Cheshire Employment Law

Darbys LLP Solicitors sponsored
the Ladies Pampered Chef evening held in Lymm on 29^th November.
Natasha Jones, partner at Darbys played host to the Charity Ladies Evening to
raise monies for CAFT (Childrens Adventure Farm Trust).  CAFT provides holidays, outings and events for
disabled and disadvantaged children.  A
cookery demonstration was followed by a prize draw.  Draw prizes were kindly donated by Black
White Denim, Facebook School, One Body Personal Training, Johannah Designs, Parsley
Pie, Ian Lloyd Flowers, Paul Worpole Photography and Peter Wilcox Hairdressers.

Julie Gray, Community Fundraiser
for the Adventure Farm comments:  “We are so grateful to everyone who
worked so hard to make this amazing Pampered Chef evening possible, especially
Darbys for sponsoring the event, it was a massive success.  It’s so
heart-warming when local companies and individuals come together to raise funds
for our charity, it is only with the support of our community that we can
continue to provide these once in a lifetime opportunities to the very special
children who visit us here at CAFT.  On behalf of each and every child,
thank you so much – you really are changing lives.”

Natasha said “ We are proud to
support CAFT and now that we have opened Darbys Manchester we wanted to add a
charity, local to our Northwest office , to our ‘Putting Something Back’  Scheme”.

The evening raised between
£950-£1,000, and was attended by 36 local Ladies.

Against an increasingly challenging global economic situation, members are unfortunately becoming more concerned about the security of their jobs. In the last few weeks, two thirds of all calls to the free Legal Helpline run by the Institution’s appointed legal partner Purple Legal, were from members concerned about employment law issues. Here, Natasha Jones, employment lawyer and Partner at Purple Legal, discusses proposed changes to employment law due next year, and the free advice on employment law available for Institution members right now.

In an attempt to make it tougher for employees to bring unfair dismissal claims at the Employment Tribunal, the Government proposes next year to extend the length of employment required to bring a claim. The qualifying period for the right to claim unfair dismissal will be extended from one to two years on 6 April 2012. The Government’s announcement pre-empts its response to its consultation ‘Resolving Workplace Disputes’, which proposed the increased qualifying period.

Natasha Jones, employment lawyer and Partner at Purple Legal explains the legal principles behind the reforms and the thinking behind the proposed change in the law: “The Government claims that increasing the period to two years, combined with other proposals in the ‘Resolving Workplace Disputes’ consultation, should see the number of unfair dismissal claims drop by around 2,000 per year.”

“Other proposals set out in the consultation included a fee for lodging tribunal claims. In his speech to the Conservative party conference in Manchester, the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that such a fee will be introduced from April 2013. Currently an employee can lodge a claim for free whereas the employer incurs costs in the time and money incurred in defending a claim which may be without merit or vexatious.”

While business groups have welcomed the move, some commentators have expressed concern that the change may lead to an increase in the number of discrimination claims, for which there is no qualifying period. Natasha cautions businesses of the mistakes that are often made when firing people.

“Most people have watched The Apprentice and have seen Lord Sugar firing people with a frightening finger, or Donald Trump with an intimidating voice. Unfortunately, it is one of the unpleasant realities of running a business that occasionally an employee relationship breaks down.”

“In most situations, dismissing someone should be a sequence of legal and logical steps, rather than something that comes as a shock to the system. If it comes as a ‘bolt from the blue’ to the employee, then an employer probably hasn’t followed the correct procedures which could result in the employee claiming substantial compensation.”

In addition to highlighting this proposed change to employment law next year, Natasha was very keen to address members’ more immediate concerns about employment law right now and how Purple Legal can help members who sadly are affected by redundancy.

She said: “The combination of economic downturn and cuts to the defence sector in particular mean that the impact will not only be felt by employees of big engineering companies losing their jobs, but will have a knock on effect throughout the manufacturing supply chain as demand for production and manufacturing suffers a considerable blow. It has been calculated that for every job lost in a big engineering company, there are at least another four elsewhere that are directly related to it.”

