Comments (0)

By Michael Scutt, 28/10/2009 10:10 pm

This is from yesterday’s Telegraph.  Marvellous.  Bad news for employment lawyers, of course.

Comments (0)

By Michael Scutt, 27/10/2009 2:01 pm

The “subscribe by email” feature hasn’t been working since the redesign, but it should now do so.  I do apologise if anyone has been trying to subscribe and getting very frustrated as a result.  Please try again!

One of the side-effects of blogging that isn’t often mentioned is the effect it has on one’s IT knowledge.  I think I’m beginning to understand what’s going on “under the bonnet”, as it were.

Comments (0)

By Michael Scutt, 27/10/2009 10:30 am

Over on my Linked-In profile I’ve set up a poll asking which of the four following features you would most seek in your solicitor;

- Accessibility

- Affordability

- Ability, or

- Affability

You can link to the poll from here

I look forward to seeing the results in due course.  Feel free to leave a comment below.

Comments (0)

By Michael Scutt, 23/10/2009 4:42 pm

Well, would you believe it?  In the week that I gave a talk at the City Business Library about contracts of employment (see here for my slideshare presentation) and the differences between employees, workers and the self-employed, I came across a case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) which discussed all these issues.  It is an important issue because the answer to the question will determine what legal remedies are available to the individual.

In the case of Clarkson v Pensher Security Doors Ltd [2009] UKEAT 0107_09_1606  the Applicant undertook the bulk of the electrical work for the Respondent company.  He provided most of the tools he did and although he was given jobs to do he was not told how to carry out those jobs.  He was paid hourly and kept to hours stipulated by the Respondent and, importantly, there was “mutuality of obligation” between the parties – i.e. the Respondent would supply work and Mr Clarkson would undertake it.  However, he took no part in the running of the company or attended company meetings or appraisals and was not paid when he didn’t work. He did do some, limited, work for On the facts it seems like he was, at least, a worker (which is a broader category with fewer legal rights).  However, it was finally held that Mr Clarkson was neither a worker nor an employee and, instead, he was an independent contractor or “business undertaking”.  This meant that his legal rights against the company were confined purely to the terms of the contract between them (and it isn’t clear whether that contract was in writing or purely oral).  In other words he had no right to apply to an Employment Tribunal for any remedies that might otherwise have been available to him. 

This case demonstrates the need for businesses and workers/employees to enter into clear written agreements that set out their status and thus, hopefully, avoid the need for expensive and time consuming litigation that these parties found themselves embroiled in. 

If you need assistance or advice on these issues please do not hesitate to contact me on 0207 464 8433 or at michaelscutt@dalelangley.co.uk

Comments (0)

By Michael Scutt, 20/10/2009 11:23 am

In a bit of a departure from normal practice here I am uploading a copy of a presentation I gave at the City Business Library today. It may be a bit cryptic if you weren’t there to hear it and please contact me if you require further assistance or explanation.  You can find it at my Slideshare site, which is here;

http://www.slideshare.net/michaelscutt

Comments (0)

By Michael Scutt, 15/10/2009 9:00 am

Or, to be more precise, and rather less brutal, when did your employment terminate?  In technical employment law parlance, what is the “Effective Date of Termination (EDT)”?  This is a crucially important date in cases where employer-employee have fallen out because it is from the EDT that time limits for issuing proceedings at an Employment Tribunal (ET) are calculated. 

An employee usually has three months in which to issue his/her proceedings – e.g. for unfair dismissal or for discrimination claims.  Problems can arise when the papers commencing the claim (called the ET1) are lodged close to the three (calendar) month less one day limit.  The ET is very strict about accepting claims outside the three month limit and will only do so if it was not “reasonably practical” for the proceedings to have been lodged within that time.

