In all the time I have been writing this column I don’t recall ever having to type ”the law is an ass” before. That’s the first time and the reason is because of a case heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal reported this week.
In all the time I have been writing this column I don’t recall ever having to type ”the law is an ass” before. That’s the first time and the reason is because of a case heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal reported this week.
At these stressful times it is perhaps appropriate that the Court of Appeal should hand down an important judgment on workplace stress that may make it easier for employees to claim compensation in these cases.
The case of Dickens v O2 plc has just been reported. It concerned an employee of O2 who was placed under great stress through overwork and who told her line managers that she was “at the end of her tether”. They did nothing meaningful to address her problems. Although there were other “stressor factors” in her life as well as her difficult work environment, she was able to show that O2′s failure to deal properly with her had materially contributed to her psychiatric illness. She was signed off sick with stress for several months before O2 terminated her employment.
In normal times (and heaven knows we are not in them at the moment), people only really get interested in bonuses come January and February each year. But because of the extraordinary events of the last week or so (I’m thinking particularly of the bail-outs of some of our biggest banks) there has been speculation over what it will mean for next year’s bonus round. The speculation has been fuelled by comments from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that large bonus payments will not be tolerated at those banks that have been part-nationalised. The wider media, always in search of an easy scapegoat, has leapt at the chance to have a go on the issue. In turn that has led some lawyers to discuss whether bonuses can be regulated or reduced.
Leaving aside the global financial problems for a moment, this week (5th October to be precise) saw some important amendments to maternity leave regulations. If there is one topic that is guaranteed to bring me out in a cold sweat, it is maternity leave, with all its manifold time limits and subtle differences depending on whether the woman is on Ordinary Maternity Leave (OML) (for the first 26 weeks) or Additional Maternity Leave (AML) (the second 26 weeks). From the 5th it all became a bit simpler when the differences between the two periods of maternity leave were removed for women whose babies were born after that date. Prior to that date a woman on OML was entitled to all the terms and conditions of employment, like sick pay and pension contributions that she would have received had she been at work. Her contract was only varied in respect of salary, with her entitlement being covered either by her employer’s maternity pay policy (if there was one) or Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP)*. By way of contrast, a woman on AML before the 5th had none of those rights, save for the protection provided by the sex discrimination legislation – the right to return to her old job, to receive proper notice and the employer had a duty to uphold the implied term of trust and confidence and some other technical matters, but no right to receive pension contributions.
I’ve been asked a couple of time recently by prospective clients whether I can act for them when they’ve been given a compromise agreement by their employers, usually following redundancy. The answer is almost always yes. Why does the question get asked? Well, often HR departments will, as a service to their departing employees, provide a list of solicitors that will be able to advise on the agreements, because it is a requirement of every properly drafted compromise agreement that an independent solicitor review and explain it and sign a certificate at the end of the document to say they have done so. Indeed, my firm is on many such lists. The employer will usually offer to pay a contribution towards the cost of that advice and in many cases that contribution will cover all the solicitor’s fees in advising on the document. Many people think that they are only allowed to use the law firms on the list provided by HR, but this is not the case.