 |
 |
By Philip - Thursday, November 30th, 2006
Those of you wondering what to do with that MP3 player that Santa brings, could do alot worse than download the PJH Law Employment Law Podcast. The podcasts are short but informative and are downloadable here http://www.pjhlaw.co.uk/podcast.htm
We are also offering a special Christmas gift to the first person who comments on this post.
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Wednesday, November 29th, 2006
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that Tribunals should not opt out of their duty to make Polkey reductions to compensatory awards just because the task is a difficult one and may involve ’speculation’. The decision in full is not yet available.
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Tuesday, November 28th, 2006
No doubt when the Age Discrimination laws were proposed and implemented, Trade Unions were pleased that their wish about further rights in the work place for employees was being granted. As the Age Discrimination Regs implement an EU Directive, the UK Government was obliged to amend or repeal any existing legislation that was age discriminatory. One such piece of legislation that was deemed discriminatory and amended was the statutory instrument governing Local Authority pensions. The end result was that the Rule of 85 which allowed local authority employees to retire on a full pension has been abolished. The Rule of 85 allowed employees to retire on a full pension if their age and service added up to 85 or more. The Trade Unions challenged this abolition by Judicial Review, but the High Court ruled that the government was within its rights to remove the rule. The moral of the story, be careful what you wish for!
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Monday, November 27th, 2006
Ignorance and prevarication can be costly! The Court of Appeal have recently had to wrestle with the thorny issue of confidentiality. An employee with an express term of confidentiality in his contract left one employer to go to work for another employer, a competitor. The former employer’s Solicitors wrote to the new employer requesting an undertaking from the new employer to the effect that the new employer would not do anything to encourage the employee to breach the confidentiality clause. The new employer ignored the first letter and said that it was investigating the matter, in reply to a second letter. The old employer applied for an injunction, the undertakings were then given and the Court of Appeal held that the new employer was responsible for all the legal costs incurred by the old employer in applying for an injunction.
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Friday, November 24th, 2006
The Government has just announced an inflation busting increase to statutory redundancy payments up from £290.00 to £310.00, and unfair dismissal compensation up from £58,400 to £60,600.00, effective from 1 February 2007. All the info is here http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20063045.htm
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Friday, November 24th, 2006
A recent case in the Court of Appeal is a reminder to all employers that what is written in an employee handbook can create a binding legal commitment. The Employer in that case were subsequently committed to paying enhanced severance payments on redundancy. The learning point is if an employer does wish to state anything about redundancy payments in an employee handbook to make sure that no commitment is made and that the level of redundancy payment will be determined at each individual redundancy exercise. The case does beg the question, why make any reference to redundancy in an employee handbook?
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Thursday, November 23rd, 2006
The number of claims that were accepted in 2005-2006 at the Employment Tribunal rose by 33% to 115,039 claims. 60% of cases settled or were withdrawn before a Tribunal hearing which is slightly down on the year before. 21% of cases were for Unfair Dismissal. The average award for Unfair Dismissal was £8,500 with Discrimination cases coming in with an average of £10,000 - £30,000. Food for thought!
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Wednesday, November 22nd, 2006
In Commerzbank AG v Keen the Court of Appeal has held that the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 can not be used by an employee to argue that a contractual provision that he was required to be in employment when a bonus was paid was unfair. The Act only applies where one party is dealing as a consumer and the other deals on its standard terms of business. The Court of Appeal held an employee does not deal as a consumer and an employment contract does not constitute standard terms of business.
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Tuesday, November 21st, 2006
A secretary at Everton FC with 17 year’s service lost her claim for Unfair Dismissal last week. She sent indecent photos through the premiereship club’s e-mail system which included the club’s logo. In her defence she said she needed protecting from seeing the club’s players walking around naked in the clubhouse when she went to get her coffee and she was not aware how serious sending indecent photos was!
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Monday, November 20th, 2006
The Law Society is submitting a submission to the Government’s review of statutory dismissal and grievance procedures. Anyone who has finished watching the paint dry interested in Solicitors’ views on how they find the new procedures can find the submission Download here.pdf
Similar Posts:
