I don’t believe it!

Happenings in the employment field always leave me with a ‘Victor Meldrew’ moment. Here are samples of the remarkable decisions of some people charged with the duty of managing others.

A former mayor has successfully sued her council for discrimination after she was banned from breast-feeding while using the official limousine.
When Pauleen Lane, became mayor of Trafford council in Greater Manchester, she was told she would not be able to use the mayoral Volvo to take her baby son with her to official engagements. She was told to drive behind in her own car, while an attendant travelled in the limousine with the official chain of office. Ms Lane sued the council for sex discrimination, arguing that a male mayor would not have received such treatment.
Judge Christopher Tetlow awarded her £7,000 in damages at Bury county court and the council was told to pay the legal costs, estimated at up to £170,000.
Ms Lane welcomed the ruling but the Conservative-run council accused the Labour councillor of showing a "complete disregard" for the people of the borough by depriving them of money which could have been spent on services.

Couldn’t anyone see this coming?

A SCOTTISH law firm has blamed Sir Alan Sugar's television programme The Apprentice for the growing number of people taking their bosses to an employment tribunal. Sir Alan's catchphrase on the show - "You're fired!" - is being copied by macho employers, landing thousands of employers in expensive legal action, claims the firm.

Employment law specialist John Muir, of Muir Myles Laverty which is based in Dundee, believes that Sir Alan, who is reportedly worth more than £800 million, has sparked a wave of copycat bosses that have landed themselves facing legal action. Mr Muir said: "Since The Apprentice came on TV, we've seen a massive rise in dismissals in which employers or bosses apparently emulate or copy Sir Alan Sugar's methods. There is no doubt about it. It has resulted in a series of unfair dismissal applications to employment tribunals."

Employment law requires certain procedures to be adhered to in dismissing an employee. An investigation in the first instance should be followed by a disciplinary hearing. If that hearing finds in favour of dismissal the employee should be given an opportunity to appeal.

17 September - BT worker loses unfair dismissal claim for phone scam

A BT call centre manager, involved in a multi-million pound Ministry of Defence call-handling scam, has lost her claim for unfair dismissal.

Five employees were dismissed over their part in the scheme which involved staff making false calls to each other to assist the team in meeting their targets for answering calls within a certain time limit. Millions of calls were made over a 6 year period in order to help BT avoid paying a £30,000 monthly penalty to the MoD and to ensure staff reached bonus-related targets.

Anne McHugh from Aintree admitted instructing staff to make the calls and was dismissed from her job as manager of the St Helens call centre. She told an employment tribunal: “I felt that I had to go along with it even though I didn’t agree with it. I did know it was fraud but who did I report it to? I am a single mum of two children – I didn’t want to lose my job.”

A BT report handed to the tribunal as evidence states: “It stands very much to reason that bullying and intimidation was the force which ‘kept the lid’ on this matter for so many years – a truly shameful situation in a company which prides itself on its business ethics and publicly denounces such behaviour.”

Workers questioned about their involvement said they felt pressure from managers to take part in the scam and that employees were threatened with action under the Official Secrets Act if they dissented.

If this is true they deserve all they get!

Three Rs could land bosses in the dock testing applicants' basic reading and writing skills could land employers in court.

The warning follows a landmark case, mentioned in my blog (Olleh, Olleh, Olleh) which ruled mild forms of dyslexia to be considered as a disability. In July, Chief Inspector David Paterson won his case against the Metropolitan Police for their failure to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate his disability - particularly in relation to an examination for promotion.
An initial employment tribunal ruled he was not disabled but this was overturned on appeal. A further tribunal will now take place to rule whether his claim for disability discrimination succeeds.

Marcus Difelice, partner at leading law firm Brabners Chaffe Street, said: "Employers need to seriously consider if such tests are necessary or, if they can alter them in a way that makes them fairer to people with dyslexia."

Dyslexia affects around 10 per cent of the population, including celebrities such as Richard Branson, Keira Knightley and Prince Harry. It is estimated around three million of Britain's workforce may suffer from the disorder.

A new set of guidelines to deal with dyslexia disability are to be issued shortly.