coach travel?

 

that is why he get caught he lied about his expenses. if he had just put the bus fare in and receipts for meals then there wouldnt have been a problem.

im guessing the new guy came in and was told by his bosses to see where the chron is losing money.

when he found out that this had happened then he did his job. and unfortunatley that has led to a criminal conviction.

 

Can't really blame Chronicle for covering their backs. Now the staff there might think twice about doing the same. Infact it wouldn't be a shock if since the Lodge incident that led to him being sacked expenses claims have dwindled at the Chronicle, thus saving the paper money.

 

Dangerous precedent? Not in the slightest, he submitted fraudulent claims, got caught, and was dismissed accordingly. Pretty straightforward case given what we know, and he will hopefully have been given a fair hearing, at which the Manager(s)/Panel would have listened to any arguments he wished to make in mitigation for his actions. If those arguments were not accepted then dismissal was a perfectly reasonable and proportionate response in the circumstances.

Like I said earlier most if not all companies would very likely view this as a gross misconduct/dismissal level offence, and my guess would be that the Chron's disciplinary policy actually confirms this. I've advised on many similar cases in schools, and pretty much without exception the individual has been facing dismissal as a result of their actions, although in a number of cases they've had the good sense (or advice) to resign before it ever got to the formal hearing.

If you can't do the time.........