Employment Law Bulletin January 2016

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Welcome
 
If you have embarked on a disciplinary or two after the festivities, you won’t be alone.
 
The perils of alcohol-fueled Christmas parties are well-documented, and their aftermath often leaves employees with more than just a red face and a tarnished reputation.
 
The point is that January is the month for sorting out. It’s a time for   resolving to do the things you may have been putting off – reviewing your policies and auditing your procedures, for example. Whether it’s tackling day-to-day management issues, ironing out operational problems, or making the big, strategic business decisions, go for it. It’s what the beginning of a new year is all about.

Different disciplinary treatment could be justified
 
MBNA v Jones
 
Two employees became involved in some sort of kneeing, face-licking, punchy, text message-threatening exchange that began at their employer’s 20th anniversary bash at the races. What started as fun or banter, as onlookers saw it, escalated and led to one of the men losing his job.
 
The long and short of it was that he was dismissed for punching the other in   the face. The other employee, who had sent threatening texts once the men had left the event, was given a final written warning. Two employees, same episode, different treatment. Was the dismissal of the first fair?
 
No, said the tribunal. Both employees had committed acts of gross misconduct and there was unfair disparity of treatment.
 
The Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned that decision. The dismissed employee had punched the other in the face at a work event at which staff had been told about the standards of behaviour that would be expected of them.   The other employee had later threatened to do something that he didn’t carry out. The more lenient treatment of the second didn’t make dismissal of the first unfair; that decision wasn’t wrong or outside the band of reasonable responses. The two men were disciplined for different things.
 
So, even though consistency is really important in disciplinary situations, it can be ok to treat employees caught up in one incident differently.  But tread cautiously. You need to be very clear about who did what, and about the sanction that’s appropriate to their actions. Keep good notes of the thought processes you have followed in reaching your decisions.
 
If you’re unsure about any of this, get some good, early legal advice.

Negative references and discrimination

Pnaiser v NHS
England and Coventry City Council

Ms Pnaiser worked for Coventry City Council. She was disabled and had had quite a lot of absence. When she was made redundant, she negotiated a settlement agreement that contained an agreed reference.     She was then offered a job with NHS England. But that offer was withdrawn after a conversation between her recruiting manager and the Council. There was some debate later on about what exactly the Council officer said during   that phone call and how, but the gist was an implication that Ms Pnaiser might struggle to cope with the new role. Crucially, Ms Pnaiser’s sickness absence was mentioned.   She alleged disability discrimination against the Council and NHS England,  winning on appeal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal said that the tribunal had   taken the wrong approach. As the Council’s comments about unsuitability were at least partly because of Ms Pnaiser’s absence (which was a consequence of her disability), it was for the Council and NHS England to show that the sickness absence played no part in the reasons Ms Pnaiser was said to be unsuitable for the role, and in the withdrawal of the job offer.     The big lesson here for employers is: stick to the agreed reference.  It’s always best to agree a reference that is as full and accurate as you can make it, and don’t depart from it. And if you are the potential employer, you will   need to carefully judge a situation in which you’ve been given more   information about a job candidate than their agreed reference reveals. Weigh up the discriminatory implications of acting on that information, and the  consequences of taking on an employee who you have discovered may not be up to the job.

Transgender guidance
 
A new guide has been published to help employers deal properly with transgender staff. It’s all about creating a more inclusive culture.
 
As well as helping employers recruit and retain transgender staff, the guide  sheds light on the day-to-day management of transgender issues.
 
One of the really interesting sections is about handling situations in which   an existing employee embarks on a transition. Employers may not know immediately how best to support that employee, including how to communicate what’s happening. Nor will employers necessarily have the right systems and policies in place to deal with the sorts of situations that may crop up.
 
It’s a guide that is well worth every employer reading.

Bigger fines for corporate breaches
 
The law is about to get tougher on organisations which have fallen foul of health and safety rules.
 
