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.
Tuesday 18 September 2007
Monday 3 September 2007
Employment Tribunals Stats - help is at hand!
The Employment Tribunal Service has just published its annual stats for the period 1/4/06 to 31/3/07, they make interesting reading and should focus your mind when dealing with your staff relations.
The number of cases brought increased from 86,181 in 2004/2005 to 132,577 in 2006/2007, in the latest year only around 7,000 were rejected under the 2004 rules.
The main reasons for claim seem to be unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages and failure to consult in redundancy cases. There were a large number of equal pay claims but these were mainly related to local authorities. Breach of contract and sex discrimination came next in line.
If an unfair dismissal claim gets to a hearing the decisions have gone near enough 50:50, the average compensation in this category being almost £8,000. If successful, average race, sex and disability discrimination compensations were £14,000, £10,000 and £15,000 respectively. Add to these figures the basis awards and your representation costs, and losing at a hearing can be an expensive business; particularly for a small or medium business.
What do we abstract from this? My advice is to:
• keep on top of contracts, policies and procedures
• follow them carefully and make sure your managers do
• use effective induction procedures and get signed checklists
• incorporate and use a probation procedure
• don’t assume a good employee, a ‘friend maybe’, will never claim
• if you have need to take disciplinary and similar action seek advice beforehand, or, if this isn’t possible, as soon as possible afterwards
• keep notes, records and documents
If you want an HR audit or Healthcheck give me a call, in most instances it only takes a day and could save you money and heartache.
The number of cases brought increased from 86,181 in 2004/2005 to 132,577 in 2006/2007, in the latest year only around 7,000 were rejected under the 2004 rules.
The main reasons for claim seem to be unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages and failure to consult in redundancy cases. There were a large number of equal pay claims but these were mainly related to local authorities. Breach of contract and sex discrimination came next in line.
If an unfair dismissal claim gets to a hearing the decisions have gone near enough 50:50, the average compensation in this category being almost £8,000. If successful, average race, sex and disability discrimination compensations were £14,000, £10,000 and £15,000 respectively. Add to these figures the basis awards and your representation costs, and losing at a hearing can be an expensive business; particularly for a small or medium business.
What do we abstract from this? My advice is to:
• keep on top of contracts, policies and procedures
• follow them carefully and make sure your managers do
• use effective induction procedures and get signed checklists
• incorporate and use a probation procedure
• don’t assume a good employee, a ‘friend maybe’, will never claim
• if you have need to take disciplinary and similar action seek advice beforehand, or, if this isn’t possible, as soon as possible afterwards
• keep notes, records and documents
If you want an HR audit or Healthcheck give me a call, in most instances it only takes a day and could save you money and heartache.
It can’t happen to us – ET Stats. Help is available.
The Employment Tribunal Service has just published its annual stats for the period 1/4/06 to 31/3/07, they make interesting reading and should focus your mind when dealing with your staff relations.
The number of cases brought increased from 86,181 in 2004/2005 to 132,577 in 2006/2007, in the latest year only around 7,000 were rejected under the 2004 rules.
The main reasons for claim seem to be unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages and failure to consult in redundancy cases. There were a large number of equal pay claims but these were mainly related to local authorities. Breach of contract and sex discrimination came next in line.
If an unfair dismissal claim gets to a hearing the decisions have gone near enough 50:50, the average compensation in this category being almost £8,000. If successful, average race, sex and disability discrimination compensations were £14,000, £10,000 and £15,000 respectively. Add to these figures the basis awards and your representation costs, and losing at a hearing can be an expensive business; particularly for a small or medium business.
What do we abstract from this? My advice is to:
• keep on top of contracts, policies and procedures
• follow them carefully and make sure your managers do
• use effective induction procedures and get signed checklists
• incorporate and use a probation procedure
• don’t assume a good employee, a ‘friend maybe’, will never claim
• if you have need to take disciplinary and similar action seek advice beforehand, or, if this isn’t possible, as soon as possible afterwards
• keep notes, records and documents
If you want an HR audit or Healthcheck give me a call, in most instances it only takes a day and could save you money and heartache.
The number of cases brought increased from 86,181 in 2004/2005 to 132,577 in 2006/2007, in the latest year only around 7,000 were rejected under the 2004 rules.
The main reasons for claim seem to be unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages and failure to consult in redundancy cases. There were a large number of equal pay claims but these were mainly related to local authorities. Breach of contract and sex discrimination came next in line.
