Does Freemasonry affect employment tribunal outcomes?

I was involved in a case where the company concerned (a private healthcare company) was taken to an employment tribunal where the member of staff was so obviously dismissed for reasons other than what it appeared to be. He was sacked for singing 'Angels' which the company said led to a patient threatening to kill this member of staff. The company did not tell the member of staff he had a death threat on him, so was unaware that he was upsetting a patient. It was such a clear cut ' let's sack him because he is a trouble maker' yet we lost at employment tribunal! Were the panel paid off? Does this happen?

Where's the Freemasonry angle in tis story??
Please Explain?

Yeah sorry.... doh ! the company is financed (allegedly) by freemasons and a number of the senior managers are freemasons.

reply to post by ufo girl


Given the nature of the Freemason organization, and the influence they wield, it wouldn't surprize me at all, to learn that they could have influenced the outcome of an employment tribunal. Considering the amount of members of this organization, is it not possible that one of the panel members is, in fact, a Freemason, or maybe one of their bosses is a member??

Originally posted by red_leader
reply to post by ufo girl

 

Given the nature of the Freemason organization, and the influence they wield, it wouldn't surprize me at all, to learn that they could have influenced the outcome of an employment tribunal. Considering the amount of members of this organization, is it not possible that one of the panel members is, in fact, a Freemason, or maybe one of their bosses is a member??

Actually it would be rather surprising, since showing favorable treatment in such a case would be grounds for being kicked out of a lodge. Freemasons do not finance anything except their own lodges, people who happen to be freemasons finance things, and they don't go around to arbitration hearings looking to show undue favor to masons.

I assume that a "employment tribunal" is the same as a arbitration hearing - it sounds like it is from the description of events - if so, then its virtually impossible to give favorable treatment to anyone for anything because the arbitrator is chosen by both parties and is independent of the employee union and the management. The ruling by the arbitrator must demonstrate just cause for discharge in a formal written opinion that must outline where in the employment contract that the reason for discharge meet the just cause requirements.

You can't write "well I find the discharge met just cause because X manager was a mason and so I went with what he wanted." Well, you could write that, and then you'd find yourself slapped with a lawsuit.

[edit on 12-11-2008 by LowLevelMason]

I know that at a unnamed navy research base (easy to look up) in the Calif desert civil service employees are hired and fired by there membership in the masons.

I was a US Navy electrician mate and when i left the navy i went to work on the base as a electrician and from day one the union guys that were all masons tried every thing they could to get me fired.

This harassment continued years later when i came back as a contractor.

By this time i had been told all about what was happening and covered myself and all ways had witnesses whenever they were around.

My boss had the same thing happen but he had people in high places covering us he had been the generator mechanic at the reagan ranch and held a very high security clearance and knew who to call if they tried any thing.

reply to post by ANNED


I think this is a good example of someone thinking that because someone is a mason, this must be their motivation behind some sort of nefarious activity.

In this case the easy and simple answer is that they weren't trying to fire you because they were masons, but because they were members of a union and you were not. This is actually the most obvious solution: union members do not like non-union members when working on the same site because union politics is supposed to guarantee some degree of exclusivity of work options.

But you didn't consider that...no..it must be because they are masons!

There is nothing about freemasonry that would make masons hire or fire people based on the fact that they are masons. Its not the point of the fraternity nor the fellowship that comes from it. In fact, it goes against everything masonry teaches.