From 1 February 2016, corporate manslaughter, health and safety, and food safety and hygiene breaches (whenever they took place) will attract greater fines. In the most serious cases, this could be as much as £20 million.
 
 Penalties will be relative to the severity of what’s happened, and the size of your business. Even those employers who operate in what is considered to be a low hazard environment, or who have robust systems in place that take care of risks, should sit up and listen. Every organisation has the capacity to trip up, and the potentially devastating effects of a breach – in all sorts of respects – could see that organisation crumble.

Attendance policy didn’t need adjusting
Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
 
The duty to make reasonable adjustments engages once an employer knows (or should reasonably be expected to know) that an employee is disabled. But as  this case has shown, there are limits on what an employer will be expected to do.
 
Ms Griffiths was disabled. Her 66 days of absence (62 of which were because of her disability) triggered a written warning under her employer’s attendance policy. She claimed disability discrimination. Her view was that   the DWP ought to have held off from issuing the warning. Its procedure should   have been modified to allow her more days off work than a non-disabled   person, and periods of sickness absence related to her disability should have   been disregarded. These would have been reasonable adjustments, she argued.
 
The Court of Appeal said no. The employer’s provision, criterion or practice (the requirement to work at a certain level to avoid getting warnings and possibly being dismissed) didn’t put Ms Griffiths at a substantial disadvantage. The same sanctions applied to her non-disabled colleagues. On   the facts of this case, it wasn’t reasonable to expect the employer to alter its policy.
 
The same outcome may not apply in other cases; it really does come down to the specifics of each situation. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the duty to make reasonable adjustments can apply to sanctions under an absence management policy, even where that policy treats disabled and non-disabled employees equally.

Preparing for a wage hike

Is your business   ready to cope with introduction of the National Living Wage in April 2016?     The press is reporting the views of some that recruitment will be scaled   back, workforces reshaped, and prices put up to cover the extra 50p per hour that will need to be paid to lower-earning workers. Increasing basic pay to £7.20 for workers aged 25 and over may not be something that affects you or your business significantly or at all. But even if that’s so, it could well affect those you’re doing business with; suppliers, for example, who may have to look at their commercial options.     Wherever you stand in all of this, it’s sensible to address your mind to the potential consequences. And bear in mind, too, that the living wage is set to go up to £9 per hour by 2020, so you might want to factor that into your planning.

And finally…
Kitchen possible? 
 
If you watched the TV documentary Kitchen Impossible, you are bound to have been left with more than just an impression of the pressures involved in the catering industry.
 
The series followed a group of disabled people learning the ropes under the guidance of Michel Roux Jr. And it exposed many of the everyday challenges that face those with disabilities, not least when it comes to employment.
 
And this is timely. The Government is in the midst of trying to halve the employment gap between disabled and non-disabled people and wants businesses to provide more opportunities to those who might otherwise be left out of the marketplace.

This is against the backdrop of some employers’ nervousness around learning disabilities, as a survey by Mencap and Inclusive Employers has revealed.   Concern about interaction between customers and staff was highlighted, as well as concern among 23% of the 60 or so UK businesses surveyed that not all   colleagues would feel happy about working with someone with a learning disability.
 
While some of these statistics may make for uncomfortable reading, one of the   themes that emerges is more positivity among those organisations that have employed people with learning disabilities.
 
There will be some way to go before there is wholesale change both in attitudes and in the statistics. But as knowledge and awareness grows, it’s hoped that more employers will embrace the benefits of a workplace that is open to all.

Carrying out a Redundancy exercise

Welcome to a special issue of our employment law bulletin. It’s an overview of redundancy and of the steps employers must take to get the process, and their decisions, right.

What is redundancy?
Redundancy is essentially where you:
(a) close your business;
(b) close a workplace; or
(c) need fewer employees to do a certain type of work, or to work in a certain place.