If an unfair dismissal claim gets to a hearing the decisions have gone near enough 50:50, the average compensation in this category being almost £8,000. If successful, average race, sex and disability discrimination compensations were £14,000, £10,000 and £15,000 respectively. Add to these figures the basis awards and your representation costs, and losing at a hearing can be an expensive business; particularly for a small or medium business.
What do we abstract from this? My advice is to:
• keep on top of contracts, policies and procedures
• follow them carefully and make sure your managers do
• use effective induction procedures and get signed checklists
• incorporate and use a probation procedure
• don’t assume a good employee, a ‘friend maybe’, will never claim
• if you have need to take disciplinary and similar action seek advice beforehand, or, if this isn’t possible, as soon as possible afterwards
• keep notes, records and documents
If you want an HR audit or Healthcheck give me a call, in most instances it only takes a day and could save you money and heartache.
Tuesday 7 August 2007
Points of Interest
In his report of March 2007 ‘A Review of Employment Dispute Resolution in Great Britain’, Michael Gibbons recommends that ACAS should play an enhanced role in dispute resolution. The Government have reduced the budget of ACAS by some £3.2 million and we hear to-day that they are reducing their staff again – up to 20% reduction in recent times at a cost of around £12 million. How can they do more with less?
In addition Gibbons recommends replacing the 2004 dispute resolution regulations by a simpler more flexible process. We wait fore the white smoke!
I have spent some time over the years working on sickness absence schemes and helping clients reduce sickness – particularly short term unpredictable sickness. I know it is a problem for many employers.
I recently spotted an article in Personnel To-day entitled “GPs fear workers will create their own sicknotes under plans for an automated certification system”.
The government is looking to trial the computer-based scheme to overcome the long-running problem of doctors' handwriting. The electronic system could also encourage GPs to make better use of the 'remarks' section of the sicknote to help employers understand a workers' illness or injury.
But a BMA spokesman said: "Electronic sicknotes are not practical. It is only a matter of time before someone finds a way to hack into a computer and make bogus sicknotes."
The kind doctor added that he would discourage doctors from spending extra time on the remarks section of sicknotes as it was not their job to help employers. By comparison the Royal College of General Practitioners said it had been encouraging doctors to use the forms to tell bosses what patients could still do at work. Comments they could include are 'fit for part-time work' or 'is likely to wait three months for a scan’.
The Department of Work and Pensions said there were plans for a trial of electronic sicknotes in South Wales. A spokesman said: "We are in the process of procuring the necessary software changes to be able to test the use of electronic sicknotes."
If this scheme is introduced who will it help – probably not employers trying to deal with high sickness levels.
Finally, I featured comments about dyslexia in a recent blog entry. For readers concerned about this issue, a new code of practice to help employers support dyslexic staff is to be launched by the British Dyslexia Association (BDA) in September.
The code will give employers advice on supporting workers with dyslexia as well as guidance on policies and procedures relating to the Disability Discrimination Act.
For more information, visit www.bdadyslexia.org.uk
In addition Gibbons recommends replacing the 2004 dispute resolution regulations by a simpler more flexible process. We wait fore the white smoke!
I have spent some time over the years working on sickness absence schemes and helping clients reduce sickness – particularly short term unpredictable sickness. I know it is a problem for many employers.
I recently spotted an article in Personnel To-day entitled “GPs fear workers will create their own sicknotes under plans for an automated certification system”.
The government is looking to trial the computer-based scheme to overcome the long-running problem of doctors' handwriting. The electronic system could also encourage GPs to make better use of the 'remarks' section of the sicknote to help employers understand a workers' illness or injury.
But a BMA spokesman said: "Electronic sicknotes are not practical. It is only a matter of time before someone finds a way to hack into a computer and make bogus sicknotes."
The kind doctor added that he would discourage doctors from spending extra time on the remarks section of sicknotes as it was not their job to help employers. By comparison the Royal College of General Practitioners said it had been encouraging doctors to use the forms to tell bosses what patients could still do at work. Comments they could include are 'fit for part-time work' or 'is likely to wait three months for a scan’.
The Department of Work and Pensions said there were plans for a trial of electronic sicknotes in South Wales. A spokesman said: "We are in the process of procuring the necessary software changes to be able to test the use of electronic sicknotes."
If this scheme is introduced who will it help – probably not employers trying to deal with high sickness levels.
Finally, I featured comments about dyslexia in a recent blog entry. For readers concerned about this issue, a new code of practice to help employers support dyslexic staff is to be launched by the British Dyslexia Association (BDA) in September.
The code will give employers advice on supporting workers with dyslexia as well as guidance on policies and procedures relating to the Disability Discrimination Act.
