Comments (7)

By Michael Scutt, 26/01/2010 10:00 am

Everyone is talking about social media these days and no longer is it confined to the purely social.  Many businesses are using it to promote themselves; good heavens, even lawyers are getting into it.  But use of sites like Facebook, My Space, You Tube and micro-blogging sites like Twitter present multiple challenges to employers. 

There have also been well publicised examples of employees being caught out by their status updates on Facebook – like the woman who complained that she hated her boss and called him a pervert, forgetting that he was one of her “friends” on Facebook.  He read the comments and a beautiful friendship was ended.  Other employees have pulled “sickies” and posted that onto Facebook.  Bad move.  Not only will the boss probably get to hear about it, the employee will become the laughing stock of the internet as millions of people all over the world receive the news of the indiscretion via round-robin emails.

On one level employers may not be persuaded of the merits of Web 2.0 and the plethora of seemingly time-wasting opportunities that it provides.  There is a great risk that staff could become inefficient and unproductive in surfing Facebook all day, or watching video clips on YouTube and that must be particularly galling for those employers who see no business application for these new technologies.  The temptation might be to come down hard on employees but that may provoke claims for constructive dismissal or unfair dismissal.  In an environment where for some people, surfing Facebook is as natural as reading a newspaper or a novel, an outright ban on accessing social media may be unreasonable.

For enlightened employers who do see the benefits of Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and the humble blog, the challenges are increased.  Not only is there the risk that some employees will take advantage to spend time promoting themselves rather than the business, they may post inappropriate comments on the web and severely damage the reputation of the business.   Worse still, the employer may end up on the wrong end of an action for defamation.  No longer is it enough just to have a policy covering access to websites and use of email (and don’t forget to include mobile phones and Blackberrys/iPhones in those policies).

In my view, employers face three challenges;

1. Excessive use of social media leading to loss of productivity

      2.    Risk of reputational damage/unwanted litigation to the business

      3.    Avoiding inappropriate use/abuse of social media without upsetting employment relations

Employers need to develop a strategy for use of social media in their business. This should not only cover how the business intends to exploit web 2.0 for its own purposes, but also a policy governing how employees should use it, again not just for business purposes but also for private usage.  Don’t forget that younger members of staff (“digital natives”) may be much more in tune with social media than older people.  In order to avoid grievances or unwanted employment tribunal claims be consistent in applying the policy.  As a solicitor who often advises employees, I frequently hear clients say that “Flossy was only given a written warning for the same thing” when they’ve been dismissed.      

The policy needs to take account of how the business wants to exploit social media and a “one size fits all” model isn’t going to work.  Instead the business needs to ask itself these sorts of questions;

1. Do we want to use social media to promote the business?
2. Who in the business will be responsible for using social media?  Senior management or more junior staff?
3.  What guidelines do we want to set them (these will probably need to be more specific for more junior staff)?  The guidelines will need to go beyond banning obscene or discriminatory comments and give guidance on how the business wishes to be perceived in the wider-world.
4. How will usage be policed and what sanctions will be put in place for misuse or abuse?
5. Will usage of the company’s computers be allowed for private use of Facebook, Twitter, etc?  If so, will usage be restricted to lunch-breaks or before/after work?  A complete ban may be unenforceable or risks causing ill-feeling.

It’s not an exhaustive list and I would be pleased to hear from anyone with additional questions that ought to be added on.

To be successful, all users will need to be “on message”.  In turn this may mean getting all users to “brainstorm” to devise the “voice” of the business.   Social media offers massive potential for businesses to communicate their message, develop their identity and build their brand.  Having a successful social media policy is at the heart of getting that right.

I would welcome your comments on any of the above and if I can assist further please contact me on 0207 464 8433 or at michaelscutt@dalelangley.co.uk

Comments (2)

By Michael Scutt, 06/01/2010 5:37 pm

Wot, no snowman?

I’m not referring to the five inches of snow outside as I write this, and the inevitable disruption caused to roads and railways for the next week,  but instead I am considering what the main statutory changes affecting employment law issues in 2010 will be.

January  

Not much will happen this month while everyone looks in astonishment at their credit card bills, but just a reminder that the Vento guidelines on awards to be made in cases of injury to feelings in discrimination cases look to have been increased late last year in the case of Da’Bell v NSPCC. The Court of Appeal case in Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police in 2002 set three main bands for ETs to consider when making awards for injury to feelings; 

Lower – £500 – 5,000                       – for one-off or isolated incidents 

Mid     - £5,000 – 15,000 – for more serious incidents but not of the most serious nature 

Upper -£15,000 – 25,000               – for the worst examples of discriminatory behaviour, such as where there has been a campaign of bullying and harassment.  Only exceptionally should awards be made in excess of the upper figure. 

Since 2002 these bands have not changed.  It is now anticipated that the new bands will be 

Lower:  £? – 6,000 

Mid – £6,000 – 18,000 

Upper – £18,000 – 30,000 

For a fuller and very helpful discussion see Usefully Employed’s post on the subject.  

February 

This month will see something that hasn’t occurred before.  The maximum compensatory award that can be made by an Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal will actually decrease. The Employment Rights (Revision of Limits) Order 2009 states that the maximum award will decrease from its current £66,200 to £65,300 for all claims where the event giving rise to the claim  occurred on or after 1^st February 2010.  This is because the maximum amount is linked to the Retail Prices Index (RPI) and that fell by 1.4% in the year from 1^st September 2008. 

The MINIMUM AWARD that can be made to an employee excluded/expelled from a Union and not re-admitted by the time the case reaches an ET falls from £7,300 to £7,200 

The maximum guarantee payment to an employee under s.31(1) ERA 1996 decreases to £21.20 per day. 

Each February also sees various other rates and limits amended – usually upward.  This time though the maximum weekly award, used for Statutory Redundancy Pay purposes and calculating the Basic Award in Unfair Dismissal cases will remain at £380, but only because it was increased to that figure last October.   

April – other notable increases, will be 

Statutory Adoption         } 

Paternity                            }                          all increase from £123.06 to £124.88 per week 

Maternity Pay                   } 

Maternity Allowance      } 

But, Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) will remain unchanged at £79.15 p.w 

This month will also see employees at employers with at least 250 employees acquire the right to request time off for studying or training relevant to the business.  The right is simply to request time off NOT for the employer to fund the training. 

Income Tax will rise to 50% for those earning more than £150,000 p.a 

October 

Legislative developments tend to occur in April and October now.  In October it is expected that the Equality Bill will come into force to hopefully bring some order to the convoluted and confusing plethora of anti-discrimination laws currently on the statute book. It won’t just tackle discrimination in the employment arena, but will be wider ranging. Contractual provisions that prevent employees discussing their pay with workers are expected to be made illegal and the government will acquire the power to force privatre companies to disclose gender-pay details.  More on all this in due course, assuming that it survives a change of government 

Throughout the year there will be new cases being decided that will make the headlines, or appeals considering cases that caused a stir in 2009.  I will cover these as they come up so please subscribe to the RSS feed or to the email updates for “breaking news”. 

If you need advice on any employment law issues please call me on 0207 464 8433 or email me at michaelscutt@dalelangley.co.uk.

Comments (0)

By Michael Scutt, 26/11/2009 2:47 pm

As Annabel Kaye of Irenicom points out in her very useful article on the subject on the The Grapevine online magazine the concept of reasonable belief crops up throughout employment law – particularly in dismissals.  In the case of  Taylor v Alidair CA 1978 ICR 445, CA Lord Denning got to the nub of the matter with his customary succinctness;

“Whenever a man is dismissed for incapacity or incompetence it is sufficient that the employer honestly believes on reasonable grounds that the man is incapable and incompetent. It is not necessary for the employer to prove that he is in fact incapable or incompetent”

Annabel’s article deals with how the employer can demonstrate reasonable belief and is well worth a read.  The key issue is that an employer mustn’t act hastily, but after having carried out a thorough and fair investigation into the allegation.

If you need advice on this subject please contact me on 0207 464 8433 or at michaelscutt@dalelangley.co.uk

Comments (0)

By Michael Scutt, 18/09/2009 2:54 pm

Employers have to repay sick pay

Some good news for employees came out last week with the decision by the European Court of Justice in Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA that says if an employee is sick whilst on holiday, they can retake the holiday later on or carry the days lost over to the next year.

