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.

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/contracts-of-employment-201009f

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.

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?

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. 

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.