Well I’ve been practising employment law since 1992, acting for both employers and employees, with that amount of experience I’ve seen and heard it all. For example cases I have been involved in include:
Someone dismissed for cr**ping in a colleague’s lunch box and then leaving that lunch box in his colleague’s desk drawer.
Someone dismissed for smearing the gent’s toilet walls with the same stuff that hits fans.
Every shade and degree of allegations of sexual and racial harassment, including video footage of an “excited” male “appendage” being sent by phone to a female employee.
Cases involving as many variations on the fiddled expense claim/timesheet as is humanly imaginable.
The hearing that started with a call from the Chairman saying he’d gone to the wrong venue (50 miles away) and would be with us by lunchtime.
The Chairman who started a case involving smoking illegal substances at work, with the line, “In my day a man could be discharged for passing the port the wrong way at dinner.”
And so on, I could (and probably do) bore you for hours with tales from the employment coal face, gathered over the years. I am pretty much unshockable. If an employee is accused of a serious criminal offence at work, I raise an eyebrow but am no longer surprised. People are fallible and dishonest, that’s part of the human condition.
Well today when opening the post, I was thinking business as usual, as I ran my finger under an envelope bearing the Central London Employment Tribunal post stamp - given its weight and A4 size, it must be a decision I assumed.
Well that assumption certainly made a kicking mule out of me, as lo and behold , what did we have but an ET1 against PJH Law Solicitors. Well that caused not one but two eyebrows to be raised.
Before you jump to any conclusions, this claim isn’t from a disgruntled employee or ex-employee of PJH Law but from a person (I’m tempted to call him serial litigant but couldn’t possibly, but you may wish to draw that inference) who brought a claim against an employer client of ours. That resulted in a costs award being made against the claimant, let’s call him Mr U. Those of you lucky enough to hear Sarah’s session at our update seminar last week, will have heard an outline of that case’s details.
Anyway the claim against PJH Law is because Mr U now believes PJH law victimised him in our (or should I say Sarah’s) robust defence of our client against Mr U’s vexatious claim and the aftermath.
It gets better not only has Mr U brought a claim against PJH Law, he has also brought a claim against the barrister PJH Law engaged at the costs application hearing. When I rang the Barrister to tell him about this claim, he did ask what Mr U was now complaining about, I won’t tell you what I said in full but the edited highlights are that I said in my opinion the claim was a big pile of b*****ks.
Some good has come from this though already, as I now know how it feels like to have a completely unmeritorious claim made, my employer empathy tank has been re-plenished.
Rest assured dear readers we will keep you posted as this one unfolds.
On the 1st February the amount for a week’s pay will increase from £310 to £330 for the cap for statutory redundancy and basic award.
This also means that the cap for Unfair Dismissal claims will rise to £63,000 after the 1st February 2008. Not many get to that level in any event unless the employee has long service and high earnings.
Under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, employers can currently be fined up to £5,000.00 for employing an employee who does not have the right to work in this country. It is currently a defence that you checked the identity of the employee to establish whether they have the right to work in this country and kept a copy of a prescribed form of proof of I.D. on file.
Under new proposals, the fine could increase to £10,000.00 for negligently employing someone who does not have the right to work in this country (i.e. for assuming someone has the right to work in this country without actually knowing that in fact they do not). Employers could also face an unlimited fine or imprisonment for knowingly employing someone who does not have the right to work in this country.
When recruiting employees and seeking to comply with the rules on not employing illegal workers, employers must take particular care not to discriminate on the grounds of race/national origin/religion or belief. For example, employers should check the identity of all employees not just those that “don’t look English”.
Despite the common presumption that our labour market is threatened by increasing amounts of foreign workers entering the country and ’stealing’ our jobs, a recent CBI (Confederation of British Industry) Report suggests that the upper end of the labour market is struggling to meet demands. In their quarterly report, the CBI pointed out that there is a shortage of skilled labour in areas such as manufacturing, rather obviously, they pointed out that the shortage could be tackled by investment in training and retraining. Another suggestion made will please the intellectually inclined; a reduction of tuition fees of the STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) subjects is hoped to encourage youngsters to enroll on these demanding and undersubscribed courses.
These are all well-intended ideas but what emerges from both the report and the initiatives are the huge demands placed on the employers themselves. Manufacturers are already reporting increased consumer demand, this is wonderful for the economy but not so wonderful for the small niche manufacturer who can’t find enough engineers to help run their plant. If employers can’t recruit enough staff it would understandably, be unwise for them to think they could take on an increased output and invest in something they could never run.
Potential recruitment problems will have some inevitable knock-on effects of the decision making processes of the employer. We see some of these consequences here at PJH Law with employers carrying out disciplinary procedures up to a certain point but not making the final dismissal decision as they know that they will not be able to find a suitable replacement for the lost labour. In addition, continually losing staff will indicate a lack of a retention policy for the remaining staff thus leading to the staff left wanting to leave the business too. All this, in a worst case scenario, will trap the employer in a nasty downward spiral. It has been suggested that employers can prevent losing staff if they ensure that they have suitable training and retraining systems in place so that the staff they do have are efficient and effective; for a large manufacturing employer this might not be too difficult to implement, however for the smaller firms out there it could be rather expensive to pay for the suggested suitable training of the small workforce that they employ.
