Jeremy Clarkson divides opinion like no one else. I for one must confess to being a big fan of Top Gear and the weird dynamic of Clarkson, May and Hammond on a Sunday evening is a national institution and probably the only television show that my kids seem to enjoy as much as me. However, Top Gear as we know it is now over following the BBC’s decision not to renew Jeremy Clarkson’s contract after an “unprovoked physical attack” on a Top Gear producer.
Many commentators have been quick to say that regardless of Clarkson’s popularity and the enormous income that Top Gear generates for the BBC (estimated to be in the region of $225 million) from its worldwide audience of 350 million viewers, an employer has no choice but to dismiss in such circumstances.
There are, of course, many worthy reasons why an employer may elect to dismiss, even its most treasured employee. The employer should be able to show that it had a reasonable belief, having followed a fair investigation into the allegations, that the misconduct took place and that it was reasonable to dismiss in all the circumstances. An employer will want to show that it acts consistently across its whole workforce, that it upholds standards of appropriate behaviour in the workplace and it will want to minimise the risk of costly employment claims from staff etc. But is an employer compelled to dismiss?
The short answer is no. In reality a business will want to weigh-up all of these sound legal reasons for taking decisive action and dismissing with immediate effect, against any relevant commercial considerations and, unpalatable as it may seem to many, an employer is fully entitled not to dismiss and to retain its ‘superstar’ employee if it wishes to in an effort to preserve a valuable asset. We have in fact seen this approach taken on a number of occasions regarding professional footballers who have received a fine or short ban in circumstances that would have justified dismissal of ‘normal’ employees. This is, of course, not a decision that should be taken lightly and it is very important to take legal advice and consider all options very carefully before deciding how best to proceed.
Whether it was ‘right’ or not to renew Clarkson’s contract is another issue entirely and not something that I am qualified to comment on. In reality though I believe that the BBC’s hands were tied and the outcome was inevitable once a decision had been taken to formally investigate the ‘fracas’ as the BBC prides itself on being a responsible employer and could never be seen to be condoning such inappropriate behaviour in the workplace.
One thing that is for certain is that the Top Gear presenters are unlikely to be out of pocket as a result of this decision and no doubt we will be watching Clarkson, May and Hammond on Sky or Netflix in the not too distant future…
