Crew Clothing is engaged in a legal confrontation with its former CEO, David Butler, over a disputed bonus payment.
- The company claims Butler misrepresented verbal agreements about salary enhancements and bonuses worth £622,560.
- Butler denies the allegations and has countered with a wrongful dismissal claim.
- The legal dispute has halted a tribunal case concerning Butler’s dismissal.
- This conflict arises after Butler’s abrupt exit following a failed management buyout.
Crew Clothing, a British casual wear retailer, is embroiled in a legal dispute with former CEO David Butler, whom they accuse of falsifying verbal assurances about substantial remuneration agreements. The company insists that it never consented to these supposed enhancements in salary and benefits, which amount to £622,560.
Butler, standing firm against these assertions, has launched a counter-claim, citing wrongful dismissal. He contends that he was promised these employment benefits verbally by the retailer’s owner, Menoshi ‘Michael’ Shina. Butler’s legal team argues that these discussions, purportedly conducted through HR head Rupert Hay on Shina’s behalf, should stand valid.
The ongoing legal tussle has temporarily halted plans for an employment tribunal to examine Butler’s dismissal. His lawyers assert that the tribunal is crucial for determining compensation related to salary losses and benefits he should have received following his departure from the company.
This legal wrangle traces back to a period of upheaval within Crew Clothing. Butler’s unforeseen exit in April 2023, precipitated by a failed attempt at a management buyout, left the company leaderless for months. This situation was exacerbated by the subsequent departure of several key executives, further destabilizing the retailer.
Amidst these developments, there are complexities surrounding messages Butler sent post an eventful evening involving alcohol, potentially compromising the clarity of intentions. His legal team maintains that these communications should not have been taken at face value, suggesting that a considered period should have been allowed for retraction.
The outcome of this legal contest remains pending, with significant implications for both parties.
