Government cuts have led to a devastating blow in the defence industry as giants BAE Systems announced just over a week ago that it is in the process of cutting around 3000 jobs in its firms throughout Samelsbury, Warton and Brough as well as some smaller plants.

The impact of the cuts will not only be felt by those employees of BAE Systems 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.   Mr Mendoros, founder, owner and managing director of Euravia Engineering and Supply in Burnley, said: “We calculated that for every job in BAE Systems, there’s 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 IMechE, particularly those that depend on BAE Systems 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.

The intention of this is to give people the right to make suggestions which may influence the decision. The process should be genuine, fair and objective, otherwise it may be considered unfair dismissal and employers could find themselves before a tribunal embroiled in lengthy and expensive litigation.

Redundancy is dismissal, caused by the employer needing to reduce the workforce. Reasons include various situations: new technology making a job unnecessary, the role an employee was hired for no longer existing, the need to cut costs or the business is closing down or moving.

It is essential that employers faced with an impending redundancy situation make their selection based on evidence and fair procedure rather than just deciding who they want to make redundant.  Evidencing and documenting throughout the selection process is vital and may avoid any unfair dismissal claims in the long run.

Whether there is suitable alternative work for an employee who is potentially redundant  also needs to be considered during the consultation process.   Any offer for alternative employment should be made before the old job ends. Staff should be given enough information about what the new job involves so they know how different it is from their old job.

Whether a job is considered suitable alternative employment depends on several things including: the location,pay and skills required.  Depending on the scope of redundancies throughout the sectors in which IMechE members belong, the availability of suitable alternative work may be reduced.

Purple Legal suggests that a redundancy procedure handled incorrectly can lead to unfair dismissal claims primarily when an employer cannot justify a dismissal or does not provide a fair reason for dismissal. The Law sets down what constitutes a fair dismissal and there are only 5 fair legitimate legal reasons, redundancy being one of them. Now that the Default Retirement Age has been removed Retirment can no longer be considered a fair reason for dismissal.

However, unfair dismissal claims may be brought if the redundancy process has not been fairly applied throughout consultation, suitable alternative work availability and the application of selection pool criteria.  Any employee who feels they have been made redundant unfairly can bring an unfair dismissal claim before an employment tribunal if they have one year of continuous service with the company, increasing to 2 years from 6^th April 2012.

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 IMechE members, as the knock on effects from the BAE Systems redundancies and government defence budget cuts are felt along the supply chain, and the sector will be reviewing their staff needs.

What employers need to remember is that there is a complex legal process for making people redundant and companies can benefit from a restructure.

In fact, following the proper procedures can improve the health of a company.”

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.”

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.

Music teacher, Sarah Cameron, claims she was forced out of her job at private school Quinton House School in Upton after the new head took a dislike to her nose stud.

An employment tribunal heard her classroom was moved to a cricket pavilion away from the main campus, leaving her ‘unsupported and isolated’, and staff meetings took place at a time when she was unable to attend them.

Miss Cameron quit her role claiming the environment at the Northamptonshire school became so ‘hostile’ that she was ‘too intimidated’ to turn up at the school for exam results.

see Teacher ‘forced out by private school head who didn’t like her nose stud’– Daily Mail

Ante-natal care – all pregnant employees are allowed to take time off for appointments “for the purpose of receiving antenatal care”, this is not restricted to hospital appointments and may include ante-natal or relaxation classes.

Breastfeeding – employers are required to provide suitable facilities for breastfeeding mothers to rest and to provide adequate rest and meal breaks.

Childbirth – the birth of a child after 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Duration of leave – it is up to the employee how much maternity leave she wants to take;  the minimum is 2 weeks, the maximum is 52 weeks.

Expected week of child birth (EWC) – this is measured from Sunday to Sunday and confirmed on certificate MAT B1 provided by a midwife or doctor.

Fathers (or spouses or the mother’s partner) have a right to take up to two weeks paid paternity leave.  Additional paternity leave (APL) of up to 26 weeks can be taken if the mother has returned to work with some of her statutory maternity/adoption leave undertaken.  APL can only start 20 weeks after the child is born and must be taken by the child’s first birthday. Those taking APL have the right to return to work in the same job and in the same conditions.

Flexible working – an employee with a child under 17 (or 18 for a disabled child) has the right to request flexible working patterns.  Employers must give proper consideration to such requests and follow a statutory procedure when doing so.

Grandparents – are not able to request Flexible Working.

Health and Safety – special duties apply in respect of new and expectant mothers in the workplace.

Holiday entitlement – accrues whilst an employee is on maternity leave.

IVF – pregnancy begins when the fertilised ova are implanted.  An employee is protected for two weeks after an implantation fails.  It may be worth considering allowing unpaid time off for those undergoing IVF and fertility treatment.

Job – an employee returning from OML has the right to return to the same job.  Those returning from AML have a right to return to the same job or to suitable alternative employment.

Keeping in touch (KIT) days – employers should make reasonable contact with employees during maternity leave.  An employee can have 10 KIT days without bringing OML or AML to an end.

Leave- Additional maternity leave (AML) – a further 26 weeks; limited terms and conditions.  At the end of AML, an employee is entitled to return to their original job;  if not, alternative employment which is suitable and appropriate should be offered.

Maternity leave – Can begin on any date not earlier than the 11^th week before EWC.

New system of flexible paternity leave – the Government has issued “Consultation on Modern Workplaces” which puts forward shared flexible parental leave including proposals for unpaid leave for fathers to attend antenatal appointments, 18 week period of maternity leave and 34 week period of shared parental leave.

Ordinary maternity leave (OML) – 26 weeks; normal terms and conditions of employment apply, except remuneration.  At the end of OML, an employee is entitled to return to their original job.

Pregnancy – employees should inform their employer at the end of the 15^th week before the EWC of: the pregnancy, the EWC and the date they intend to start maternity leave.

Parental leave – birth and adoptive parents and those who have or expect to have parental responsibility for a child have a right to up to 13 weeks unpaid parental leave in respect of each child up to the child’s 5^th birthday – this is set to increase to 18 weeks in 2013.  (18 weeks unpaid parental leave up to the age of 18 for a parent of a disabled child).

Qualifying week – the 15^th week before EWC.

Redundancy – an employee on Maternity Leave is entitled to be offered a suitable alternative vacancy (where one exists) in priority over other employees who might be facing redundancy.

Statutory maternity pay (SMP) – employees with a continuous period of 26 weeks ending with the 15th week before the EWC with average weekly earnings at least equal to the lower earnings limit for national insurance are entitled to SMP.  It is paid for up to 39 weeks by the employer, who is partly reimbursed by the state.

Tax credits – employees should be eligible for Working Tax Credits (WTC) for the 26 weeks of OML and first 13 weeks of AML whether or not they are in receipt of SMP or Maternity Allowance, provided they usually worked at least 16 or 30 hours a week immediately before maternity leave.  After 39 weeks, WTC will be paid if the employee returns to work;  if they take further AML, eligibility for WTC will continue for a further four weeks.

Unfair dismissal – it is automatically unfair to dismiss a woman (at any time) or to select her for redundancy when the reason for dismissal is pregnancy or statutory maternity leave.

Visa – if a visa allows an employee to live and work in the UK, they might be eligible for SMP.  If the visa states that there is “no recourse to public funds”, SMP may still be available if an employee satisfies the qualifying conditions.

Wages – SMP is paid at the “earnings-related rate” for the first six weeks (90% of the employee’s “normal weekly earnings”  and for the remaining 33 weeks, SMP is at the “prescribed rate” or the earnings-related rate, whichever is lower.  SMP is currently £128.73 pw at the lower rate;  this will increase to £135.45 pw on 9 April 2012.

You should have a Flexible Working Policy.

Zzz – what every new parent needs!

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.

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:

see; www.darbys.co.uk

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.

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?

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.