Am I right in thinking the employment tribunal is more to find out whether the process of him getting the sack was followed correctly. Not necessarily whether he should have been sacked or not? If that's the case the potentially Derby in terms of following the procedures are in the wrong, but their reasoning behind sacking him could be justified.
Like I said in my original post I think there is more to come from this and it'll probably take a while to be resolved.
Agree about that. The more you make the more expensive housing, cars etc you get. They don't all live like the rest of us and save the rest for rainy days. Obviously you need some savings, but a salary cut of 75% will hit anyone hard.
Surely the fact they were willing to offer him a new contract (even on reduced terms) would significantly work against them? If its gross misconduct then the argument is that what he's done is so bad that they feel unable to allow him to continue doing his job, offering a new contract flies in the face of that. If anything it makes it clear that Derby's motivations were purely financial and nothing to do with disciplining the employee.