Many employers use the word ‘redundancy’ to describe a redundancy where someone’s performance is drifting off a bit, or because they think if they call it ‘redundancy’ then they don’t need to go through the procedures they know exist for misconduct issues. But that can cause problems, because if the dismissal isn’t technically a ‘redundancy’ – as defined above – or you don’t follow the correct redundancy process, you can end up struggling to defend an employment tribunal claim.

So you need to get it right. This begins by getting to grips with the situation in which you find yourself, and understanding what redundancy means. Employers can come unstuck when they assume that they are in a redundancy situation when they’re not, and vice versa.

If any one of the three situations above apply, you’ve passed first base. You can begin the redundancy process. But the rules on how you should go about this, and the steps you need to take, are strict. Even if you are clear that you have a ‘redundancy’ reason for dismissing staff, the dismissal can quite easily become unfair if you trip up at any of the stages.

Remember that redundancy rules only apply to your employees. They do not apply to agency workers, or self-employed contractors, for example.

There are also special rules which apply if you’re thinking about making more than 20 people redundant within a rolling 90-day period. They including notifying the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, and holding consultations with a union (if you don’t recognise a union, you have to hold an election for employee representatives). These rules are demanding, complex, and carry serious financial consequences if they’re not followed. Please speak to us if you are concerned that you might be making more than 20 people redundant within a rolling 90-day period and we’ll help you through the process.

Think through the process
Plan the redundancy before you start. Map out the steps, the timings and the people from within your business’s management that you will need to involve. Remember to take and keep good, written records of what you’ve done and how you reached your decisions. There really is no substitute for this.

Factor into the planning process your contracts and policies. Check to see what they say about redundancy, both in terms of company procedure and redundancy payments. You must comply with your policies (or have a very good reason for departing from them). You will also need to underpin every aspect of your planned redundancy process with ‘reasonableness’, since tribunals are ultimately looking to see if you’ve acted reasonably in every aspect of the dismissal process. In the redundancy context this broadly means letting staff know where they stand; listening and taking on board suggestions; being fair in who you select for redundancy; looking hard for suitable alternative jobs within your business for people who are facing redundancy; and offering a meaningful appeal against dismissal.

There are different ways of going about this and if you are making only a small number of redundancies, there’s no rigid regime that you must follow. There are rules and pieces of guidance to follow but you have some freedom to design a redundancy process around your business and its circumstances.

Define your pool
You may have heard about ‘redundancy pools’ and ‘pools for selection’. These are terms for the groups of people identified as being potentially redundant. Not all will necessarily be made redundant. You will select from these pools the employee or employees who you’ll take through the remainder of the process and who you might, ultimately, dismiss for redundancy.

Sometimes it will be easy to decide which employees should make up a pool. There may be just one person whose role has disappeared, in which case they alone can form the pool and no one else need usually be involved. It’s less straightforward if you have people whose roles cross departments, specialisms, projects or contracts, and locations, for example.

Once you have defined the pool, write to the affected employees and tell them that they are at risk of redundancy. It’s quite common for employers to meet with these employees collectively. Explain why you’re doing what you are doing and invite ideas about ways of reducing the number of people who might ultimately be made redundant, or about ways of avoiding redundancy altogether.

And follow up on suggestions; there could be options available to you that you hadn’t thought about. This doesn’t mean you have to follow your employees’ suggestions – far from it – but you do need to have a credible reason as to why it doesn’t make business sense to follow their suggestions. One of the most common reasons why redundancy dismissals are held to be unfair is that the employer can’t establish that it followed up on suggestions about avoiding redundancy.

Select
You need to have fair selection criteria, against which you can ‘score’ employees in the pool (and those with the lowest scores will be those whom you select for redundancy).
What sort of selection criteria should you use? Length of service, attendance, experience & skills, disciplinary record and performance (where it can be measured objectively) are fairly standard, but it’s up to you to decide the categories that matter most. You are free to give different weightings to different criteria, but be clear and consistent in how you do this.