A recent Court of Appeal case, called Gisda Cyf v Barratt, was argued over this issue.  The Claimant’s employers informed her of her summary dismissal on grounds of her “inappropriate conduct” by RECORDED DELIVERY letter on 29^th November 2006.  The letter was signed for by a relative but the Claimant herself was away from home for a few days.  She did not read it until her return home on 4^th December and she did not issue her ET1 until 2^nd March 2007.  An issue then arose as to whether she was in time or not.  On the basis of the date of the letter and delivery to her, she was not.  But, if her EDT was the date she read it then she was.  The CA took the latter view on the grounds that the employee had to be certain of the EDT.  Therefore she could pursue her claim and the employers had to expend time and money in defending it.  The decision was not unanimous though:  it was a three man court and the result was 2-1 in favour of Ms. Barratt.

This being the law, you wouldn’t expect the same rule to apply on constructive dismissal, i.e. where the employee resigns and leaves there and then.  The EDT in that case is when the letter is physically received by the employer (such as the post-room) and not the relevant line manager or HR officer. 

Resignations by fax will take place when the fax is received by the employer’s fax machine and not when subsequently read.  The same rule will presumably apply to email transmissions because the common thread running through these cases is that the employee must have certainty of when the EDT is and this can only be achieved through reliance on the date of delivery not date of reading.

The moral for employers here is don’t dismiss purely by way of a letter.  Get the employee into a meeting, give the news orally and then confirm it in writing, preferably by handing the letter to the employee at the same meeting.  The lesson for employees (and their advisers) is don’t leave issuing proceedings until the last minute.

As ever, if you need advice on any of these issues, call me on 0207 464 8433 or email me at michaelscutt@dalelangley.co.uk

(The ELA Briefing magazine (Vol 16 No. was invaluable in preparing this post.)

Comments (0)

By Michael Scutt, 08/10/2009 4:26 pm

Ok, imagine the scenario.  You’re told on Friday morning at 9.35 a.m to go to the 7^th floor and meet Siobhan, your HR generalist.  Only HR live on the 7^th floor, not real people.  You go into a meeting room with her and there is Charles, your line manager or maybe Fiona, who is really quite senior in HR but not usually seen during the hours of daylight.  You’re handed a lengthy letter and told that your role is at risk of redundancy.  What do you do?

Answer: try and get as much information out of Siobhan and Charles/Fiona as you can.  What to ask?

1. What is the company doing?  Is it a restructure/rationalization/other reason.
2. Why you?  Crucial – why is your role in the organization no longer needed? 
3. What will happen to your work once you’ve gone?  Will it be divided up amongst remaining people/sent to Bangalore/no longer needed because the business is getting out of that sector?
4. Who else is at risk?  If your role is a unique one and a layer of management is being stripped out of the organisation, this is less relevant.  But, see next one down. What is the selection criteria they are using? 
5. What is the selection criteria they are using? If there are ten in your team and five are being put at risk, how has the company decided you should be placed at risk, but not Tony who sits next to you?  Selection criteria must be objective as far as possible.
6. What is your score against the criteria?
7. How did your comparators score?  Usually HR won’t give you this information because of confidentiality reasons, but you can ask to be given it on an anonymised basis.
8. How many people in your “establishment” are being placed at risk?  If more than 20 or 100 then time limits for consultation apply.  Get suspicious if HR won’t tell you.
9.  What other roles are available?  Redundancy should be the last resort.  Employers should try and exhaust all other possibilities before dismissing you.  Have they thought of pay-cuts or unpaid leave, or could they redeploy you to another part of the business, making use of your transferable skills?
10. What is the timescale for the process?  When will the decision be made?  When will we have the next meeting?

Finally, the 11^th question: where can I get some good legal advice on my rights?  Answer: here.

I can help you with all these issues, or advise you if you’ve been given a compromise agreement.  Please call me on 0207 464 8433 or at michaelscutt@dalelangley.co.uk.

Comments (2)

By Michael Scutt, 05/10/2009 3:49 pm

Kevin Keegan has won his case for constructive dismissal against former employers Newcastle United, being awarded £2mn by the Premier League’s Manager’s Arbitration Tribunal.  He left the club in September 2008 after falling out with them over the purchase of a player Ignacio Gonzalez (who?) against his wishes. 

