May 20th, 2008 by Philip
The case reported here illustrates the difficulty Tribunals can get into when faced with two issues:
- The statutory dismissal procedure (aka rebarbative and soon to be redundant)
- The unrepresented Claimant.
In this case the Claimant had not put forward the claim that the statutory procedure was not followed in her ET1 but perhaps picked up on the idea during the hearing, following interventions by the Tribunal. The EAT in Scotland ruled that the right to appeal against dismissal only has to be communicated, but there is no requirement under the statutory procedure for such communication to be in writing.
Most employers would be best advised to wear belts and braces and communicate the right of appeal in writing in the dismissal letter. By putting the right of appeal in writing any subsequent point about what was and was not communicated during the meeting is neutered. Neutered points bear no fruit.
The EAT also makes some interesting observations about how parties without representation should be treated during the hearing.
Posted in Employment Tribunal Procedure, Redundancy, Statutory Procedures | No comments »
Similar Posts:
May 19th, 2008 by Philip
Last week was quite a busy week for news - what with natural disasters in China and Burma, the 10p tax u turn and a speech setting out the legislative intentions of the government.
One piece of news that may have been overlooked was the news that parents of children up to the age of 16 will have the right to request flexible working.
The BERR press release is here Some factoids which may be of interest:
- The changes will be introduced in one go.
- Small businesses have a better run rate at accepting requests than big business, no doubt because small business are inherently more flexible and have to have the ability to make changes quickly and without fuss.
- 91% of requests were granted. (that is a higher run rate than I expected)
- 45% of succesful requestees (is there such a word?) were men.
Posted in Family Friendly | No comments »
Similar Posts:
May 16th, 2008 by Philip
Is an employee entitled to a redundancy payment where a suitable offer of alternative employment has been made. It’s a shame that this area of law is tricky as it involves making decisions about whether to stay with an employer or claim a redundancy payment, either decision potentially having a big financial impact on the employee.
It’s a shame also that sometimes employers cloud the waters by refusing to pay a redundancy payment and applying a rigidly objective test, rather than looking at the issue through the eyes of the particular employee.
In essence there is a two stage test was the offer “suitable,” if so was it unreasonable to turn the offer down?
In practice the issue revolves around whether the test is objective or subjective, in terms of suitability and unreasonabless.
I would urge you to read this case as it sets out the relevant case law and summarises the principles involved.
Posted in Redundancy Payment | No comments »
Similar Posts:
May 14th, 2008 by Sarah
We are pleased to announce that we will shortly be moving to new office premises. With effect from 2nd June 2008, we will be moving to 16 Wharf Road, Stamford, PE9 2EB. Our email addresses and website address will remain unchanged. Our phone number of 0870 350 5805 and the fax on 0870 350 5806 will also remain unchanged. For those of you using the old 01780 local number this will be changing to 0870 350 5805.
Formal communciations are to be sent to all clients, former clients and suppliers in the next week or so.
Posted in PJH Law News | No comments »
Similar Posts:
May 12th, 2008 by Emma
Recent research has shown that agency workers stay in their jobs for under 5 months so few would benefit from the CBI’s proposals that agency workers should be given equal treatment with directly employed staff.
See here for more.
Posted in Miscellaneous | No comments »
Similar Posts:
May 9th, 2008 by Liam
In Miles v Linkage Community Trust Limited, the EAT have held that employers do not infringe the Working Time Regulations in failing to give employees a daily rest break of 11 hours duration unless and until the employee objects to the failure to give such a break. Once the employee asserts his right to the break and is declined that right, the employer infringes the Working Time Regulations.
In Miles, the Tribunal held, and the EAT agreed, that it is possible for no award to be made even though a finding of breach of the regulations had been made.
This decision does seem to remove the teeth from the WTR, although as long as the Tribunal has a discretion to make an award (which it does) this should prevent flagrant breaches of the regulations.
Posted in Working Time Regs | No comments »
Similar Posts:
May 8th, 2008 by Liam
The EAT have recently heard an appeal from an Appellant that the Tribunal considered to be “delusional” after he claimed that his dismissal was brought about by Jehovah’s Witnesses “spreading rumours about his sexuality; preventing witnesses from assisting him; installing secret cameras in changing rooms and in his room; falsely imprisoning him in a Psychiatric Hospital; and showing the tapes to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair.”
The Tribunal ordered a report in to the Claimant’s mental capacity to represent himself. The claimant appealed on a number of grounds including that:
- The Tribunal did not have the right to enquire in to his mental health
- The “Chairperson ruled after “PHR” that Respondent pays compensation for allegations they are guilty of. She concluded that we await her order to that effect. Claim was not stayed. Judgment is in total variance to what transpired during the hearing. Therefore a forgery.”
The EAT upheld the appeal relating to the Tribunal’s power to enquire in to his mental health. It held that the Tribunal had no right to so enquire. However, the Claimant’s appeal that the judgment was a forgery and that instead of staying the claim it awarded him compensation failed. There was no evidence to support this contention!
Posted in Funnies | No comments »
Similar Posts:
May 7th, 2008 by Emma
Lord Woolf’s report published yesterday which reviewed BAE’s current policies and practices found that there were no ethical standards embedded in the company. BAE is now to appoint an ethics monitor to oversee a new code of conduct at the company.
The report stated that “critically, both the chairman and the chief executive, in discussions with us, acknowledged that the company did not in the past pay sufficient attention to ethical standards and avoid activities that had the potential to give rise to reputational damage”.
It seems pretty shocking that such a huge company has had no code of ethical standards in place up to now and one wonders whether they would be taking the action they are taking had it not been for the recommendation of this report so to do.
For a summary of the report see here.
Posted in Miscellaneous | No comments »
Similar Posts:
May 6th, 2008 by Sarah
The BBC has revealed stats to show that 137 employers were caught in March and April this year for employing illegal immigrants. This is double the figure caught in 2007 and double the number of prosecutions than over the past decade. In the past two months over £500,000 has been handed out in fines.
You can read the full story here
We reported back in early March that the laws had changed and that the change could affect HR directors and land companies in hot water. It would seem not everyone reads our blog! If you are worried about your business immigration policy or lack of, give us a call. We also have experience of compliance for what were Home Office audits.
Posted in Business Immigration | No comments »
Similar Posts:
May 2nd, 2008 by Sarah
Following the proposed changes to the statutory disciplinary and grievance procedures, ACAS have issued a revised Code of Practice. Consultation opens until 25th July so employers have your say here
Employment Tribunals will be using the final version for guidance so have your say now!
Posted in Statutory Procedures | No comments »
Similar Posts:
Page 1 of 4512345»...Last »