One of the biggest rules around selection is to avoid anything that requires you to make a subjective assessment. Your opinion of how reliable an employee is, for example, isn’t a valid criterion. You should be able to show how you arrived at the score you did, and that it’s backed up by records you hold – appraisal notes, for example.

Be careful to avoid straying into the realms of discrimination. Selecting an employee for redundancy because you think they’re too old, or too young, will be direct discrimination. Dismissing someone because they are pregnant or on maternity leave will be automatically unfair. But there are less obvious discrimination traps too. Tread carefully where you are using ‘last in, first out’ (‘LIFO’) as a scoring mechanism. It may seem like the fairest way to select staff, but it can be tainted with age discrimination (and sex discrimination too), so you would be risking an unfair dismissal and an indirect discrimination finding against you unless you combined LIFO with other objective criteria.
Scoring people on their attendance, too, can cause difficulties where the employer doesn’t take account of the reasons for an employee’s low score. Maternity leave and disability-related absence are common reasons to bear in mind.

That said, people with a protected characteristic (age, sex, disability, religion/belief, sexual orientation etc) are not immune from selection for redundancy. You will, however, be expected to not treat them any less favourably than their colleagues. The same applies to part-time workers, who have a right to not being treated less favourably treatment than full-timers. So it is unwise to focus on part-time employees, or those who have flexible working agreements, as those to be dismissed during a redundancy process.

Consult
As a pre-cursor to consultation, it is usually worth asking whether any of the employees in the pool would be interested in applying for voluntary redundancy. Remember that if you ask for volunteers, their dismissal will still be for redundancy and so they’re entitled to the usual payments and other terms.

Treat compulsory redundancy as the last resort. You should allow plenty of opportunity for people within your organisation – including the employees directly affected – to come up with ideas of ways to avoid redundancy dismissals. (Don’t forget to consult with those who are absent from work.) Sharing information with employees and inviting them to give their views can sometimes lead to solutions that reshape the proposed redundancy. Perhaps part-time working, salary sacrifices or adjusting your use of agency workers, for example, could provide solutions.

We mentioned earlier that there are specific rules that apply if you are proposing to dismiss 20 or more employees within 90 days. If the number is lower than 20, you still need to consult, but it’s not governed by legislation in the same way. Don’t take that to mean that consultation can be skirted over in cases of smaller-scale redundancies; it’s regarded by tribunals as a really important part of a fair redundancy process.

Write to the employees you’ve provisionally selected for redundancy. Tell them that dismissal is a possibility and that you would like to meet with them individually to discuss:
- their selection
- their selection score
- any ideas they may have for avoiding redundancy
- alternative roles you may be able to offer them.

You don’t have to allow employees to be accompanied at these meetings unless your contracts or policies say so, but if they ask to take a colleague or a union representative along, you should allow it.

Show the employee their selection score and explain how you arrived at it. They’ll probably question aspects of this, so be prepared to explain your reasoning and even to adjust your scoring if need be. You won’t usually be required to share with the employee their colleagues’ scores, but it can sometimes help to resolve concerns. The best course of action is usually to wait until the employee takes particular issue with your scoring. Anonymise the scores of their colleagues, making sure that individuals can’t be identified, and share them in that way.

Suitable alternative employment
You have a duty to look for suitable alternative employment for employees who you’re about to make redundant. This duty is an ongoing one, lasting until the employee has been dismissed.

The duty is to look for another role that is suitable. This doesn’t mean that you necessarily have to offer the employee a role – perhaps there just isn’t anything suitable – but you must look and you shouldn’t assume that the employee wouldn’t be interested in taking a lower grade position. Your idea of suitable may be different to theirs, hence there are frequent legal arguments about when this duty has, and hasn’t, been met.

One significant point to bear in mind here: if the potentially redundant employee is on maternity or adoption leave then they have a special entitlement when it comes to offers of suitable alternative employment (generally, they trump other employees). This is an area where you should take legal advice.

Dismiss?
Once you have gone through the full process and have decided there is no option other than to make the employee redundant, you should meet with them to confirm this. Write to them, too. Your letter should set out the terms on which they’ll leave. These include, if they have at least two years’ service, a statutory redundancy payment and other contractual entitlements – enhanced redundancy pay, or holiday pay, for example.

You also need to offer a right of appeal. Just as in a disciplinary dismissal scenario, appoint a new (usually more senior) appeal officer, listen to the employee, and adjourn to consider everything and to explore any new avenues that may have opened up. Then either reverse the dismissal decision or confirm it in writing.

You may want to consider negotiating a settlement agreement to buy out claims that the employee has and to draw a line under their employment.

Summary
Redundancy is often complex. It’s intensive, there’s a lot to it and it challenges employers on many levels. And because it is about the application of broad rules to very specific facts – and an overarching requirement to be fair and reasonable – there is always the potential for employees to make an argument that their redundancy was in some way flawed.

That is why we work with clients to advise from start to finish, making sure that they make the best decisions, legally and commercially.

Call us on 01603 675603 or email pnk@rogers-norton.co.uk   

Top Tips

• Do everything you can to avoid having to make staff redundant. You may have options; take them seriously.
• Get to grips with what redundancy means in law, and what it would mean for you and your employees.
• Check redundancy provisions in your contracts and policies.
• Do the maths. Be clear about the costs and the benefits.
• Be prepared. Plan the redundancy thoroughly before you embark on it.
• Keep an open mind throughout. Don’t pre-judge and don’t be seen to have made up your mind about anything before you’ve taken the necessary steps.
• Consider all potential ramifications of your decisions before you make them. You could discriminate unwittingly.
• Level the playing field to avoid less favourable treatment.
• Continually ask yourself: is this the reasonable thing to do? Remember that a legally safe redundancy requires (a) a genuine redundancy situation; and (2) a fair process.
• Keep good notes of everything, including your thought processes. Seemingly insignificant details can win and lose cases.

Employment Law Bulletin October 2015

Welcome

The Rugby World Cup 2015. A meeting of minds, muscles and mauls.
But for all the enthusiasm it generates, the tournament is another workplace distraction for employers to manage. Time off to watch matches; calling in sick to nurse a hangover. The reality is that entire workforces are being swept up in the excitement and businesses are having to try to keep up.
That is unless you’ve got a strategy worked out. For lots of employers, this means tackling the issues head-on: letting staff know what is and isn’t acceptable, and dealing properly with those who abuse the rules. But perhaps the real winners are those employers who recognise that this is an event that’s bound to spark interest and which has the potential to boost staff morale. They know it’s once every four years.  This time it’s close to home.  And they get involved.

October changes

October (along with April) is always a significant month for employment law. It’s when changes take effect. These include, from 1 October 2015:
- An increase in the National Minimum Wage from £6.50 to £6.70 per hour for those aged 21 and over. For workers aged between 18 and 20, it rises to £5.30 and for those aged 16 between 17 it’s £3.87. The apprentice rate is £3.30.
- A ban on smoking in cars in England, following the ban’s introduction in Wales. Smoking in any private vehicle is now prohibited if there are child (under 18) passengers. It’s worth looking at your policies on smoking and company cars in light of this change.
- Sikh workers who wear turbans will be exempt from wearing safety helmets in all workplaces and not just on construction sites, as was the previous rule. There are a few situations in which this exemption won’t apply.

Working time for mobile workers

Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones Obreras v Tyco
This is an important case for businesses in the construction, care, security and catering sectors. It also affects businesses that employ sales staff, engineers, or others who travel between customers.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has decided that mobile workers’ first and last journeys of the day will now count as working time. Workers (which covers employees) who don’t have a fixed office or base are ‘working’, for the purposes of the Working Time Directive, when they drive from home to their first appointment of the day and from their last appointment home. The Court decided that these are not ‘rest periods’, as the employer in this case had claimed.  It’s working time.
What does this mean for you?
First, you need to make sure that your workers aren’t ‘working’ too much and exceeding limits set by the Working Time Regulations. Remember all workers are entitled to a 20-minute rest break every 6 hours, and to 11 hours uninterrupted rest every 24 hours. You now need to include their travelling time as part of ‘working time’, meaning that the workers might be entitled to rest breaks – or, at least, different patterns of breaks – that they weren’t previously entitled to.
Second, there are implications for the maximum 48-hour working week. If the worker spends one hour travelling to their first site, and one hour returning home at the end of the day, this adds ten hours to their working week. If that pushes them over 48 hours (normally averaged over 17 weeks), you’re probably breaking the law unless they’ve signed a document opting out of their legal rights.
Third, there may be ramifications for pay. Contrary to what’s been reported in the national press, these hours won’t count for calculating whether someone is receiving the national minimum wage. So on the example above, just because an employee is working an extra 10 hours week, you don’t need to worry about their average hourly rate being pushed below the minimum wage. It won’t be.
But there may be other important points on pay. If they are paid by the hour, and your contracts don’t define what is meant by ‘working time’ (ie they don’t exclude this travel time), there is a risk that they will be able to bring a claim for unpaid salary at their normal hourly rate. Such claims can be backdated for up to two years in an employment tribunal, and up to six years in the small claims court.
You may need to think about introducing contractual changes, altering shift patterns and factoring in additional rest breaks. It’s worth talking to us to discuss the impact on your business, and how you’ll need to adapt.  

Scope of HR role in disciplinaries

Ramphal v Department for Transport
Mr Ramphal was suspected of misconduct relating to his expenses and use of hire cars. The manager who was appointed to carry out the investigation and disciplinary was inexperienced and turned to HR for help. So far, so good.
But the problems for the employer began when the HR officer’s input went further than just advising on the law, procedure and sanctions. In this case, HR appeared to have given advice on issues around Mr Ramphal’s credibility and culpability. A step too far?
Yes, held the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). Drafts of the manager’s report had become more critical of Mr Ramphal following communications with HR who seemed to have influenced the manager’s views. The manager had initially concluded that Mr Ramphal was guilty of misconduct and should receive a final written warning. But that was later changed to gross misconduct and dismissal, seemingly at the behest of HR.
While it’s fine for a dismissing or investigating officer to ask for guidance, that guidance should be limited to law and procedure and to making sure that everything has been addressed and that there’s clarity. An employee in Mr Ramphal’s position is entitled to expect that the investigating officer will make their own decision, without being lobbied by others, held the EAT. They should also be given notice of changes to the case against them so that they can address them properly.

Enterprise Bill

A new Enterprise Bill has been published.
One point we think you need to know about is around the use of the term ‘apprenticeship’. It will be an offence for someone to describe a course or training it provides as an apprenticeship, unless it’s a statutory apprenticeship.
It’s all about protecting the term ‘apprenticeship’ and what it stands for, just as ‘degree’ is safeguarded. The Government wants to make sure that the apprenticeship brand can’t be misused through the delivery of lower-quality courses.

TUPE transfer where activities continue

Ferreira da Silva e Brito & Others v Estado Portugues
The TUPE Regulations apply to ‘relevant transfers’. One type of relevant transfer is a business transfer – the transfer of an economic entity that retains its identity. It’s not always easy to tell whether identity has been retained and, therefore, whether workers are protected by TUPE. And that’s what this case was all about.
Air Atlantis (AA) was wound up, and Mr Brito and more than 90 other employees were dismissed via collective redundancy. They claimed reinstatement and pay after the company’s major shareholder (TAP) took over AA’s planes, lease contracts, routes, offices and equipment. TAP had also taken on a number of former AA employees.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) disagreed with an earlier court decision that there was no transfer.  Merely continuing a commercial activity didn’t by itself mean that a transfer had happened because the business also needed to retain its identity, the previous court had held. The CJEU held that AA’s operations were effectively continuing through TAP and identity had been retained. TUPE applied.
The transfer of tangible assets is a key factor in determining whether there has been a transfer of a business like AA. It was relevant here that TAP had taken over AA’s leases and used AA’s aircraft – these were essential to pursuing the activities that AA had previously carried on. The fact that TAP had taken over AA’s charter flight contracts indicated that it was dealing with AA’s customers. TAP had also taken on AA staff. And, the three-month gap between AA being wound up and TAP operating some of the charter flight business, meant that there was hardly any suspension of the activities.
Always a tricky area to deal with and, although we’ve got some broad rules, it’s one that will only ever be decided on the facts.

Sick employees and TUPE

BT Managed Services v Edwards
In another TUPE case, the issue was about who does and who doesn’t transfer. In particular, is a long-term sick employee who isn’t working “assigned immediately before the transfer” so that their employment transfers under TUPE?
Mr Edwards was considered to be permanently sick. There were no prospects of him returning to work but BT had kept his employment going so that he could benefit from a PHI scheme and, once that had come to an end, similar payments from BT.
There was a service provision change. The new service provider went on to claim that Mr Edwards had not transferred to become its employee. The tribunal agreed. It held that Mr Edwards was not assigned to the organised grouping because he did not contribute to its economic activity.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld that decision. Mr Edwards wasn’t participating (and wasn’t expected to participate) in the activities carried out by the group. An employee who had no connection with the economic activity of the grouping and would never have one in the future could not be regarded as being assigned to that grouping. Mere administrative connection isn’t enough; there needs to be some participation in the group’s economic activity.
Treat this decision with some caution, whether you are the transferor or transferee. It doesn’t mean that no long-term sick employees will transfer under TUPE. Think about the prospect of the employee returning to work. Think, too, about their contribution to economic activity. Both are crucial factors in determining whether or not they’ll transfer.  

And finally…..

“Will this go to you, and only to you?”
It’s a question many of us now ask before tapping our PIN into a waiter or waitress’s card machine. And it’s not a daft question, especially since one pizza restaurant chain’s reported practice of taking a slice of tips paid by debit and credit cards was publicised.
The Government is now looking at how tips work in practice. It’s calling for evidence on how employers pass on tips, gratuities, service changes and cover to employees. The Government wants to know how it can ensure greater transparency and limit the amount an employer can keep.
If you’re interested in taking part, get your responses in by 10 November 2015.

R&N Business Workshops

Rogers and Norton solicitors are delighted to announce an Autumn series of practical workshops, providing a guaranteed 100 top tips for you and your business. Each workshop will last for 1 hour commencing at 4.30 pm, and will be followed by light refreshments.

Tuesday 1 November 2011: Being Prepared for difficult times in business and the Rogers and Norton Survival Guide.

Our speakers will discuss issues ranging from employment contracts to contracts with your suppliers and customers, key terms of business, business opportunities, cash flow and dealing with HMRC.

Tuesday 8 November 2011: Tips to Recover Bad Debts

Following on from our 1st workshop, we will highlight some practical debt recovery points and how to use the insolvency process as a tool to recover bad debts, to include suing directors personally of debtor companies personally. Our workshop will also look at Retention of Title claims.

Tuesday 22 November 2011: Directors Liabilities and Duties - how to stay out of trouble!

In these difficult times, it is expected that more claims will be made against directors. We have seen an increase in claims for unlawful dividends (some going back to 2004), breach of duties and in Directors Disqualification Proceedings. In this workshop, we will update you on your duties and liabilities as directors and company secretaries, and the transactions and management issues that Insolvency Practitioners investigate together with the Insolvency Service. 

Tuesday 29 November 2011: Employment Update

As the year comes to an end, our specialist employment Partner Phil Kerridge will provide a practical list of employment issues arising from 2011 and predict the potential changes in 2012. This will be a must attend session for HR Managers and directors.

Tuesday 13 December 2011: Construction Act - the new one!

Our last session for 2011 will focus on the key changes to the Act and early developments, together with an update on other developments relating to letters of intent, experts and ADR. The session will be aimed at Employers, Contractors, Developers, Architects, Surveyors and Consultants.

Please complete the online booking form here to reserve your place(s).

In 2012, we will be holding seminars on Buying and Selling a Business, Intellectual Property Rights (exploiting and protecting), Company Law and Property updates. Please also add any additional workshops and seminars you would like us to hold.

We look forward to seeing you at our workshops.

R&N

George Osborne announces Employment Law Reforms

The Government yesterday announced the two key changes that they intend to introduce to encourage employers to recruit new staff with effect from April 2012. Firstly, the intention is to increase the period of continuous service required to bring an unfair dismissal claim from one to two years.  Secondly, fees are to be introduced for the issuing of Tribunal claims. Both of these have been widely predicted for several months.

Whether either of these changes is likely to have the desired effect is debatable according to the Firm’s Head of Employment Law, Phil Kerridge.

“Based on previous statistics, the increase of the period from one to two years will effect about 5% of cases, so on the face of it that reduction is not as significant as you might expect.

Set against that, it has to be remembered that the increase will have no bearing on discrimination cases, which will continue to have no requirements for any continuity of service. Bearing in mind the recent abolition of the default retirement age, I can see a significant increase in age discrimination claims, so I am not convinced that what has been proposed will be sufficient to stimulate employers into recruiting new staff.

Whether the payment of a fee will deter potential claimants remains to be seen, although it should certainly discourage the more speculative claims.”

If you wish to discuss the proposed changes or any other employment law issue, please contact Phil on 01603 675603 or at pnk@ogers-norton.co.uk.  If you wish to subscribe to Phil’s monthly newsletter, please click here.

R&N Employment Newsletter

Rogers & Norton are pleased to announce the launch of its free “e–employment newsletter”, which goes live this month. The newsletter will come out ten times per year and is designed to provide general updates that are aimed at HR officers and owners and directors of SME businesses alike.


If you have not yet subscribed to the newsletter and would like to do so, please complete the sign up form by clicking the following link : http://www.topica.com/f/v.html?1700160817.1700102567.
If you require more specific advice on either the contents of the newsletter or any other aspect of employment law, please contact Phil Kerridge on 01603 675603 or email pnk@rogers-norton.co.uk.

ROGERS & NORTON

Corporate Manslaughter Seminar 26th November 2008

On the 26th November 2008 Rogers & Norton in conjunction with Heath Lambert Group hosted a seminar on the impact of Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.

The seminar at Dunston Hall was attended by over 70 delegates and involved presentations by Mark Hambling and Phil Kerridge, both partners in the practice. Phil analysed the law prior to the 2007 Act coming into force on the 6th April 2008 and considered the law which remains in place following the Act and the current sentencing regime under the Health and Safety at Work legislation.

Mark analysed the new Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 and provided an overview as to what will need to be proven for a successful prosecution and advised on the steps that employers should take so as to ensure that they do as much as possible to avoid prosecution in the unfortunate event of a fatality in the workplace

Commenting on the seminar Mark Hambling indicated that "Rogers & Norton were delighted to be able to co-host this seminar with Heath Lambert and analyse both the legal and insurance issues. The seminar was very popular and clearly demonstrated the awareness of local businesses as to the impact of this Act and the need to be pro-active in ensuring compliance with the legislation".

Following the seminar both Mark and Phil indicated that they are more than happy to discuss, without obligation and initially without charge, the impact of the new Act should any delegate wish to make contact

Although the seminar has now concluded, both Mark and Phil will be happy to answer any further questions on the impact of the Act and can be contacted on the details listed below.

Philip Kerridge
Telephone: 01603 675612
Email: pnk@rogers-norton.co.uk

Mark Hambling
Telephone: 01603 675668
Email: mbh@rogers-norton.co.uk