For more information, visit www.bdadyslexia.org.uk
Tuesday 31 July 2007
LIFO and Netreps
Just a couple of employment up-dates you may find interesting.
We have been saying the LIFO, last-in-first out, is good law and has been since redundancy was introduced. However, since the introduction of age discrimination it is now thought to be discriminatory against younger people who tend to have less service. Let me know if you want advice on safe selection methods.
Web sites like MySpace and Facebook leave an old sod like me way behind - I am only just getting to grips with this blog.
It seems that people are getting into the habit of checking potential recruits on this web sites that can contain more personal detail than applicants may have declared to you in interview, their CV's or application forms.It is called 'cyber-vetting', 'netreps' by the way are internet reputations.
If you are an employer there is no reason why you shouldn't use this form of check but beware. Avoid printing out these details - you may be providing a paper trail for a discrimination claim. You cannot be sure who put the details on the web-site. Do not use the information in any other way than to ask questions at interview and also seek to support or otherwise by references, etc.
If you are applying for a job make sure that your entries on these sites are suitable - clean them up. Don't brag about the amount of ale you consume or demonstrate any negative feelings - you don't know who is looking!
What do you think?
We have been saying the LIFO, last-in-first out, is good law and has been since redundancy was introduced. However, since the introduction of age discrimination it is now thought to be discriminatory against younger people who tend to have less service. Let me know if you want advice on safe selection methods.
Web sites like MySpace and Facebook leave an old sod like me way behind - I am only just getting to grips with this blog.
It seems that people are getting into the habit of checking potential recruits on this web sites that can contain more personal detail than applicants may have declared to you in interview, their CV's or application forms.It is called 'cyber-vetting', 'netreps' by the way are internet reputations.
If you are an employer there is no reason why you shouldn't use this form of check but beware. Avoid printing out these details - you may be providing a paper trail for a discrimination claim. You cannot be sure who put the details on the web-site. Do not use the information in any other way than to ask questions at interview and also seek to support or otherwise by references, etc.
If you are applying for a job make sure that your entries on these sites are suitable - clean them up. Don't brag about the amount of ale you consume or demonstrate any negative feelings - you don't know who is looking!
What do you think?
Tuesday 24 July 2007
OLLEH OLLEH OLLEH
Dyslexic Policeman is Disabled
A recent case raises some important issues relating to disability in general and dyslexia in particular.
We all know that dyslexia is a disability and the Employment Appeals Tribunal has recently held that a senior policeman who was diagnosed with minor dyslexia was disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [Patterson v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis 2007]
This is unusual in that, after over 15 years in the police force, and promotion to the rank of Chief Inspector, P discovered he was dyslexic. He had not previously had difficulties with report writing, financial literacy or any of the other aspects in his complex and demanding job.
In the course of his employment he has taken various examinations at different stages of his career. He has had various managerial functions to perform. In particular, he has been commended on occasions by his supporting officer for writing good and clear reports. He was described in 2001, when he sought promotion, as "an able communicator – this has resulted in the production of a number of complex and detailed reports which are successfully supported in both criminal and disciplinary proceedings ….He has consistently produced work of high quality. This has been achieved despite the tight deadlines and the demanding environment present in his current role."
However, medical evidence suggested that he ought to be given 25% extra time in his examinations for promotion to the rank of Superintendent as a result of his (newly diagnosed) dyslexia.
The original tribunal took the view that a diagnosis was not a disability, and that the important thing to look at was what the Claimant could do, rather than what he could not do. They concluded that the dyslexia had only a minor/trivial impact upon the Claimant's day-to-day activities, and that he was therefore not disabled, a position that many, maybe, would see as reasonable.
The Employment Appeals Tribunal overturned this finding and substituted a finding of disability. They were of the opinion that a tribunal should not compare the performance of the employee with the average person in the population. Rather, it is the comparison between what the individual can do and would be able to do without the impairment which is important in determining whether someone is disabled. The EAT concluded it was self-evident that a person who needed 25% longer to complete an examination because of his dyslexia was at a substantial disadvantage to the position if he did not have dyslexia, and he was therefore disabled.
The EAT added that any finding to the contrary would undermine the whole purpose of the Act. Adding, "We are very conscious that the tenor of the statutory guidance and the large number of legal authorities on the issue of disabled status stress that it is important for Tribunals to concentrate on what a potentially disabled person cannot do rather than what he can do. We would not wish it to be thought that by recording the above paragraphs in what we believe to be a logical chronological fashion we have lost sight of that very important legal principle. It is however quite clear that although in a vague and general kind of way throughout his entire life until the age of 42 the Claimant was personally conscious of having difficulty nevertheless we believe that in ordinary parlance he has demonstrated that he was able to achieve a very senior position in a very structured and hierarchical organisation with we believe a considerable emphasis on paperwork and the accuracy, promptness and clarity of the written word.
