Archive for May, 2007
By Sarah - Thursday, May 31st, 2007
The million dollar question, that people often ask at networking events I attend, is how to boost employee morale. Some people may say what do I care - well statistics show that unhappy employees means less productivity, more sickness and lateness and less pride in their work. We often see these in the employment law issues we deal with and often there is an underlying problem. It can be nothing to do with work but often the cause is that the employee is unhappy. Here at PJH Law we like to think of us all being happy, which is mirrored by our sickness record, which is pretty darn good. (touch wood) Having had experience of working at many types of offices and factories since I left school I would like to think that I have some simple remedies to make a happy workforce. These are the simple things we do at PJH, which were missing at other places where I worked.
1. Have an open door policy so employees can talk to you if there is an issue;
2. Involve employees in as much as possible and give them responsibility as this makes them feel part of the business;
3. Ensure any new recruits fit well in the team to avoid personality clashes;
4. Reward employees for their extra effort but be careful not to encourage competition between them;
5. Finally, the cheapest one of all is to say Thank you!
It does not sound like rocket science but you would be suprised the reaction that some of these ideas get from some companies I talk to. I am sure we could come up with a much longer list so if anyone else has anything to add as a suggestion let us have your comments.
Posted in Uncategorized | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Liam - Wednesday, May 30th, 2007
The Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations first came in to force in April 2005 in respect of organisations with 150 or more employees. Since April 2007, the Regulations have applied to employers with 100 or more employees. From April next year the Regulations will apply to employers with 50 or more employees.
In Amicus v Macmillan Publishers Ltd, the Central Arbitration Committee has upheld a complaint that the employers breached the Regulations by not balloting employees following an employee request. The employer argued that it had a pre-existing agreement in place. However, the Agreement did not cover all employees in the undertaking. Those readers of this blog who, like me, were sufficiently boring to read the regulations in full when they first came out, will know that a pre-existing agreement only gets you out of negotiating an Agreement under the ICE Regulations if the pre-existing agreement covers all employees in the undertaking. Macmillan had several sites, but their pre-existing arrangements only covered one site.
Macmillan could now be up for a penalty of up to £75,000.00 for breach of the Regulations.
Posted in Information and Consultation | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Sarah - Tuesday, May 29th, 2007
S was summoned to a meeting with his managing director. The meeting was opened by his employer telling him that he was dismissed. By the end of the meeting it has been agreed that he would remain employed for four months keeping some of his benefits during this period. The parties signed a letter the same day which stated “We hereby agree that we terminate your contract”. The question for the Tribunal is whether it was unfair dismissal or a resignation. The Tribunal found that although it started as a dismissal, in fact he negotiated a better position and as such he had resigned! They rejected his unfair dismissal claim. The EAT upheld this decision but the Court of Appeal overturned it saying that he had been dismissed and it could simply not be argued that he negotiated freely. He did his best to salvage a bad situation.
Posted in Unfair Dismissal | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Sarah - Friday, May 25th, 2007
Once again Alan Sugar has caused controversy with his comments about the single mum on his show who was missing her daughter and home sick. He said work and the business have to come first, which of course many employers would agree with just before he sacked her. The Apprentice as I understand it (whilst not an avid viewer myself) means that contestants have to stay away from home for the duration of the show and have little contact with their families. As previous winner Tim said this morning on the BBC breakfast couch he had to have short-term pain for a long term gain goal.
For some people this is not so short term and people (traditionally women) have to juggle work and home life on a daily basis. The million dollar question is how do you strike the perfect work/life balance? Nobody seems to have the answer to this question. People say the child’s early years are the most important but this can apply equally if you are setting up in business. Those with senior roles or owner managers also have the increased stress that goes with the long hours culture. Media images bombard us with mothers like Angelina Jolie who have careers, happy marraige, lovely home and many children. They appear to have it all. What we don’t see however is the reality that she probably has a team of people nannies, cooks, cleaners, gardeners etc etc running the show behind the scenes. This all comes with the superstar lifestyle but for us ordinary working folk this is not reality nor a possibility.
So can we really have it all? Successful career, family, health, happy marriage/partnership and perfect home. I think not! We can have degrees of a bit of everything but in reality nothing is perfect, you cannot have it all and something has got to give.