“As the knock on effects are felt throughout the supply chain, it leads to a rather bleak forecast that redundancies may be inevitable in those companies that are members of the Institution, particularly those that depend on big engineering employers and a healthy government defence budget for survival.”

“Purple Legal advises that all employers and employees that will be affected by defence cuts, falling demand for supply and production, should seek professional advice about redundancy as an option in particular how the process should be initiated and managed.”

“Redundancy may be inevitable. Purple Legal says that both parties need to fully understand employment law terminology – including ‘consultation’ selection criteria’, ‘redundancy’, ‘dismissal’ and ‘suitable alternative employment’ and the various elements involved in the process to ensure it is legal, fair and is managed appropriately to ensure the best outcome for the employees and the employer in terms of business efficacy.”

Purple Legal’s specialist employment lawyers have years of experience of guiding businesses and workers through the minefield of information on redundancy and advises that consultation is a vital part of the redundancy process. This is where an employer consults a member of staff before they have been selected for redundancy. There are specific procedures to follow if more than 20 employees are made redundant as representatives also need to be involved in consultation.

Natasha said: “At a time of mass redundancies, Purple Legal stresses that understanding employment rights and the key legal issues is more important than ever.”

“We know that there is worse to come in the next few months for Institution members, as the knock on effects from large scale redundancies and government defence budget cuts are felt along the supply chain, and the sector will be reviewing its staff needs.”

“What employers need to remember is that there is a complex legal process for making people redundant.

“Purple Legal’s key message to employers during redundancy is to ensure they offer consultation on an individual basis; speed up the process instead of dragging it out; and maintain a process that is objective and fair, and transparent.”

She concluded: “The employer in control of a redundancy situation can move forward to become a stronger and leaner business. Likewise, an employee that manages a redundancy situation effectively can use the circumstances as an opportunity for a change and a fresh start in their career.”

Free and confidential help is available for members from Purple Legal. For more information and to book a SolicitorSlot to get free legal advice contact:

Ex-Pannones Partner Simon McCrum is returning to Manchester – to launch a new office for his Top 250 law firm Darbys Solicitors and to bring his legal revolution to the North West.
Simon left Pannones four years ago to become Managing Partner of Darbys in Oxford – a 150-strong team with 13 specialist departments.
Said Simon:
“Back in 2007 I could see a huge opportunity for a law firm to do things differently. I went to Darbys to launch the revolutionary PURPLE LEGAL scheme for families and BLUE LAW scheme for businesses, which give easy and free access to specialist lawyers, and a great service – every lawyer, every time. These schemes have gone great guns in the South – hundreds of thousands of families and businesses have access to them. We want to extend their benefits to families and businesses here in the North”.
Darbys has teamed up with Natasha Jones, owner of Cheshire Employment Law, to start the Northern base for Darbys.
Commented Natasha: “I was eager to join this highly unusual law firm which offers businesses and families something very different. We have a blueprint that works well. To be at the front of changes in the legal marketplace is very exciting. I have totally bought into what Simon and Darbys are trying to do ”

see; www.darbys.co.uk

In an attempt to make it tougher for employees to bring unfair dismissal claims at the Employment Tribunal, the Government proposes to next year extend the length of employment required to bring a claim The Government announced ON 3RD October that the qualifying period for the right to claim unfair dismissal will be extended from one to two years on 6 April 2012. The Government’s announcement pre-empts its response to its consultation ‘Resolving Workplace Disputes’, which proposed the increased qualifying period. While business groups have welcomed the move, some commentators have expressed concern that the change may lead to an increase in the number of discrimination claims, for which there is no qualifying period.

