As the wheels fall off time’s winged chariot and Old Father Time is evicted from his nursing home;
And as the Partygoer of Unquenchable Thirst prepares to meet the Office Party of Bitter Experience, it’s that time of the year again: the annual review.
There’s been only one story in the news this week: the gripping scandal at News International and the demise of the News of the World today. Here are my thoughts, in podcast form for a change, on the employment issues involved.
Choices, choices
Many employees often suspect they have been unfairly placed in the “departure lounge” when their company decides to restructure. Sometimes it is obvious there has been unfairness, or discrimination, in the process. On other occasions it’s much harder to prove even if suspected and the recent case of Dabson v David Cover & Sons Ltd doesn’t help employees much. On the other hand, employers will be relieved.
Tomorrow I am chairing the SBK Legal and Strategic Guide to Workforce Restructuring. It’s an all day conference with some very interesting speakers and covering a wide range of topics. Click here for details.
There will be presentations on how to vary contracts of employment, how to adjust pensions, a review of the government’s planned employment law review, how to maintain a positive working relationship with Unions, as well as a session on “Realising redundancy savings: abiding by the rules to avoid a later backlash”. The law on redundancy and procedure is particularly interesting to me and I will be especially looking forward to that session..
Sponsored Post
At a time of economic stress, turndown, worry and cuts, the job market seems as much of a stressful place as anywhere.
Many over the last few months might have experienced the brunt of the economy’s tumble, which will have seeped into the employment market and taken its tolls on jobs, with redundancies being a frequent way of cutting company costs.
How much tax should employers deduct from termination payments? HMRC have announced a change to the way that lump sum termination payments have to be taxed by employers from this coming April.
As is well known, the first £30,000 of a compensation payment can be paid free of income tax and national insurance contributions, provided that it is paid as compensation for “loss of office” or employment. This commonly applies on redundancy, but can apply in other situations too.
Following the Comprehensive Spending Review we now know that 490,000 public sector jobs are to be axed over the next four years . Mass redundancies look like the order of the day and the misery won’t be confined only to the public sector. The private sector, a good chunk of which relies on the public sector for business, will suffer as well. The pain that we’ve all been promised is there to be seen and losing your job can be traumatic.
I’ve written on many occasions before about the law concerning redundancy and selection procedures and two articles you can read are here and here or check out the “redundancy” category on the right hand side.
Redundancy hasn’t been in the general news recently, although Eversheds, the national law firm did hit the headlines when it was successfully sued by a male employee it selected and made redundant. He alleged that he had been the victim of sex discrimination because he was not scored as well as a female colleague, in the same selection pool, who was on maternity leave at the time. She was scored more favourably because the firm feared doing anything else would have exposed them to a claim for sex discrimination from her. Eversheds are appealing the decision.
Ok, imagine the scenario. You’re told on Friday morning at 9.35 a.m to go to the 7th floor and meet Siobhan, your HR generalist. Only HR live on the 7th 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?
Most people know that employers these days shouldn’t in job interviews ask women of child-bearing age when they intend to start a family. Nor should they now ask potential employees how old they are. The reason in both cases is that (a) it is usually going to be none of the employer’s business but, also, (b) it runs the risk of the applicant/employee later stating that the failure to appoint them was on discriminatory grounds. A report on the Personnel Today website from a few days ago questioned the wisdom of Cherwell District Council in asking employees to state whether they intended to retire in the next two or three years. The Council is currently asking staff to work fewer hours or to work without pay to avoid the need for redundancies. However, its request to staff to detail their plans and aspirations over the next two to three years could lead to them facing an age discrimination claim, suggests the article, if an employee could show that they were selected for redundancy because of their stated plan to seek retirement. The same risk would apply if a woman stated she intended to start a family and was subsequently place “at risk”.