Research has shown that many of us at one time or another in our lives will want to work flexibly which is part of the Government’s long term plan to give us all (regardless of family circumstances) the right to request to work flexibly. This is likely to be our right within the next few years but will it work and bring us more of a work/life balance - what do you think?
Posted in Family Friendly | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Thursday, May 24th, 2007
When Mr Rumsfeld was asked about the Iraq invasion and the militant insurgence, he told the questioner when planning the Iraq war, there are “the known knowns, the known unknowns, and the unknown unknowns.” This phraseology was subject to much derision by the UK media, but really all Rumsfeld was doing was articulating any planner’s limitation when planning or predicting the future. The scale and force of the militant insurgency was for Rumsfeld, an unknown unknown, that could not be foreseen prior to the invasion therefore by inference the Bush/Blair Iraq invasion was sunk by an insurgency that could not be predicted. Or put simply, it was not my fault gov.
Very interesting, you might say, but what’s this got to do with employment law? Every client with an employment law case wants to know the prospects of success, preferably giving numerical odds. I always have to suppress a wry smile when I hear, as I have heard, a Barrister sagely opine that a case has 54% prospects of success. Another case, an eminent QC said my client had a 25% prospects of success. Of course as it turned out both predictions were wildly out.
In a Tribunal case, you base your prediction on, probably without realising it, known/knowns, and known/unknowns. The known knowns are the facts that are agreed and any settled law that can be applied to those facts. The known unknowns are any conflicts of evidence and which way they are likely to be resolved. Another known/unknown is the fact that a tribunal is an industrial jury and built into the system is the acceptance that two different industrial juries could come to the opposite conclusions on the same evidence. When you explain this to clients the usual reaction is “well it’s a bloody lottery isn’t it?” At which point you valiantly defend the system, but concede that any system of law involving judgment by human beings does have, how shall we say, an element of chance.
What’s even more difficult, if not impossible, is quantifying the probabilities in any case of unknown unknowns. Two cases that I have been involved with have had previously rosy prospects torpedoed by the deaths in one case, before the hearing, and, in another case, during the hearing, of key witnesses. Absolutely tragic for the witnesses and their families but fatal to my carefully worked out prospects of success. Tribunals like witnesses to be sworn in and their evidence tested by cross examination. Very difficult when the witness is pushing up daisies.Two deaths of key witnesses in fifteen years, how can you factor that into any calculation of prospects? Another unknown unknown is that the law might change during a case. The Court of Appeal may, for instance, overturn an EAT judgment you were relying on to support your advice and prospects of success opinion. Another extremely difficult one to predict.
Therefore in giving advice I say to my client that my judgement is that you will win (or lose) but there are factors of which I have no control over that may alter the outcome. If I am wrong and you lose (or win) the downside (or upside) is as follows. Cases, like life, can be very predictable but also very unpredictable.
Getting back to what Mr Rumsfeld said about the insurgency in Iraq being an unknown/unknown, if you cast your mind back in time, by reading the Commons debate ,the fact that Iraq would descend into chaos was widely predicted at the time by many people from all shades of political opinion.Mr Rumsfeld is someone many people would like to cross-examine.
Posted in Employment Tribunal Procedure | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Sarah - Wednesday, May 23rd, 2007
A survey I found on the internet today shows that 56% of us think racism is getting worse. 1 in 5 people have witnessed racial discrimination and almost 1/3 have experienced sexual discrimination. 3/4 of people surveyed think employers are responsible for educating employees about racism, sexism and ageism issues. 62% think training at work can change people’s attitudes. Even from an employment lawyer’s point of view the statistics are suprising as we act for a range of employers who thankfully do not have many issues. Perhaps it is their training on the issue that increases awareness. Of course we are more than happy to assist in this regard whether it be via face to face training or our e-learning product “Dignity at Work” designed specifically to deal with these issues.
Posted in Sex/Race Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Tuesday, May 22nd, 2007
Well my post yesterday got some attention state side. The power of t’interweb eh?
I had never been to USA until last year. Whoever said life began at 40 got it spot on.
