If anyone has a copy of the judgement don’t hesitate to post or link to it.
Quick reminder: on last Monday, the parties attended the deliberation.
As yet, no journalist, not even the parties themselves saw a copy of the judgment.
I’m in the running to get one as soon as it’s written in black and white.
I have used a ski hosting service once, and I was shocked by what occurred.
In the first week of January 2012 I stayed in a chalet hotel in Meribel. (Hotel sized but chalet practices, including staff night off). They put on various social activities, including ski hosting, which I went along to and found quite pleasant. The young man leading the middle ability group simply practised follow the leader. He didnt post a back marker, didnt collect mobile numbers, and managed to waylay people several times.
There was a big storm and dump mid week. They didnt post weather forecasts, and I dont think he knew it was coming. (I did, but I didnt mind so much). He realized that something was up over the ridge onthe way down toward Val Thorens “none of the lifts are moving”. He did actually get us to a lift which got us back over, into a blizzard at the top, with the chairs swinging about.
I think we were among the last to get back over, and we all found it hard work. I felt it had accident waiting to happen written all over it. We did all make it back safely, but were close to getting stranded in the next valley.
Sorry if this seems anecdotal, but it may give an insight to practice and standards.
My only experience is with the Ski Club in Switzerland about 15 years ago so they may have improved. I will just say the ski club leaders I’ve met have all been good skiers: advanced intermediate standard. However one guy advertised a piste day and then took his charges off piste (just between runs in relatively safe terrain). He was then frustrated when people were falling all the time. I felt he should have reigned in his ambitions to ski what he had advertised. In fairness it was snowing so finding stuff that fitted the idea of “piste” skiing would have meant staying on the beginner slopes.
Here are some details of the fines for Le Ski. No prison sentence but a 15 000 € fine for having unqualified employees leading groups, five fines of 1 500 € for paying staff below the minimum wage (I would imagine all UK TOs pay below the minimum wage) 5 000 € in damages to the ESF and 4 000 € to the ESF in Méribel (an interested party as the offences took place there).
You might find a lot of different thinking about what’s a suitable qualification to lead a group. I doubt you’d even find a consensus that it’s necessary or practical to establish that qualification. Micro differentiated leadership awards don’t generally serve client interests in my opinion and basic technical awards tend to lack the experience element that’s really needed.
I know some IMLs and AMM (French equivalent) who would like to lead ski tourers on non-glaciated terrain but cannot because this is the exclusive domain of guides (although some ski instructors also tour - not sure of the legality of that though). Why don’t they become guides? Because they are not sufficiently good at climbing.
Why do guides have to climb as well as ski? Well it is considered necessary to have a year round income.
However it may be possible to force the issue. Snowboarding is a case. The BASI has a snowboarding exam but the French have no equivalence. You have to ski as well as board. UK and German qualified snowboarders have forced equivalence via EU rules on the French although I believe snowboard teachers need FIS points (equivalence of the Eurotest). So maybe the Scottish Ski Leaders exam erm, plus FIS points, would have been accepted by the court?
The ESF should be applauded for taking a neutral and non-remunerated stance on this action as per their statement on http://WWW.planetski.eu/news/4683 -
ESF will not receive any re-numeration as a result of this judgement other than its legal fees being paid for representing them as a “Civil Party” and importantly, ESF has never sought otherwise. The fine required by the Public Ministry to Le Ski is factored upon an infringement of law and missing Social Taxes to be paid on such activity. Contrary to some opinion, there is no financial gain to ESF.
However as Davidoff reports, there appears to have been a different outcome -
Here are some details of the fines for Le Ski. No prison sentence but a 15 000 € fine for having unqualified employees leading groups, five fines of 1 500 € for paying staff below the minimum wage (I would imagine all UK TOs pay below the minimum wage) 5 000 € in damages to the ESF and 4 000 € to the ESF in Méribel (an interested party as the offences took place there).
Contrary to many posts and popular reporting (as in planet ski etc.).
You are unlikely to be stopped unless there is a specific complaint, which will probably not come from the ESF - too busy and you are not really competition, or you get stopped by a control by the French sports ministry which are random and can happen anytime, anywhere (the ones most often stopped are the ESF being the most numerous and visible).
Border control police (who stopped the guy from La Tania) are totally random and are rare.
HOWEVER You are, (following this thread) pursuing a totally illegal activity - uninsured - since it is illegal - (even by your employers insurers), and British signed waivers (signed by the clients) will not apply under French law. You are open to French prosecution if there is a serious accident (up to 2 years in jail) - and probably totally underpaid for the job you do (no matter how much fun) and I do see the point of view that says I want to work in the mountains and ski.
Is it worth it?
Depending on the type of control you are subjected to you may not be prosecuted but your employers certainly will be.
Simple answer for you - don’t wear a uniform - refuse - difficult to be seen then! Your employers can’t complain, (illegal etc...) above all if you continue, stay safe, have fun....... hey man have a good season.
Contrary to many posts and popular reporting (as in planet ski etc.).