We should nonetheless emphasise that what is normal cannot sensibly depend on asking the question whether the majority of people do it. The antithesis for the purposes of the Act is between that which is "normal" and that which is "abnormal" or "unusual" as a regular activity, judged by an objective population standard. (Just as what is "substantial" for the purposes of the Act may best be understood by defining it as anything which is more than insubstantial. So too may what is "normal" best be understood by defining it as anything which is not abnormal or unusual or, in the words of the Guidance, "particular" to the individual applicant.)"
Comment
So, where does this take us?
It has been common place to make a ‘rule of thumb’, non-medical judgement based on what a dyslexic employee can in comparison to his or her peers; and make adjustments accordingly.
This case means that the emphasis is now on what a dyslexic employee cannot do rather than can do.
This other issue, it seems to me, is the question of ‘a substantial adverse effect’. If he achieved the level he did reach in 15 years service, the effect of his dyslexia, it could be argued, was substantial. However, the ETA has held that it was and it is now a situation we have to deal with in other cases.
What do you think?
A recent case raises some important issues relating to disability in general and dyslexia in particular.
We all know that dyslexia is a disability and the Employment Appeals Tribunal has recently held that a senior policeman who was diagnosed with minor dyslexia was disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [Patterson v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis 2007]
This is unusual in that, after over 15 years in the police force, and promotion to the rank of Chief Inspector, P discovered he was dyslexic. He had not previously had difficulties with report writing, financial literacy or any of the other aspects in his complex and demanding job.
In the course of his employment he has taken various examinations at different stages of his career. He has had various managerial functions to perform. In particular, he has been commended on occasions by his supporting officer for writing good and clear reports. He was described in 2001, when he sought promotion, as "an able communicator – this has resulted in the production of a number of complex and detailed reports which are successfully supported in both criminal and disciplinary proceedings ….He has consistently produced work of high quality. This has been achieved despite the tight deadlines and the demanding environment present in his current role."
However, medical evidence suggested that he ought to be given 25% extra time in his examinations for promotion to the rank of Superintendent as a result of his (newly diagnosed) dyslexia.
The original tribunal took the view that a diagnosis was not a disability, and that the important thing to look at was what the Claimant could do, rather than what he could not do. They concluded that the dyslexia had only a minor/trivial impact upon the Claimant's day-to-day activities, and that he was therefore not disabled, a position that many, maybe, would see as reasonable.
The Employment Appeals Tribunal overturned this finding and substituted a finding of disability. They were of the opinion that a tribunal should not compare the performance of the employee with the average person in the population. Rather, it is the comparison between what the individual can do and would be able to do without the impairment which is important in determining whether someone is disabled. The EAT concluded it was self-evident that a person who needed 25% longer to complete an examination because of his dyslexia was at a substantial disadvantage to the position if he did not have dyslexia, and he was therefore disabled.
The EAT added that any finding to the contrary would undermine the whole purpose of the Act. Adding, "We are very conscious that the tenor of the statutory guidance and the large number of legal authorities on the issue of disabled status stress that it is important for Tribunals to concentrate on what a potentially disabled person cannot do rather than what he can do. We would not wish it to be thought that by recording the above paragraphs in what we believe to be a logical chronological fashion we have lost sight of that very important legal principle. It is however quite clear that although in a vague and general kind of way throughout his entire life until the age of 42 the Claimant was personally conscious of having difficulty nevertheless we believe that in ordinary parlance he has demonstrated that he was able to achieve a very senior position in a very structured and hierarchical organisation with we believe a considerable emphasis on paperwork and the accuracy, promptness and clarity of the written word.
We should nonetheless emphasise that what is normal cannot sensibly depend on asking the question whether the majority of people do it. The antithesis for the purposes of the Act is between that which is "normal" and that which is "abnormal" or "unusual" as a regular activity, judged by an objective population standard. (Just as what is "substantial" for the purposes of the Act may best be understood by defining it as anything which is more than insubstantial. So too may what is "normal" best be understood by defining it as anything which is not abnormal or unusual or, in the words of the Guidance, "particular" to the individual applicant.)"
Comment
So, where does this take us?
It has been common place to make a ‘rule of thumb’, non-medical judgement based on what a dyslexic employee can in comparison to his or her peers; and make adjustments accordingly.
This case means that the emphasis is now on what a dyslexic employee cannot do rather than can do.