Not surprisingly employers’ representatives are unhappy about it as it places additional burdens on them. It also increases the risk of unscrupulous employees taking advantage. No guidance is offered by the ECJ on how this could be policed. Employers can only insist on a sick note from GPs after seven days absence.

Costs Awards in Tribunal

A while ago I wrote about the case of Daleside Nursing Home v Mathew which dealt with the issue of when costs should be awarded against a party by an Employment Tribunal. A recent case has now followed that decision. In Dunedin Canmore Housing Association Limited v Donaldson, a case before the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Edinburgh it was held that the Claimant (who was representing herself) had lied under oath and the Tribunal should have awarded costs against her. In particular the Honourable Lady Smith said;

The issue was not whether a lay person could reasonably have been expected to understand the law. It was whether she had or had not, in simple human terms, approached the essential factual matters that lay at the heart of her case honestly and reasonably. She had not done so and these are exactly the sort of circumstances where a Tribunal has a responsibility to make clear that it is quite unacceptable to cause expense to another party by bringing proceedings on that basis.

Be warned!

Notice Monies and Constructive Dismissal

Here is some good news for employers. The Court of Appeal (CA) has recently overturned the EAT’s decision in Stuart Peters v Bell which had said that an employee who claimed constructive dismissal from his employer and then went on to work for another employer during the notice period they would otherwise have served did not have to give credit for the monies earned. This has been the law, since 1972 case of Norton Tools v Tewson. Effectively the employee could get his salary twice for that period, which was something of a windfall for him. That has now been overturned by the CA, but only insofar as constructive dismissal cases are concerned. So, if an employee claims constructive dismissal, leaves the employer without serving their notice and finds alternative work elsewhere, the employer won’t have to pay the notice monies due to the employee during that period.

Norton Tools is still good law in other respects and hasn’t been completely overturned.

Please contact me on 0207 464 8433 or email me at michaelscutt@dalelangley.co.uk if you require further advice.

Comments (0)

By michaelscutt, 14/09/2009 9:00 am

As an employer, if you want to avoid your name appearing in the Metro or any of the other free papers, try to avoid sacking employees suffering from cancer by email.  This is the moral from the recent report concerning Melinda Bolnar, a 27 year old teacher suffering from bowel cancer and who had just endured seven months of chemotherapy and given a 30% chance of survival.  According to the report it is alleged that her private school sacked her by email.  I should point out that the case is due to be heard at an Employment Tribunal later this year and the above report are merely the employee’s allegations against her employer and not the proven facts.

The report probably doesn’t give the whole story but it certainly gives the impression that Melinda was sacked without any form of disciplinary or capability procedure.  If that genuinely is the case the school might find themselves in difficulty when the case does reach the ET.

So (assuming that is what happened) what should an employer do if it wants to terminate the employment of an employee suffering from long-term illness?

The first and most important question is why should the employer want to terminate the employee’s employment?  This will be at the heart of any subsequent litigation that may arise.  The usual answer given by employers is that they could not afford to keep the position empty whilst the employee was away or that temporary cover could not be extended indefinitely.  Much will depend upon the role performed by the employee and the extent to which it is reasonable for the employer to reach the conclusion that dismissing the employee was reasonable in all the circumstances.  The size and resources of the business will be important too. What action might be reasonable for a small employer to take will be greatly different from a multi-national PLC or, for example, the NHS. How the employer treated other staff in similar circumstances on other occasions will be relevant: what are the contractual sick pay provisions, if any?

There are only a limited number of grounds on which dismissing an employee will be fair.  They include capability to do the job.  This can mean lack of ability of the employee to fulfil their role (i.e. incompetence) or it could include inability to do the job through sickness.  Problems can arise for an employer when the employee takes lots of short periods of time off sick (whether genuinely or otherwise) but when, as in the type of case under discussion here the employee is off for weeks or months.   