You are unlikely to be stopped unless there is a specific complaint, which will probably not come from the ESF - too busy and you are not really competition, or you get stopped by a control by the French sports ministry which are random and can happen anytime, anywhere (the ones most often stopped are the ESF being the most numerous and visible).
Border control police (who stopped the guy from La Tania) are totally random and are rare.
It’s not rare in the summer, it’s quite common. I think it would be safer to assume after this case it’ll become more common in the winter too.
Saint - 22 February 2013 08:21 AM
HOWEVER You are, (following this thread) pursuing a totally illegal activity - uninsured - since it is illegal - (even by your employers insurers), and British signed waivers (signed by the clients) will not apply under French law.
No, hold on Unless your policy specifically says you must follow a particular law or forfeit cover then you don’t. You can test this generally with insurance by thinking about a car accident, even if you’re speeding your insurance cover is still in place but you can be sure your premiums are going through the roof. I’d be more concerned about the client insurance which does have provisions for irresponsible behaviour, they could reasonably say using an illegal ski host wasn’t responsible. In fact, I’d be surprised if they didn’t write that in for the future.
Waivers don’t really apply in British law either, you can’t sign away your rights. You need to vote for a government that removes them. I’m fairly sure article 8 if the EHRC won’t allow it either.
Saint - 22 February 2013 08:21 AM
You are open to French prosecution if there is a serious accident (up to 2 years in jail) - and probably totally underpaid for the job you do (no matter how much fun) and I do see the point of view that says I want to work in the mountains and ski.
Is it worth it?
Depending on the type of control you are subjected to you may not be prosecuted but your employers certainly will be.
I don’t think so. There’s no reason an individual can’t be pursued that I can see, it’s just that so far the French have always very fairly gone after the employer except where the person is freelance (so, in case your Crystal ball said to try that ruse, you can knock that on head right away).
Saint - 22 February 2013 08:21 AM
Simple answer for you - don’t wear a uniform - refuse - difficult to be seen then! Your employers can’t complain, (illegal etc...) above all if you continue, stay safe, have fun....... hey man have a good season.
Wearing a different coat is not going to work. I can spot a group, read the dynamics of it and identify the leader from a couple of hundred metres away. It’s not some super-sense, it could be that familiarly with groups and how they behave in the mountains was part of the skill set the French were looking for I can absolutely guarantee that anyone with a practised eye can spot a group and the leader.
Not half “British ski hosts banned by French court” isn’t really an accurate headline, it’s just inflammatory. More accurately, “one ski company, in a case that may later impact others of all nationalities, loses a case they were never going to win about actives that weren’t legal in any other country either and hoping that while making a fuss no one noticed the other laws that other companies might be breaking” although I accept that may need a sub-editor. Maybe, “French courts act to protect anyone that’s qualified for the activity they’re leading” is snappier.
good, I can edit that back to my original now ...
ise - 19 February 2013 08:54 AM
Not half “British ski hosts banned by French court” isn’t really an accurate headline, it’s just inflammatory. More accurately, “one ski company, in a case that may later impact others of all nationalities, loses a case they were never going to win about actives that weren’t legal in any other country either and hoping that while making a fuss no one noticed the other laws that they were breaking” although I accept that may need a sub-editor. Maybe, “French courts act to protect anyone that’s qualified for the activity they’re leading” is snappier.
Just to reply to Sr Member and I’m not really getting picky about any of this… it’s the problem with the written word, Jack had a specific question, I tried to help.
Insurance - for example you are unlikely to get insurance cover for the front of your vehicle if you damage it in a smash and grab raid. I know what you mean but speeding in a car may not be the best example. In Jack’s case wouldn’t it be better to assume he is uninsured for his own benefit?
Prosecution - there is nothing to stop Jack being prosecuted as an individual and illegal ski instructors often are along with the “ski school”. But in the case with Le Ski the individual was not prosecuted just the company.
Uniform - I too can spot an organised group a mile off but some damage limitation is better than wearing a bright company jacket with “arrest me” written in big letters!
I do not condone ski hosting or guiding in it’s present form at all, but I do regard those who are out here in the Alps as exploited by their employers, rather than out and out criminals who should know better.
The Telegraph excerpt says it all really, most employers know they are breaking a perfectly reasonable law and put their own employees at risk by ignoring it.
It’s sad really because with enough common sense and less out and out profiteering everyone including the locals would benefit?
Your own qualifications are admirable and just what is probably required to lead on piste in an on piste environment in a non-teaching capacity. In other words some skiing ability coupled with very good mountain and safety awareness.
I suppose the only issue is the legal one..... Is payment being made for the service you provide?
All ski clubs of just about all types require a membership fee, but after that no payment is made for the club services for teaching and leading on the hill. This fits in with French legislation and so far as I can see SCGB fits this, EXCEPT IN ONE CiRCUMSTANCE...Fresh Tracks.
This is to all extents and purposes a tour operator service with ski guiding (from SCGB members) as part of the paid for package I very much doubt that saying SCGB membership is part of the price paid would be accepted.
