Employment Law Explained

Monthly Archives: June 2010

Leaving your job? Three things not to do before you get your P45

iStock 000010955553XSmall Leaving your job?  Three things not to do before you get your P45   practice procedure miscellaneous stuff

For an employee who has decided to move on to pastures new and has handed in his/her notice, or has been told they are to be made redundant, there are certain pitfalls to be avoided. They may seem obvious (like serving notice), but people still fall foul of them. Walking out there and then is a big step for an employee – we’re in constructive dismissal territory here and legal advice should be taken  before you do it. In other cases some employees only have regard to the restrictive covenants in their contracts of employment (which are the clauses that say the departing employee won’t try to solicit work or custom from the clients he’s been dealing with, or prevent him from joining a competing business once he’s left).  Whether those restrictions are always legally enforceable is another matter and constitute another material for another blog post or three, but in this post I want to highlight for employees that trying to get ahead by taking confidential information, or by acting inappropriately whilst stil an employee (even if on garden leave) could end in tears.

How to Deter a Serial Litigant

iStock 000008730762XSmall How to Deter a Serial Litigant   practice procedure miscellaneous stuff

Cereal Litigants?

There’s no need to resort to garlic, holy water, crucifixes, or rosary beads to keep them away (we’re not quite in Bram Stoker territory yet) but there’s no doubt that serial litigants are a blot on the ET landscape.

Following on from my previous posts on the subject, there was some good news a few weeks back in the EAT on the issue of what a claimant has to prove to succeed with a claim for age discrimination.  The case of Keane v Investigo & others UKEAT/0389/09/SM, commented upon by Gordon Turner and Damian McCarthy in ELA Briefing last month[1], held that a claimant has to prove a genuine interest in performing the job advertised.  There can be no detriment to an unsuccessful applicant if they had no interest in doing the job in the first place.

The World Cup: The bandwagon’s out of control

Jobsworth isn’t averse to football; in fact, quite the opposite.  I shall be following  the travails of the England football team as keenly as anyone. it’s just that  I have just found other things to write about on this blog.  However, over at the Law Donut blog I did contribute my thoughts on the employment law challenges posed to employers during the forthcoming festivities. which include absenteeism, drunkenness, racist abuse – all in the name of sport. Can’t wait for the Olympics. Marvellous.

Cartoon Time

I’m fond of cartoons, with Alex from the Daily Telegraph being my favourite.  Banx in the FT is usually very droll as well. Steve Bell in The Guardian always used to be good but I don’t read The Grauniad anymore.

scan00021 Cartoon Time   cartoons

Financial Times 8th June 2010

I saw this in the FT yesterday.  Could be very topical after the Budget.

scan0003 Cartoon Time   cartoons

Financial Times 9th June 2010

And from today’s paper – very true indeed.

What does “Without Prejudice” mean?

hfr000067listenwp 300x300 What does Without Prejudice mean?   practice procedure miscellaneous stuff

I'm not trying to be a "cool grandad", really I'm not

If you have ever had to sue someone else and gone through the courts or Employment Tribunal, or if you have been asked to sign a compromise agreement upon the termination of your employment, it’s pretty likely that at some point the words “without prejudice” will have cropped up, followed (perhaps) by “subject to contract”.  They can be baffling and many clients ask me what “without prejudice” means when I’m taking them through a compromise agreement.  One client once asked me to write a letter to the other side “with prejudice”.  Many people, lawyers and non-lawyers alike, write the words “without prejudice” on all their correspondence in the hope (presumably) that they will act as some kind of Harry Potteresque invisibility cloak to stop their words being thrown back at them in court.  It doesn’t always work.