I went twice: first to New York, then later in the year to Chicago. Spread over 41 years, my carbon footprint is respectable.
3 very random things I loved about America:
1. I got treated like an adult. For example I went to the Guggenheim museum. Unlike museums over here, the art work was not fenced off by rope. They trust people not to put their sticky maws on the picture. You could get up real close to the pictures, without fear of a bureaucrat telling you off.
I also went to watch a baseball game. Not only were you allowed to drink beer while watching, but they also served you at your seat and thoughfully put a glass holder in the seat in front of you. UK football grounds take note.
2. They really take breakfast seriously. Not a quick bite on the way to work or before the school run, but a proper plate full with eggs done to your exact specification, hash browns, bacon, you name it they had it. A big breakfast would see you through the day. Contrary to my prejudice, judging by NY and Chicago, the UK has a bigger obesity problem.
3. Lack of cynicism.People were genuinely friendly and polite. I was half expecting brash and vulgar. Instead people were genuinely pleased to meet you and interested in you.
I know in the UK and EU it is politically correct to see the US as the big satan but I love it and I can’t wait to go back.
Naff all to do about employment law but a link from US stirred something within, which I thought I’d share.
Posted in Miscellaneous | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Monday, May 21st, 2007
When you are in a narrow, specialist field like employment law it is important that you have hobbies and interests outside your technical area. You need to be well rounded, well read, and street-wise. To be an employment lawyer you need to have deductive and inductive reasoning skills.
Deductive skills come from your knowledge of law, while inductive skills come from your life experience. Law does not operate in a vacuum. You therefore need a fair amount of life experience to make sound judgements.
As a student I did spend a fair amount of time studying philosophy. Is philosophy relevant to my job? A Philosopher’s work is to try to obtain truths that are universal and apply down the ages.
Taking one philosopher at random from two hundred years ago, how relevant is Schopenhauer’ s pithy writing today?
Well many of Schopenhaeur’s sayings are as relevant today as they were 200 years ago. For instance:
This saying could apply to your annual wage bargain:
Wealth is like sea-water; the more we drink, the thirstier we become..
Why experience always trumps youth could be explained by the following:
Of all the intellectual faculties, judgment is the last to mature.
And
The first forty years of life give us the text; the next thirty supply the commentary on it.
The job of a personnel manager is to identify and nurture talent and, if possible, employ geniuses, or:
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Age Discrimination laws were partly introduced to ensure older workers were utilised in the workplace, rather than being deemed by employers as unproductive too early. Schopenhaeur was more concise:
Just remember, once you’re over the hill you begin to pick up speed
Concise well written prose is important as:
He who writes carelessly makes first and foremost the confession that he himself does not place any great value on his thoughts.
And
A word too much always defeats its purpose
Stress could be managed in this way:
I’ve never know any trouble that an hour’s reading didn’t assuage
And, dear reader, he even knew why this blog has a small but select readership:
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience
Thanks for reading, until tomorrow.
Posted in Miscellaneous | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Sarah - Friday, May 18th, 2007
On the 1st of June 2007 PJH Law will celebrate its 5th birthday and to mark the occasion we have a number of exciting announcements. We are pleased to announce that PJH Law will become a partnership. Sarah will become a partner on 1 June 2007. As a partner she will be known as Sarah King, her married name. We are also pleased to announce that Liam has been promoted to Associate Solicitor with responsibility for driving forward our IT strategy and penetrating further the e-learning market. Congratulations to Sarah and Liam. Our new website and corporate identity is also launched on 1 June. So watch this space for the exciting new website!
Posted in PJH Law News | 1 comment »
Similar Posts:
By Liam - Thursday, May 17th, 2007
This Firm has been approached and asked to present a session on the subject of the Work and Families Act 2006 at the Law Society’s head office in Chancery Lane. As this post is written, Sarah is currently in London setting up for the session.
Sarah will shortly be uploading a podcast on this topic, so subscribe to this blog’s RSS feed (by clicking on the RSS feed button below) if you want to know as soon as the podcast has been uploaded!
Posted in Family Friendly, Maternity, PJH Law News, Paternity and Adoption Leave | No comments »
Similar Posts:
