Employment Law Advice

Divorce and Pension

2011-01-14T14:36:00.000-08:00

Divorce and Pension

When it comes to divorce, the law provides that the partner who is financially worse-off (usually the woman) is in fact entitled to a claim in their ex-spouse’s pension rights.

This fact alone makes it worthy of far more careful consideration than many give to it.

The obvious first step is to receive a pension valuation from your pension provider in order to see just how much money it is worth. This amount is crucial as it may influence which method of dividing up your pension you choose, which as considered below, can take a variety of forms.

Pension Sharing - PERCENTAGE

The most popular method of dividing up a pension on divorce is one of the more recent options the courts have provided, referred to as ‘pension sharing’ or ‘pension splitting’.

This is often seen as the easiest way to..... Read full article on divorce and pension

Retirement of employees

2011-01-12T08:12:00.000-08:00

As from 6 of April 2011 – no forced retirement notices can be issued to your employees This is due to new laws that are to take effect in October 2011 which mean employers are no longer able to dismiss staff simply on the grounds that they have reached 65. Whilst at the moment the power lies with the employer who is able to lawfully dismiss an employee on this basis, as of October an employer must be able to prove they are ‘objectively justified’ to dismiss a worker on these grounds.

Posted by Employment Lawyers

Employment Lawyers: Unfair Dismissal of a Teacher and Continuance of Employment

2010-12-03T07:49:00.000-08:00

Employment Lawyers: Unfair Dismissal of a Teacher and Continuance of Employment

Employment Appeal Tribunal 08 September 2010

In the recent case of Hussain v Acorn Independent College Limited, the teacher in question Mr Hussain had a temporary contract that was due to terminate on 8th July.
The teacher for whom he was covering for, resigned on that same day, and it was agreed that Mr Hussain would be kept on under a permanent contract from 5th September.

However, the College terminated Mr Hussain’s contract on 12th June, nearly a month early, which lead Mr Hussain to a claim against it for unfair dismissal. The College fought back by insisting Mr Hussain had not worked continuously for a year. This claim was made on the basis that there was a period between the two contracts where Mr Hussain did not work.

The college claimed this ‘cessation of work’ .... Read full blog on Employment Lawyer

Q. Are claims for associative discrimination valid?

2010-12-03T07:07:00.000-08:00

Question: Are claims for associative discrimination valid?

Answer by Employment Lawyer: Disability discrimination can encompass associative discrimination of a carer, as established in the case of Coleman v Attridge Law. However, this does not extend to associative protection under the Sex Discrimination Act, for example a claim cannot be made on the grounds of a partner becoming pregnant.

What happens if unfair discrimination is just one of the causes to my illness, is this enough to claim?

2010-12-03T07:03:00.000-08:00

Question: What happens if unfair discrimination is just one of the causes to my illness, is this enough to claim?

Answer by Employment Lawyer:

A claim will be allowed if the discrimination is found by the courts to be a ‘material’ cause of the ill health. There must be a casual link between the discrimination and the ill health and if this has resulted in any loss of earnings, for example, the courts will take these into account. The courts will also make an assessment over the extent to which the unlawful discrimination has contributed to the ill health and will reduce the damages accordingly, for example if they are found to have contributed 40%, the courts will reduce the total awarded damages by 60%.

What happens if my Employers don’t have the money to pay out my unfair dismissal awards

2010-12-03T06:59:00.000-08:00

Question: What happens if my Employers don’t have the money to pay out my unfair dismissal awards? Will this be taken into consideration when determining the damages I will receive by an employment tribunal?

Answer by Employment Lawyer. No! Even in situations where paying out may send your employer into liquidation, the courts will not allow this factor to alter the amount of damages which should be awarded to you. The financial state of the company has no relevance to your unfair dismissal and the courts would see damages in these circumstances as neither unjust nor inequitable.

Employment Lawyers: Effective Date of Termination of Employment

2010-12-03T06:26:00.000-08:00

Employment Lawyers: Effective Date of Termination of Employment

Strict time limitations on employment claims means the whole success of your claim could be dependant on the disputed date of your termination of employment. The matter can get further complicated by letters not being read as straight away.

This has commonly been the case with dismissals, where letters sent have not been read immediately on arrival due to individuals being away on holiday. Case law suggests that the employment tribunal would decide in favour of... Read full blog on London Lawyers

Employment Law in Dubai - Termination of Employment in UAE

2010-11-02T10:00:00.000-07:00

The following provides the essential know-how in relation to termination of employment in Dubai. Bear in mind that this is guidance only and that employment law in Dubai (which is covered under United Arab Emirates law) must be read in conjunction with the local culture and rule of law. Under United Arab Emirates (UAE) labour law, an employer must give an employee a minimum notice period of.... Read More on termination of employment contract in Dubai

Employment Law in Dubai - Termination of Employment

By Bains Cohen LLP

Employment Law in Dubai: Work hard Pay hard?!

2010-09-02T02:21:00.000-07:00

Laura Beament

Employment Law in Dubai: Work hard Pay hard?!
Employment law specialist law firm in London and Essex Bains Cohen Solicitor has prepared a summary of relevant employment law in Dubai for the benefit of its expat clients.
What is its role?

Employment Law in Dubai is in fact called Labour Law, but has exactly the same function as Employment Law in England – i.e. it is the employee’s rights which take priority. So you probably know more about it than you think! Labour Law covers every aspect of employer and employee relations, (treatment at work, pay, hours of work, leave, benefits, holiday, etc) and cannot be overridden by employment contracts. Read More on Employment law in Dubai

Dedicated Child Care Managers Employment Contract | Employment Contracts | Bains Cohen Solicitors LLP

2010-06-14T09:19:00.000-07:00

Dedicated Child Care Managers Employment Contract | Employment Contracts | Bains Cohen Solicitors LLP: "Dedicated Child Care Managers Employment Contract

View Full-Size Image

Price per Unit (piece): £293.00
£193.00
You Save: £100.00"

Employment Contract for Child Care Managers

2010-06-07T12:50:00.000-07:00

Dedicated child care employment contract

The level of responsibility which is required from you as a child care manager is beyond what most people who run their small businesses have to face. You have responsibilities first for the children in your nursery or child care day centre and you also are indirectly responsible for the actions of your staff, the child care providers and the teachers and assistants in your nursery, child care centre or after school child care centre that you are running.

The parents, your clients, expect you to employ the highest possible standard of care whilst recruiting and employing your members of staff and because of the large amount of rules and regulations that the child care industry has to adhere to, you are expected to ensure the staff that you employ are of the highest possible standard and that no member of staff can bring your child care business into disrepute or even a closure of your business, due to failure to adhere to rules and obligations regarding the care and welfare of the children in your child care business.

You can only run your child care business if you have full confidence in your members of staff and you can only achieve this by keeping a tight control over your employee’s conduct and behaviour from the outset. This child care employment contract is dedicated to those who work in the child care industry, which means it contains very specific clauses to ensure that in the event of issues arising in your nursery or day care centre, you can confidently act without placing yourself at risk of being sued by a parent for negligence or by one of your employees for unfair dismissal, or for any related employment law issues.

If you are a responsible child care manager who runs a child care business, whether a nursery, a baby day care centre, or an after school child care club, whether your child care business is being run entirely privately or with the support of your local authority, you should always have a dedicated employment contract to deal with child care issues which will inevitably arise occasionally in your child care business.

If you use a general employment contract instead of a dedicated child care employment contract in your child care business, you run the risk that some important terms and conditions might not be covered in the employment contract, which means that you could leave yourself and your business exposed not only to employment law suits and claims in employment tribunals, but you might also leave the vulnerable children with whom you have been entrusted, exposed to unforeseen dangers by some of your employees.
This dedicated child care employment contract has been specifically crafted to enable you to deal with these sorts of situations and to give you the confidence and control over the way the staff in your child care business behave and conduct themselves.

This easily amended employment contract is crucial to have for any responsible childcare manager who runs a childcare business, a nursery, a baby day care centre , a part time child care business and after school childcare centres.
This coherent and easily adaptable employment contract sets out essential child care policies for the safe running of a child care business and after school clubs. This employment contract contains important terms and conditions for those who are employed in the child care industry with conditions such as job title and description, continuance of employment, specific and general duties of the employees (it allows you to easily redeploy your employees to undertake various tasks), it clearly sets out working hours yet allows you the flexibility of changing them with short notice; it allows you to make lawful salary deductions in at least 6 different circumstances; it contains pension arrangements, holiday entitlements as well as restrictions on when holidays can be taken. This contract also deals clearly with sickness policies, entitlements and consequences of long term as well as sporadic illnesses and it complies with stringent requirements of health and safety to make sure that your child care business is a safe place. The contract also sets out computers, cameras and mobile telephone use policies and it even deals with defamatory remarks by employees to parents and on the internet and it has a very useful anti- competition clause which ensures that once an employee leaves they cannot set up in competition with you nearby.
The contract also contains very important requirements by the employee to submit to vetting and barring schemes and to periodically consent to police and CRB checks whenever you require then to do so. Crucially, this employment contract even includes reporting obligations by the employee of not only criminal convictions but also any police investigations for major as well as minor matters, leaving you to decide whether or not to continue employing in your child care business, an employee who has for example been investigated by the police for minor assaults, drink and driving and sexual offences. This child care employment contract is so comprehensive yet simple to use and amend and it sets out very clearly the employee’s obligations in regard to data protection, to make sure that the children’s safety is being preserved at all times and that parents are not persuaded to remove their children out of your nursery by an employee who wishes to set up a competing business in close proximity to where your business is located, giving you the peace of mind that a scrupulous employee might not turn into a nasty competitor. To this end, this child care employment contract also contains conditions which relate to post termination restrictions including the return of any of the nursery's property back to you upon their leaving their employment for whatever reason. This contract also clearly prohibits employees from keeping and using lists, names and telephone numbers of parents which means that it would be unlawful to contact parents following the employee’s departure from your business. But the best thing about this Employment Contract is that it is coherent and easy to use and amend and that it allows you to use it for all different scenarios, to fit almost every employment law situation that you as a childcare manger is likely to come across. This dedicated child care employment contract is purchased with a licence for multiple use, which means that you can use it in any variation for up to 10 employees in your child care business.
Download your Child Care Manager Employment Contract

When can employer dismiss an employee without notice for gross misconduct?

2010-05-16T13:05:00.000-07:00

The question of whether a particular conduct by an employee amounts to gross misconduct is one which tends to trick many employers. The reality is that like almost everything else in life, the issue of whether or not a particular action amounts to gross misconduct which would justify summary dismissal is a matter of point of view. Some employers are stricter than others, which mean that they will expect a very high standard of compliance from their employees. But what standard should employers apply?

After all, what might be regarded by the employer as an act of gross misconduct might not be viewed by the employee in the same light. Here are two of many examples which you can find on how easy it is to misjudge the situation.

In the case of Dunn and anor v AAH Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 183, the finance director and the managing director of a company were dismissed for failing to follow company procedures to report significant risk issues to the parent company, including fraud, of which they became aware. In the view of the company these failures were so serious as they had the potential of resulting in the whole company facing some serious consequences as a result of the breaches by the directors. The company therefore dismissed both directors without notice because it felt that these directors were no longer to be trusted with the important tasks of identifying and reporting matters which could put the company at risk. Surely the employers were right in dismissing the directors without notice for gross misconduct. The directors appealed to the Court of Appeal, claiming that their conduct amounted to mere errors and not to omissions which would justify a summary dismissal. The Court of Appeal rejected their appeal and held that these failures were not mere errors of judgment but seriously undermined trust and confidence between employer and employee entitling the employer to treat the breaches as matters of gross misconduct and dismiss them without notice.
On the other hand, in an earlier case, Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust v Westwood [2009] UKEAT 0032_09_1712, The Employment Appeal Tribunal, found against an employer, who summarily dismissed a nurse for leaving a patient on a trolley outside Accident and Emergency at night. In this case the Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that the action by the nurse did not amount to gross misconduct, although it was a serious professional failing. For such conduct or omission to amount to gross misconduct the act must be either:
- deliberate wrongdoing; or
- very considerable negligence.
On the facts, the employee's conduct in this case did not satisfy this test and therefore did not amount to gross misconduct which would justify summary dismissal.
So how can you tell whether an employee’s conduct or omission amounts to gross misconduct? The answer is that on many occasions you cannot tell for certain but if I was you, I would spend a little bit of money to find out and speak to a specialist employment lawyer before making a final decision about the dismissal so that you minimise the risk of getting it wrong. You don’t have to spend a lot of money in order to find out whether dismissing an employee would land you in hot water. Find a trusted employment lawyer who will advise you on the specific issue at hand and if you worried about the costs or the quality, Bains Cohen Solicitors will consult with you over the telephone for just £93 and will guarantee you the quality of the advice or you can have your money back no questions asked. Compare this with the costs of getting it wrong and if you are facing such situation, call them on their free phone as soon as possible.

Am I entitled to legal representation at a disciplinary hearing?

2010-05-15T15:23:00.000-07:00

There is no straight forward answer to this question. Generally speaking, up until recently, it was the usual practice of most employers not to allow legal representation of employees in a disciplinary hearing. However, a recent Court of Appeal case made it clear that in some circumstances employees should be legally represented during a disciplinary hearing depending on the possible consequences of the disciplinary hearing to the employee. In the case of G, R (on the application of) v X School and ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court regarding a teaching assistant who was alleged to have had inappropriate contact with a student. The teacher was entitled to legal representation at a disciplinary hearing on the grounds that it would have a strong influence on the decision of the Independent Safeguarding Authority as to whether he should be placed on the list of persons barred from working with children.

Employees should therefore always be advised to make a request for legal representation even if they believe that the request to be represented during the disciplinary hearing will not be granted. This at least will give them the option to later on appeal the disciplinary decision of their employer on the ground of ‘unfair hearing’ should the hearing result in adverse consequences to them.

The request to have legal representation during a disciplinary hearing is also important from a strategic point of view as it indicates to the employer that the employee might not simply accept the outcome of the disciplinary hearing but might take matters further if the disciplinary decision is to result in adverse consequences to the employee.

Age Discrimination

2010-05-15T14:22:00.000-07:00

In 2 recent cases the European Court of Justice looked at issues of age discrimination and found that in some circumstances it might be justify to discriminate on grounds of age.

In the first case, Wolf (Social policy) [2010] EUECJ C-229/08, The European Court of Justice ruled in certain circumstances age discrimination could be justified where the employer can show evidence that physical fitness was an essential requirement in carrying out the tasks at hand. In this case the European Court of Justice ruled in favour of the German fire service which required all its applicants to be under the age of 30.

This was on the basis that fire-fighters were involved in activities of fire fighting and rescue and that the physical fitness of its applicants was an essential element of carrying out their duties. The European Court of Justice therefore decided that the imposition of the age limit was a proportionate measure.

In the second case, Petersen (Social policy) [2010] EUECJ C-341/08
the court made a preliminary ruling that a maximum age limit of 68 for dentists working in publicly funded practice is potentially justified as a means of providing opportunities for younger dentists to find work in the health service. Interestingly, the court ruled that it would not have been acceptable to set the age limit on the grounds of protection of public health. This was because in private practices there was not an age limit for working dentists.

Compromise Agreements - how to get the best out of it!

2010-04-26T13:19:00.000-07:00

Compromise Agreements - legal advice on Compromise Agreements Employment Articles

How to successfully negotiate your Compromise Agreement?

“I Was Unfairly Dismissed After I Complained About Flea Bites”

2010-04-17T15:42:00.000-07:00

Dismissal by reason of redundancy may be fair or unfair.
In particular, it will be unfair dismissal if the selection of a particular individual for redundancy was unfair or if there was a total failure to consider suitable alternative employment.

Prior to the repeal of the statutory dispute resolution procedures, a dismissal by reason of redundancy was automatically unfair if the statutory procedures required before an employee could be properly dismissed were not followed.

A woman who was dismissed by way of redundancy from her job at a North Wales holiday park after she had complained that she had been bitten by fleas has won her claim of unfair dismissal. Maria Moon worked in the coffee shop at Hafan y MÔr holiday centre in Gwynedd. She was provided with accommodation, which she shared with another employee.

Ms Moon told the Employment Tribunal (ET) that the chalet she occupied had no heating, the shower was broken, the mattresses were soiled and the walls were damp and mouldy. One night, she awoke feeling feverish and with what appeared to be an itchy rash on her right arm.

One of the chefs at the holiday centre took her to see a doctor who said that the rash had been caused by insect bites, probably from rat fleas. Ms Moon was given antibiotics and was absent from work for four days. Following her complaint to the management, Ms Moon’s chalet was fumigated. However, a few days after she had moved back in, she was bitten again and lodged a further complaint.

In May 2008, Ms Moon was told that she was being dismissed because the management of the park had decided that the coffee shop was overstaffed. She brought a claim for unfair dismissal. The ET heard evidence from David Evans, a manager at Hafan y MÔr, that the staff accommodation was ‘basic but serviceable’.

He said that if the standard of the chalets had been any higher, they would have been used as guest accommodation. Mr Evans admitted that Ms Moon was the only person considered for dismissal and no attempt had been made to consult with other workers. He said he had tried to find suitable alternative work but none was available.
In addition, he had failed to follow the normal statutory redundancy dismissal procedures. The ET found that the reason for Ms Moon’s dismissal was more likely to have been because she had raised health and safety issues with her employer and she was awarded an undisclosed sum in compensation.

Says Yair Cohen This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , “Although the ACAS Code of Practice that has replaced the statutory dispute resolution procedures does not apply to redundancy dismissals, selection for redundancy must still be fair and made using objective criteria. We can advise you on any redundancy matter.”

More articles like this from Bains Cohen Solicitors here

Whistleblower Protection And Unfair Dismissal

2010-04-17T15:35:00.001-07:00

It is automatically unfair dismissal to dismiss an employee for making a ‘protected disclosure’, in good faith, to someone to whom they are entitled to make it, or to penalise them for doing so.

A former railway worker has been awarded £200,000 in compensation after the Carlisle Employment Tribunal found that he had been unfairly dismissed by Network Rail after he drew attention to a breach of standard health and safety practice. Jim Glencross claimed that he was sacked because he decided to tell the truth about unsafe working practices that had led to a colleague being injured whilst working on overhead lines in 2004.

Mr Glencross witnessed the accident and claimed that he was originally pressurised into making a false statement that failed to mention that the workers had cut corners, a practice apparently encouraged by the managers of the company in order to save time. It was Mr Glencross’s contention that when he retracted his original statement, he was dismissed. Network Rail claimed that Mr Glencross was dismissed for serious misconduct with regard to railway safety measures. However, the ET accepted Mr Glencross’s version of events and awarded him £200,000 for loss of earnings.

More articles like this from Bains Cohen Solicitors here

Working Hours Advice

2010-04-17T14:54:00.000-07:00

The EU Working Time Directive requires member states to ensure that national rules make it unlawful for an employer to require workers to work more than an average of 48 hours a week. The Working Time Regulations 1998 implement the Directive in the UK. However, the UK Government negotiated an opt-out from the 48-hour weekly working limit where an individual employee gives his or her prior agreement to waive this right.

In December last year, the European Parliament voted in favour of scrapping the UK’s opt-out. A revised Working Time Directive will impose a 48-hour maximum working week, calculated over a reference period of 12 months. If the Directive is adopted, the Government will have three years to implement it. In addition, the Parliament approved a proposal for all hours when an employee is ‘on-call’ to count as working time, in a majority of cases. This decision was condemned by UK business leaders. The Deputy Director General of the Confederation of British Industry, John Cridland, called the vote “misguided. Trying to ban people from choosing to work more that 48 hours a week is a mistake, and would replace opportunity with obstruction.” However, Brendan Barber, General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), welcomed the vote. In his view, “members of the European Parliament have courageously defied the abusers and the slave-drivers over the loss of the ‘right’ to work people till they drop.” There is still a way to go, however, before the revised Directive is adopted. Member states have until May to agree a deal with the European Parliament through the Council of EU Ministers. If no agreement is reached, the opt-out will remain in place.

The TUC has estimated that in 2008, 5.24 million people worked overtime without any extra pay. Whilst critical of the UK’s long-hours culture, the TUC recognises that the recession is making people frightened of losing their jobs and it is inevitable that many of them will be putting in extra hours if they believe it will help protect them from being made redundant or keep their employer in business. The laws on working time across the European Union are intended to guarantee better protection of the health and safety of workers. The issues of competitiveness and cost must therefore be weighed against achieving a sensible work-life balance so that employers and employees can have the flexibility over working hours that they seek.

Employers are advised to consider the likely health and safety implications for their employees of continually working long hours. Not only are tired employees more vulnerable to accidents but also an employer who fails to take remedial action when an employee has made them aware that he or she is suffering from stress as a result of overwork can be found liable for a breach of the duty of care owed to the employee.

More articles like this from Bains Cohen Solicitors here

Does Incremental pay scales based on length of service disadvantage women?

2010-04-17T14:48:00.000-07:00

When it comes to equal pay at work, women are more likely to be paid less because they have fewer years’ service either because of career breaks to look after children or because they are relatively new entrants into traditionally male-dominated professions, and therefore are likely to be discriminated against at work.

In The employment law case of Wilson v Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Mrs Wilson, a health and safety inspector, claimed that the somewhat complex pay system operated by the HSE, which rewarded pay in part by reference to length of service, constituted a breach of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and therefore could constitute discrimination at work.

She accepted that the nature of the job was such that performance would be likely to improve with experience for the first few years but she did not believe that the HSE was justified in applying this criterion over a ten year period. Was Mrs Wilson discriminated against at work? The Employment Tribunal gave its decision in the light of the judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in a similar case, Cadman v HSE. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had concluded that the effect of European case law was that with respect to full-time workers it was not necessary for an employer to justify a pay difference resulting from the application of length of service criterion.

Although the Employment Tribunal was inclined to think that a ten-year period was not justified to reach the requisite level of skill in this case, it found that Mrs Wilson’s case for discrimination at work must fail.

Mrs Wilson appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The appeal was stayed (left on file without the court giving a decision in relation to her claim for discrimination at work) because the Cadman case had by this time been appealed and the Court of Appeal had made reference to the European Court of Justice for a ruling as to whether differences in pay based on length of service need to be objectively justified by the employer to be lawful.

The European Court of Justice judged that as a general rule the criterion of length of service is appropriate to attain the legitimate objective of rewarding experience acquired which enables the worker to perform his or her duties better.

An employer does not generally have to produce specific proof in order to justify the practice unless a worker provides evidence capable of raising serious doubts as to whether the link between pay and length of service is in fact rewarding experience that enables the worker to perform better. In that case, the employer must demonstrate the absence of unlawful discrimination.

When Mrs Wilson’s appeal was heard, the Employment Appeal Tribunal identified that the real issue to be determined was whether once it has been accepted that the nature of the job is such that pay can properly be made to depend on length of service, is that the end of the Employment Tribunal’s enquiry or can it also consider, in an appropriate case, whether the degree of recourse to length of service (and therefore, experience) can be justified? Although the European Court of Justice’s judgment in the Cadman case had not provided the desired clarity on this point, in the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s view the Employment Tribunal does have the power to question whether the length of service criterion used by the employer is justified in circumstances where the employee has raised serious doubts as to whether or not it is.

To do so, the Employment Tribunal would have to be satisfied that that there was ‘real reason to suspect that the employer has stepped beyond the margins which can properly be afforded to employers when considering whether added experience typically improves job performance’.

The matter was referred to a fresh Tribunal to consider the issue of serious doubts again.
More Articles from Bains Cohen Solicitors here

Redundancies Or Transfer For Economic Reasons. Risky Business

2008-11-04T10:50:00.000-08:00

The purpose of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) is to safeguard the employment rights of employees when a business is sold. If a person employed immediately before the relevant transfer of a business is dismissed for a reason connected with the transfer, the dismissal is automatically unfair unless the employer can show that it was for ‘economic, technical or organisational reasons entailing changes in the work-force’.

In Dynamex Friction Ltd. v Amicus, the Court of Appeal had to decide whether the Employment Tribunal (ET) had been justified in concluding that employees who were dismissed by the administrator of a company had been dismissed for economic reasons rather than for a reason related to the transfer of the business. Read more

Unfair Dismissal and Alcohol Policy

2008-11-04T10:45:00.000-08:00

A recent case serves as a reminder of the importance of circulating and abiding by your internal policies and procedures. The Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that the dismissal of a council employee who had consumed alcohol whilst on duty was unfair because the council had failed to make known its published alcohol policy and had not followed it when dismissing him (Sinclair v Wandsworth Council).
Read the full judgement here: http://www.employmentappeals.gov.uk/Public/Upload/07_0145fhLBDM.doc

New National Minimum Wage rates from 1 October 2008

2008-11-04T10:40:00.000-08:00

The rates from 1 October 2008 is:
adults (which means people aged 22 and over), £5.73 an hour
workers aged 18-21, £4.77 an hour - the 'development rate'
young people (those older than school leaving age and younger than 18; you're under school leaving age until the end of summer term of the school year in which you turn 16), £3.53 an hour
This publication contains information which is intended for general guidance only. The information is provided in a concise form and is not substitute for obtaining legal advice. If you would like advice specific to your circumstances, please contact Bains Cohen Solicitors

Restaurants: Who Really Gets The Tips

2008-11-04T10:19:00.000-08:00

Currently, restaurants operate a wide variety of practices when it comes to dealing with tips and the Government does not regulate as to how they should be managed.

Minister Baroness Vadera recently announced in the House of Lords that the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR) has agreed to examine the laws relating to the payment of tips in restaurants. It will look at several issues of concern and take all representations into account, including those of the British Hospitality Association and the trade unions. Read More

Tribunal Proceedings – Intimidating Conduct

2008-11-04T10:12:00.000-08:00

Employment Judges have the power, under Rule 18(7)(c), to strike out any claim or response on the grounds that ‘the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by or on behalf of the claimant or the respondent…has been scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious’. Writes Yair Cohen.