Three Topic Response To BrewDog accusations against H&H / Kate Bailey 02.04.2022
-/-
Kate Bailey here. I have recorded a video about why I am releasing this response today, and why I will continue to do so - HERE.
Feel free to watch before reading.
-/-
RESPONSE CONTENTS
1) Charging for a Reconciliation Program - is it ethical, and how is it done?
2) Assertions made in BrewDogs company-wide email 01.04.2022
3) My response to a legal counsel email 01.04.2022
-/-
1) Charging for a Reconciliation Program - is it ethical, and how is it done?
I understand people’s interests, and questions, about how or why I would charge for a reconciliation program. I have been expecting this, and I am happy to provide answers.
There is no previous basis for understanding a reconciliation program cost, probably because I created the concept for workplaces myself in November last year. There has only even been one, ever - and it remains progress at the time of writing.
It is important for anyone reading this to understand I had a fully functioning business for years prior to ever being involved in Craft Beer. I’d built the business up to the point to be an incorporated company last year. I have a team of folks I work with, before and after all of this. There are 10s of, if not 100s, of folks that can attest to the fact the Reconciliation Program concept was developed many months into a crisis. On top of that, and I addressed this at painful length yesterday, the BrewDog Affected Workers Platform has never been reliant on BrewDogs cooperation for an set outcome. I have and always will be committed to representing those people on the platform with no financial burdens incurred by them. My business has been built up as a workplace consultancy and the resources are designed to deal with workplaces and workplace conflicts. I have every right to offer my company's resources at my discretion.
Now, I will address each case of ‘’reconciliation payments’’. There has been only two examples we can discuss.
Mikkeller
A reconciliation program was not even a concept at the time I worked on the Mikkeller cases, the podcast Super Cool Toxic Workplace, or any of the work I did for the folks I was helping. A reconciliation deal was struck with Mikkeller after the entire concept of the program was discussed and agreed on, and the podcast was released. It took hours and hours of conversations, certainly more than the 1.5 hours or so that constituted two of the meetings I had with BrewDog representatives. To Mikkeller’s CEOs’ credit, he was the one who asked about payment for my services first, stating ‘’I understand you cannot do this work for free’’. I also asked individuals I had been working with, who had shaped the program and contingencies for Mikkeler, if it was O.K. by them that if I performed the service, I was paid for this service of delivering this concept which was created after the podcast was published. Obviously, all said they were. I charged Mikkeller less than what the entire podcast cost to produce, especially given the amount of legal assistance I had to take. If people truly take issue and do not believe me, I am happy to provide the evidence as to this.
The whole premise of the payment, being a singular payment to my company and my distribution of those payments to contractors, is to ensure it is an independent exchange of money and no financial burden on participants. No legal counsel receives a percentage of any settlement, naturally, so, how should they be paid? Certainly, H&H should not pay them if it is on behalf of the companies independent process.
In Comparison…
The only other thing I’d like to note here is that Mikkeller entered the process believing the stories and requiring limited investigation. There are also far less cases than BrewDog, and far less legal jurisdictions. Unlike Mikkeller, BrewDog were looking at up to six independent legal counsel, at least four external investigators, rehabilitation specialists, practitioners and yes - and a fee for H&H for coordinating the independent program.
BrewDog
BrewDog have claimed I quoted a crazy ballpark figure that ‘’concerned them’’. I have addressed their issues with ‘’fees’’ here, but I think the public deserves a stronger understanding of a figure like that. I understand these are expenses that many folks may not be used to seeing. This is and was always going to be a large scale, global project.
Here’s the hourly rates of one of the U.S. based law firms we work currently work with:
To keep it in the most basic terms of understanding how a costs like this works in terms of a project like this, think about it like this:
100k gets BrewDog 19.25 working days from a law firm with the rates I’ve shared above (we work with some that charge less, and some that charge more - depending on location and if a specialty is required). With the amount of cases, that fact BrewDog would require everything to be investigated, and the fact I said the project would take a number of months (my recommendation said the program could wrap in November) it is actually very realistic for me to suggest a ballpark of 100k. We’d need to hire counsel in at least 6 jurisdictions. Another example would be a rehabilitative specialist and team trainer, whose rate sheet indicates a fee of €2500 EUR per day. I can keep going but, the simple maths above make it clear that when there are qualified professionals required to this extent, I was giving them a realistic figure for the services I would have to coordinate. This is further indicated in the emails below, which have also been published to the Hand & Heart Instagram.
Everyone reading this has the facts now about payments around Reconciliation Work. You can decide if I am the ill-intentioned shakedown figure of concern BrewDog is asserting I am, or just a businesswoman who wants to use her skills and resources to better workplaces because that is what my experiences and the resources of my company allow me to do.
Further assertions made in BrewDogs company-wide email 01.04.2022
The program itself, as a full proposal, was given a 45-minute meeting that - according to my records clocked in at one hour and four seconds. The representatives could not comment on key components of the discussion.
Everyone knows, from public to media and beyond, I was acting as a mediator on behalf of platform participants. I explained, most recently in this meeting, to BrewDog representatives that I had to communicate with a substantial number of people about the progress of discussions. I do not know why BrewDog took this as ‘’confidential’’ given I stated this, time and time again. There are no contracts, I was working for free on behalf of platforms participants. I wholly take responsibility to go public with the significant development and my resulting decision to pause discussions, and I stand by it as being the right thing to do to fulfil the obligations I had in the role I took.
My response to a legal counsel email 01.04.2022
Now, BrewDog themselves clarified nature of the request made to me in their own company-wide email, I will not confirm it here. They assert in this email, in relation to this information sought: this was made very clear to Ms Bailey. This is why I am including the correspondence below because I think they are referencing this email. Making their interpretation of the situation clear to me does not make it true or legally viable from my position. I can provide information relating to the truth, and the law will dictate the outcome otherwise.
While I share this today, to vindicate myself in an email sent to an entire workforce, I really do just want my counsel to deal with this on my behalf. I made that clear to this counsel, and he chose to email me of his own volition and not in response to anything I had said, and I will just add it began with the accusation I had presented a ‘‘false take’’.