The Government claims that increasing the period to two years, combined with other proposals in the ‘Resolving Workplace Disputes’ consultation, should see the number of unfair dismissal claims drop by around 2,000 per year. Other proposals set out in the consultation included a fee for lodging tribunal claims. In his speech to the Conservative party conference in Manchester, the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that such a fee will be introduced from April 2013. Currently an employee can lodge a claim for free where as the employer incurs costs in the time and money incurred in defending a claim which may be without merit or vexatious.

Sir Alan Sugar fires people with a frightening finger, Donald Trump with an intimidating voice – one of the unpleasant realities of running a business is that occasionally an employee relationship breaks down. Employment lawyer Natasha Jones and Partner of Darbys cautions businesses of the mistakes that are often made when firing people.

In most situations, dismissing someone should be a sequence of legal and logical steps, rather than something that comes as a shock to the system If it comes as a ‘bolt from the blue’ to the employee, then an Employer probably hasn’t followed the correct procedures which could result in the employee claiming substantial compensation.

Darbys launched the revolutionary PURPLE LEGAL scheme for families and BLUE LAW scheme for businesses which is free for IMeche, ICAW, WIRE members BHS gold members. The schemes have developed successfully in the South and are now being replicated in the North of England.

The Government yesterday published the Low Pay Commission’s (LPC) remit for their 2012 Report.

While the Commission will continue to monitor, evaluate and review the National Minimum Wage (NMW) and its impact, and review the levels of each of the different minimum wage rates, the Government, amongst other things has asked the independent body to pay particular attention to youth employment – including those in apprenticeships and internships – to reflect on-going concerns about the position of young people in the labour market.
I know that the debate about the abolishment of the default retirement age is complex and we have a large ageing population but…. mandatory retirement makes way for the next generation coming through.. so are the government’s concerns really a case of trying to shut the stable door once the horse has bolted? or is it me?

A few days ago I wrote about worrying events as to the morality of our society, the case of baby ‘P’ being one more in a long long list

The Court of Appeal has allowed a judicial review challenge made by the former Director of Children’s Services for the London Borough of Haringey over the fairness of the process by which she was removed from office and summarily dismissed. A majority of the Court held that the Council’s decision to dismiss S was unlawful and void. This was due to its reliance upon  the unlawful directions from the Secretary of State for Children and Families (at that time).

17-month-old Peter Connelly, ‘Baby P’, died on 3 August 2007 as a result of abuse by his mother, her boyfriend and the boyfriend’s brother, despite numerous visits by social workers and others within the London Borough of Haringey. There was public outcry and subsequent considerable media attention.

S, the Director of Children and Young People’s Services at the Council at that time, was removed from her post by the Secretary of State on the basis of an urgent inspection and report by Ofsted. Shortly afterwards, the Council summarily dismissed S without compensation or payment in lieu of notice. S’s sought judicial review of the fairness of the process behind the report, her removal from office and her dismissal. Initially she was unsuccessful at the Administrative Court. so she appealed.

The Court of Appeal rejected her challenge against Ofsted’s report, but held that the Secretary of State’s directions amounted to procedural unfairness. The fact that S was accountable for the department did not mean that she should not be afforded an opportunity to put her side across before being removed from office. As is the normal procedure before dismissing most employees.

The Court held that, S, as an office holder,  was amenable to judicial review and that the proceedings should not be dealt with in an employment tribunal. The remedy for a claim for unfair dismissal in an employment tribunal – was not ’equally convenient and effective’ due to the cap on compensation that applies to such claims.

The majority of the Court of Appeal – the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Stanley Burnton – held that the Council’s decision to dismiss S was unlawful and void due to its reliance on the Secretary of State’s unlawful directions. The majority thereby disagreed with Lord Justice Maurice Kay’s view that the case fell within ‘ill-defined’ circumstances that mean that the act of a public authority, done in good faith on the reasonably assumed legal validity of the act of another public authority, should not be vitiated by a later finding that the act relied on was unlawful.