On top of all these concerns and the suggested increases in spending, the CIB are also suggesting that manufacturers get out to schools and educational institutions and encourage the youth of today to take STEM subjects by demonstrating how skills learned from such courses will lead to a real-life career…as if they didn’t already have enough on their plates!
The increasing rivalry between Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton is not only making the front pages but also seems to be giving their boss, Ron Dennis, McLaren Mercedes Team Principal, a bit of a headache. I can hardly say I’m surprised. Rivalry and disputes in the workplace can be like petty childrens’ squabbles in the playground and just like every good teacher, bosses should put an end to them as soon as possible, sometimes even before they have begun.
Promoting internal competition in some, small way can be healthy; seperates the wheat from the chaff a few might say. However, I am more of the opinion that managers who set individual targets and slap the backs of those outperforming others, are only digging themselves a rather large hole.
Yes, certainly, most jobs have the requirement of being personally motivated and driven, slightly competitive at a push, we would never get anywhere if there was no incentive for everybody to acheive something but, at the same time, competition can all too quickly develop into a consuming sense of rivalry if workers are set targets against each other. Squaring up to someone at the desk next to you can easily lead to stress, dirty tactics and unhappiness for either party, not to mention the headache for the boss.
The unhappiness of even just one team member can cause the downfall in productivity of an entire group. No one likes working opposite a sad face. Smiles all round is the way forward. There is enough competition and back-stabbing outside of a company for workers to deal with without them having to face it inside the office too. Eliminate internal competition and you get happiness, get happiness and you quickly find increased productivity which logically leads to increased profit. Now profit; profit makes everybody smile :-)
Well on Saturday I took my 14 year old son (and friend) to Wembley to watch Muse. As it’s a quiet employment law day, readers might find a review of interest.
Getting there:
Wembley always was a pain to get to - it still is. We had a cunning plan, drive to Stanmore then take a tube four stops to Wembley Park. This plan was thwarted by those even more cunning Transport For Planning work schedulers who had decided that last weekend was a good time to do maintenance. Doh! Luckily they laid on a bus but what should have been a fifteen minute journey took 45 minutes. Walking along Wembley way, particularly on the way out, reminded me of walking through a mine field of (police) horse poo. The police horses were lovely though!
The Stadium
Visually impressive. Signage needs some work as it was difficult to know which entrance to use and the stewards were not helpful. Bags checked on the way in and bottle tops taken off any bottles. My camera made it through though. Having eaten enough pies at football grounds to last a lifetime (and with a waistline to prove it) I took a pack up. Thoughtfully there were picnic tables provided which meant we could enjoy our meal in relative comfort. The food on offer, although pricey, looked a notch above normal football fare. The bars were plentiful ( with very short queues) and you could take your drink in (£3.60 a pint).
Our seats were plastic but with a foam covering which meant they were very comfortable. There was even a drinks holder. in the seat in front. Architecturally the stadium is impressive. It will be interesting to go back in 5 years, after say a couple of Man U v Liverpool finals, to see whether the stadium wears well.
The music
In short:
Gabriela and Roderigo: Excellent Mexican guitarists who even managed an acoustic version of Stairway to Heaven.
Dirty pretty things Long on attitude and rock and roll swagger, short on discernable talent and a hummable tune.
The Streets A cross between Billy Bragg and Eminem. Surprisingly good and got the crowd doing Mexican Waves.
Muse Can see why critics think they are the number one live act. Awesome.
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.
Well this is the first post on the new blog and I thought a rant about “The Apprentice” was in order. First the context, BBC, ITV and Channel 4 have served up an increasing amount of mind mush telly. Reality shows are everywhere: celebrity: dog walking, dog training, horse riding, haircutting, singing, farm working, big brother. The list goes on. All these programmes have one thing in common. Their aim is to show how much celebrities are just like you and me and in their Joe Public counterpart programmes show how normal people can be extraordinary. You just need to think for a moment or two about Jade Goodey and her mum to have the thought ”freaks of nature, ” cross your mind. As for that “lady” pleasuring a pig, well what’s the country coming to when that’s served up for prime time viewing.
The Apprentice is the BBC’s attempt to bring business to the public. Who do they get to front the show? Well you would have thought someone with a track record of innovation and business success, with a modern business outlook and well honed interpersonal skills would have been a good start. The guy who invented, marketed and sold Dyson hoovers for example, or the man who turned around M and S fortune, or the woman in charge of the LSE.
Instead we get good old Sir Alan Sugar, pantomine villain extraordinaire. Anyone remember his last market leading product? Know anyone who’s bought one?No thought not. Shareholders only need to look at the three year share price graph for Amstrad to note its uncanny resemblance to the cresta run. This is the man for whom the adjectives abrasive, rude, and boorish were invented. Not really the sort of man to hold up as a paragon of British business. Guess he’s a marginal improvement on the comically bewigged coiffeured Donald Trump who stars in The Apprentice stateside.
Don’t get me started on the contestants. Vain, aggressive wannabees whose only skill appears to be relentless self-promotion and preening. Business is far too important for this country to allow the BBC to reduce it to this level of muppetry.
Following on from last week’s post about our TUPE podcast, we thought we would tell you about our Age Discrimination podcast. Just click play below to listen to the podcast (audio only - no picture). The slides to accompany the podcast can be obtained from here.