This other issue, it seems to me, is the question of ‘a substantial adverse effect’. If he achieved the level he did reach in 15 years service, the effect of his dyslexia, it could be argued, was substantial. However, the ETA has held that it was and it is now a situation we have to deal with in other cases.
What do you think?
Monday 23 July 2007
Employment Issues
I have not used the blog for a while. I intend to use it more and would welcome comments,
Paid Holidays
The Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2007 have just been issued after the end of the consultation period. The minimum paid annual holiday entitlement for full-time workers of 24 days still comes into force from 1st October 2007. However, the second stage increase from 24 to 28 has been delayed until 1st April 2009.
A new provision in the regulations is that employers will be able to pay staff in lieu of the extra days, i.e. 20 to 24 (4 in total) until 1st April 2009 – but not, of course, for the original 20!
Sorry, there is no opt-out for small businesses.
“Gingerism”
My latest edition of the CIPD journal reports a case from Plymouth where a woman successfully claimed unfair dismissal after she was harassed because of her hair colour. The employment tribunal found that she had been subjected to ‘regular sexual harassment and innuendo” after being taunted about the colour of her hair and experiencing lewd and embarrassing comments.
Some may find this funny but an award against the ex-employer of £17,618 is not so humorous, plus the costs of defending the claim. As a first level tribunal case it is not a precedent but watch out.
The story points that there have been cases in US were discrimination on grounds of tattoos and facial piercings can be a form of religious discrimination. Do they not say that the weather comes from the US?
The bottom line is "get to know how your staff behave towards each other – you could be liable if you don’t have policies and raise awareness!"
Age Discrimination - Interviews
In May, the Director of the Equality Tribunal in the Republic of Ireland published a decision on age discrimination likely to be relevant in the UK.
In the case, the complainant was asked questions about his age at an early stage of the interview process, including questions on the application form such as "living with parents/ renting/ mortgaged accommodation", "number of children", "age" and "date of birth".
The complainant provided incorrect information, objecting the questions were "irrelevant and invasive". He was not given the job, despite being suitable for it. The Equality Officer held that he had been discriminated against on grounds of his age, and awarded him 5,000 Euro.
. . . and finally
Maternity Leave for Fathers
The provision to transfer up to 26 weeks’ additional paternity leave on top of the existing two weeks’ paid leave is out for consultation. There will be an administrative obligation for employers to check the father’s entitlement. On the positive side, the draft suggests that father’s should give a minimum of eight weeks’ notice. Target date is 1st April 2008, I will keep you informed.
Paid Holidays
The Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2007 have just been issued after the end of the consultation period. The minimum paid annual holiday entitlement for full-time workers of 24 days still comes into force from 1st October 2007. However, the second stage increase from 24 to 28 has been delayed until 1st April 2009.
A new provision in the regulations is that employers will be able to pay staff in lieu of the extra days, i.e. 20 to 24 (4 in total) until 1st April 2009 – but not, of course, for the original 20!
Sorry, there is no opt-out for small businesses.
“Gingerism”
My latest edition of the CIPD journal reports a case from Plymouth where a woman successfully claimed unfair dismissal after she was harassed because of her hair colour. The employment tribunal found that she had been subjected to ‘regular sexual harassment and innuendo” after being taunted about the colour of her hair and experiencing lewd and embarrassing comments.
Some may find this funny but an award against the ex-employer of £17,618 is not so humorous, plus the costs of defending the claim. As a first level tribunal case it is not a precedent but watch out.
The story points that there have been cases in US were discrimination on grounds of tattoos and facial piercings can be a form of religious discrimination. Do they not say that the weather comes from the US?
The bottom line is "get to know how your staff behave towards each other – you could be liable if you don’t have policies and raise awareness!"
Age Discrimination - Interviews
In May, the Director of the Equality Tribunal in the Republic of Ireland published a decision on age discrimination likely to be relevant in the UK.
In the case, the complainant was asked questions about his age at an early stage of the interview process, including questions on the application form such as "living with parents/ renting/ mortgaged accommodation", "number of children", "age" and "date of birth".
The complainant provided incorrect information, objecting the questions were "irrelevant and invasive". He was not given the job, despite being suitable for it. The Equality Officer held that he had been discriminated against on grounds of his age, and awarded him 5,000 Euro.
. . . and finally
Maternity Leave for Fathers
The provision to transfer up to 26 weeks’ additional paternity leave on top of the existing two weeks’ paid leave is out for consultation. There will be an administrative obligation for employers to check the father’s entitlement. On the positive side, the draft suggests that father’s should give a minimum of eight weeks’ notice. Target date is 1st April 2008, I will keep you informed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)