On the contrary, the majority view was that since S had put the Council on notice that she considered the Secretary of State’s directions to be unlawful at the appeal against her dismissal, the Council was aware of the contention that the directions were unlawful when it relied on them. Having found in favour of S, the Court directed that the appropriate level of compensation is to be decided between the parties with a remittal to the Administrative Court if agreement cannot be reached.

The Government apparently intends to appeal the decision.

Fortunately some things have changed since my childhood and school days. Casual racism is no longer acceptable in our society whether that be on our streets or conversations. The workplace attempts to discourage barriers erected by sex,race, religion and disability under the guise of The Equality Act 2010. When I first heard of the very sad news of the death of Fiona Pilkington and her severely disabled daughter I had a lasting,very uneasy feeling. This I identified to be , the reminder, that even though racism has been dramatically driven from our streets, not all of the vulnerable are protected so well  in our society.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission outlined a catalogue of problems relating to the handling of the case and an Inspector, a Sergeant and two constables will be questioned at a misconduct hearing over why Ms Pilkington and her two children were not classified as a vulnerable family and given more assisatance. The very point of disciplinary proceedings is for the matter to be properly investigated and a decision to be reached by an impartial individual appraised of all the facts. If disciplinary proceedings with a possible sanction of dismissal on the grounds of  gross misconduct are not carried out  in this case then the the decade of torment (and horrific final month of Ms Pilkington’s life, during which she allegedly called the Leicestershire force three times in four days but little or no action was taken) will be a continued failure to protect the vulnerable.

Repeated ‘anti social’ behaviour can escalate to something far more serious- if only this is or was an isolated occurence..

Once again we are reminded as to the requirement for care when commenting upon exiting employees even if it is not a formal reference.

A recent case  found that an employer may be liable to a former employee in tort for damages for negligent misstatement when communicating with a future employer about him.

The principle that an employee may make such a claim following a reference negligently prepared by an employer was extended in this case to a statement made by a former employer which was not a reference.

The employee, Mr McKie was an exemplary employee and received a fine reference when he left his previous job. He later joined Bath University and his new job involved contact with his old employer, Swindon College. The new HR Director of Swindon, on behalf of the College, sent an email about Mr McKie to Bath which was found to be “fallacious and untrue” and its preparation “sloppy and slapdash”. It cost Mr McKie his job at Bath.

Although this was not a reference case the Court held that a duty of care applied. The claim should succeed because the damage sustained was foreseeable, the relationship was sufficiently proximate, the claim fair, just and reasonable and there was a causal connection between the negligence in and about the sending of the email and the damage claimed.

McKie v Swindon College the High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

http://www.incomesdata.co.uk/areas-of-expertise/employment-law/downloads/mckie.pdf

A recent case in the EAT found that an employee dismissed because the employer genuinely believed that UK Border Agency deemed the individual as having no right to work in the UK was a reasonable response. Although procedurally unfair, this case fell into the fifth unfair dismissal ground of ” a substantial other reason”.
As the penalty for employing an illegal worker can be £10,000.00, for some employers, the risk of such a penalty may be one not to be taken lightly.

News from IDS Brief – New national minimum wage rates announced

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has announced the new rates of the national minimum wage to apply from 1 October 2011. The adult rate will increase from GBP 5.93 to GBP 6.08 an hour; the rate for 18-20 year olds will increase from GBP 4.92 to GBP 4.98 an hour; the rate for 16-17 year olds will increase from GBP 3.64 to GBP 3.68 an hour; and the rate for apprentices will increase from GBP 2.50 to GBP 2.60 an hour. The Government estimates that 890,000 of Britain’s lowest-paid workers will gain from these changes.

The Government announced in the Budget that it will invite the Low Pay Commission, in its next report, to consider the best way to give business greater clarity on future levels of the national minimum wage, including consideration of two-year recommendations. The Government believes that this could provide greater certainty for businesses, reduce risks and help them plan employment and investment decisions.