Since this is essentially the guiding is a for payment service, can you for example refuse to do this for Fresh Tracks clients so that you fall within French law? If this professional side stops in France then I cannot see a problem for SCGB “guides’. The rest depends on personal opinion as to whether it is a safe and / or desirable practice on that I suppose the jury is out.
Is it not the case that tour operators are able to start their own ski clubs with only members able to be guided on an unpaid basis in resort. This case still smacks of the French Protectionism that has always been evident in the ski industry sometimes supported by those who can work in France one wya or another. Although I am critical of TO guiding standards they do provide a service valued by many clients some of whom have noone of similar standard to ski with. Some people will move on to different countries their is no doubt. Clients cannot afford 350/400 euros a day to be shown the pistes of the 3 valleys by a guide for a day. It would seem to me safer for an on piste guided group rather than a lone skier with no knowledge of a ski area. SCGB are offering litte more than TO’s. SCGB do go off-piste which is a sacking offence for a guide. There seems to be no easy answer to this problem.
I’d be interested, because I’m nosey, to see the detail of the advice the Ski Club have received about this. They seem confident they are volunteers but I doubt it’s anything like as simple as their public statements suggest. But, it could be they’ve a few hundred pages of legal opinion complete with past precedents and similar cases. Or, it could be they haven’t I suppose.
It’s ironic that part of the TO scam is to claim that accommodation is part of the payment their employees include while the Ski Club claim it’s just a reimbursement of an out of pocket expense as I understand it. I thought the general position in France for taxation at least was that accommodation was a benefit in kind but I’m not sure how that fits here. Not very important but slightly funny.
I can’t see this working for long though for several reasons. First, I think a TO will find a number of takers if they offer internships, unpaid positions to ski host a couple days per week in return for expanses, lift pass, accommodation and travel etc. In economic terms they’re already paying nothing. Second, there will be some people now using the Ski Club guiding service that weren’t before, I think you can sure of that and it’s just a question of how many people that is. If either of those happens in any amount I assume there’ll be some questions about clubs and commercial activities and precisely what the difference is. David mentioned the Eagles earlier, they look like a club in a way that the Ski Club doesn’t no matter what your opinion of the Ski Club is.
What is the crux of the Ski Club argument? That the leaders are unpaid or that it’s a club? Or both? There’s an obvious scam already operating with clubs existing so their instructors can teach in France without holding the normal qualification. This can look like a house of cards that’s going to fall down. At the least, I think the Ski Club are in a really tricky position, if they start taking any number of guests from the TO hosting program they could get some scrutiny they don’t want. I don’t think it’s anything like as clear cut as they suggest, I think what they’re really saying is not more than their planned defence and they’ll need their day in court to find out if they’re right.
The Ski Club training is no doubt excellent but it’s not recognised and it’s not going to be. So if they find themselves as volunteers providing the same service, or higher, to the same recreational skiers as the TO’s did then I think they ought to be worried because basically nothing’s changed. What they’re doing looks nothing like a trip made by a other ski clubs.
I’ll bet some TO will be offering to provide accommodation for ski club leaders
Is it not the case that tour operators are able to start their own ski clubs with only members able to be guided on an unpaid basis in resort.
We just crossed there. I think someone will try that.
macca1 - 24 February 2013 06:35 PM
It would seem to me safer for an on piste guided group rather than a lone skier with no knowledge of a ski area.
I think that’s an important point. As someone working on the mountain I am sure that your statement isn’t true. Group dynamics are such that we know for a fact that groups with inexperienced leaders are more dangerous for members than being on their own. This is a fundamental pillar of what leadership is all about really. And there’s no reason at all that a guy going on holiday should need to think about things in this way which is part of the point being made I think. As is the fact that hosts from TO’s don’t have any understanding of this. At the simplest, people delegate responsibility to a leader so the leader needs to be competent. (You do, I do, everyone does, it’s perfectly fine, there’s nothing wrong, the only thing wrong is kidding yourself it’s not true for yourself).
I’ve seen someone comment that if someone can’t find their way around the mountain on their own then they do need a lesson. I’m not quite comfortable with that but it’s an arguable point. At the same time, lessons currently don’t deliver that training. Certainly ESF won’t, it’s just a different mindset. I took a totally French group out yesterday and they were delightful but, compared to some British clients, far less bothered about acquiring skills to head off on their own in future. My Brits want to know how to read avalanche bulletins, use the gear, test snow stability, navigate etc etc.
A number of the anecdotes from people who like the hosting service actually tell stories of conduct be the host that really is unacceptable. Others produce stories that say hosting with company X is good but company Y is terrible and, yet again, that’s the point isn’t it? How to stop being unlucky and getting that bad host?
Unless your policy specifically says you must follow a particular law or forfeit cover then you don’t. You can test this generally with insurance by thinking about a car accident, even if you’re speeding your insurance cover is still in place but you can be sure your premiums are going through the roof. I’d be more concerned about the client insurance which does have provisions for irresponsible behaviour, they could reasonably say using an illegal ski host wasn’t responsible. In fact, I’d be surprised if they didn’t write that in for the future.