A prudent employer will properly investigate the reasons for the employee being absent and will try and establish when they might return.  This will need to be done with sensitivity and tact, which means good communications between employer-employee are going to be vital to make this work.  It will probably need medical evidence to be obtained and a well-drafted contract of employment should include a clause which allows the employer to send the employee to a doctor of its own choosing.  If the medical evidence suggests that the employee will be fit to return to work, even if on a gradually stepped basis at first, in a fairly short space of time, the business will need to think long and hard before dismissing.  On the other hand, if the absence looks like being lengthy then the employer may be justified in bringing the employment relationship to an end, provided it does so on grounds of (in)capability.

Where difficulties arise (as in Melinda Bolnar’s case) is where the employee feels there are other grounds for dismissal.  The Metro report states that she is suing for disability discrimination.  Much will depend, as usual, on who said or did what and when.  To avoid difficulties of this sort an employer needs to act clearly and openly about what it is doing and why. 

It needs to follow a proper process, as laid down by the ACAS Code of Practice introduced this April. In brief this means the employer investigating properly, inviting the employee to a meeting to discuss the issues, allowing them to be accompanied by a work colleague or Trade Union representative and to make their point.  Finally, the employee should be informed of their right to appeal the decision if it goes against them.  If the employer gets it wrong they can not only face a claim for unfair dismissal (with the potential for the award to be increased by up to 25% if they are deemed to have acted unreasonably) but also a claim for disability discrimination.  Claims under the DDA are not capped at the £66,200 maximum compensatory award, as with unfair dismissal cases.

Of course, all the above leaves aside the moral issue of whether it is the right step to take but and Courts/Tribunals don’t make judgments on moral grounds: the newspapers do that.

If you are an employer or employee requiring further advice on any of these issues, please get in touch with me at michaelscutt@dalelangley.co.uk or on 0207 464 8433

Comments (9)

By michaelscutt, 27/05/2009 9:00 am

At first glance this might not seem the most exciting topic, but bear with me as the recently reported Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of Daleside Nursing Home v Mrs Mathews has thrown up a very interesting point about when costs might be awarded against the losing party before an Employment Tribunal (ET).

The usual rule is that ETs don’t award costs against the losing party, unlike in the High or County Court where that is the starting point (although even in those venues this rule is subject to several caveats but that is another story).  ETs have the power to award costs, it is just that they don’t do it very often.   The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 provide that power. In particular Regulations 38 – 48 set out the costs regime. 

Reg. 40(2) provides that an ET may order costs against the paying party if it considers that that party has acted unreasonably either in the bringing or the conduct of the proceedings.  Reg. 41 limits the costs that an ET can award to a maximum of £10,000, although if the case is sent to the County Court for detailed assessment more can be awarded.  The ET also can have regard to the paying party’s ability to pay an award for costs, so if a party has behaved badly in bringing the case in the first place or in the way they progressed the case but they don’t look like they’re worth the money, an ET doesn’t have to award costs against them.  Contrast this with the Courts where no such power exists unless the paying party is legally aided, in which case the court will make an order for costs but stipulate that it is not to be enforced without leave. 

The Daleside case is interesting because it was an appeal by the employer from the refusal of the Liverpool ET to award costs against the employee where she had claimed direct race discrimination.  In particular she had alleged that her line manager had called her a “black bitch”, although the ET found that that comment had not been made. The reasons they cited were that Mrs Mathews waited for almost three weeks after the comment was made before complaining about it and just before she was about to face disciplinary proceedings.  The ET took the view that the alleged comment was a “cynical lie” on the part of the employee.  Mrs Mathews subsequently lost.  The employer sought an order for costs but the ET refused to make one so the case proceeded to the EAT on that one point.

Not surprisingly, the EAT held that an order for costs should have been made given that the disputed comment was at the heart of the case for racial discrimination.  The Judgment  at para. 20 states

“In our judgment, in a case such as this, where there is such a clear cut finding that the central allegation of racial abuse was a lie, it is perverse for the Tribunal to fail to conclude that the making of such a false allegation at the heart of the claim does not constitute a person acting unreasonably.”

The EAT then sent the case back to the ET for consideration of how much should actually be awarded against Mrs Mathews.  Interestingly, at para 3 the judgment states that the EAT was not seeking to lay down “any more general statement of legal principle”.  That remains to be seen as I suspect this case is now going to be quoted by both employers and employees ad nauseam  in any case where there is a dispute on the facts (ie most cases!).