Two issues arise from the case. Firstly, although the BBC website report does not go into the technicalities of Keegan’s case I would guess that he claimed the acquisition of Gonzalez constituted a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence between employer and employee. After all, if the manager doesn’t choose the players who does (probably a good question to ask in respect of Chelsea and several other clubs from time to time come to think of it)? Secondly, Keegan claimed stigma damages – £16.5mn of them – on the basis that he would not obtain further employment in football until he retired at 65.  More on this further down.  

Constructive dismissal is a claim for breach of contract.  It isn’t necessarily a claim for unfair dismissal, but it will be wrongful dismissal.  Keegan was reportedly on a three year contract worth £3.5mn per annum and had approximately three years to run.  It would be interesting to read the full report (if available, which I’m sure it won’t be) to find out what claims he put in and why he was awarded a fairly low figure, in relation to the potential size of the claim.  The panel probably thought he could obtain alternative work elsewhere within the unexpired portion of his contract and would thus mitigate his loss.  He was reportedly seeking £25mn as compensation for his losses until retirement at 65.  It is further reported that his contract placed a ceiling of £2mn on the amount of compensation he might be awarded in the event the parties fell out.  I can only assume that he pressed on with his claim for £25mn on the basis that the repudiatory breach of contract caused all terms in the contract, including the compensation ceiling, to fall away, leaving the field open to him for a bigger claim.  

Most cases of constructive dismissal don’t involve anything like those numbers, but the legal principles are the same whether you are the manager of a football club or working in an ordinary office.  To succeed with a claim an employee will need to prove that the employer repudiated a term or terms in the contract of employment in some way and that breach was so serious that it discharged the contract.  The employee then has to accept the repudiation by resigning in response to it and this is where many claims go wrong because the employee either waits too long (and “affirms” the breach) or doesn’t make it clear that they are resigning as a response to that breach.

For most people constructive dismissal is a big step to take because it usually means leaving without any notice monies or compensation; they have to be argued or litigated over later on.

Stigma damages – is a fairly unusual type of claim and, no doubt, the Geordie hordes will be less than thrilled that their “Messiah” now feels he has been tarnished by his association with them. It is a species of claim that arose out of the BCCI litigation in the last decade when a Mr Malik, who had worked for them for several years claimed that he would find it hard to get another job within the Financial Services industry because BCCI was known to have been operating fraudulently.  The Court of Appeal allowed Mr Malik to succeed with his because it said that there was an implied term in the contract of employment that the employer would not run a corrupt or dishonest business.  Sam Wallace, a football writer in today’s The Independent gets very steamed up at Keegan’s “greedy” claim.  Leaving aside the morality of the claim, or otherwise, I fail to see how Keegan ever hoped to succeed with the claim.  

 Always take legal advice before claiming constructive dismissal.   If you need any advice on these issues please call me on 0207 464 8433 or email me at michaelscutt@dalelangley.co.uk

Comments (0)

By Michael Scutt, 02/10/2009 10:26 am

Because of the recent revamp of the blog and relocation to a new website, the old RSS feed has been broken.  Please re-subscribe using the button at the top right-hand corner of the page. 

Sorry about that!

Kind regards

Mike

Comments (0)

By Michael Scutt, 01/10/2009 3:56 pm

The excellent employment law website Emplaw informed me that the House of Lords was only around as the final court of appeal for a mere 610 years.  Labour’s Constitutional Reform Act 2005 did away with the House of Lords as a Court, with the intent of trying to ensure there was a proper separation of powers between legislature and judiciary.  Apparently the last Law Lord to meddle in politics was one William Le Scroope, who was beheaded for his trouble.  I don’t suppose there is any chance of a similar fate befalling those politicians who try and interfere in legal matters for a cheap headline: I’m particularly thinking of Harriet Harman who weighed into the dispute over Sir Fred Goodwin’s enormous pension by threatening to “take action”.  No such luck I suppose.