We see a lot of employees who are being made redundant. One of the issues that comes up time and time again is why they were selected. Unless the role is unique then, usually, a selection pool is necessary to decide how to select the unlucky people for redundancy. The composition of that pool can cause problems, such as was the case in Capita Hartshead Ltd v Byard, an EAT case, where the selection pool comprised one individual.
Just how far does the long arm of the Employment Tribunal stretch when considering unfair dismissal? Last week the Supreme Court gave its Judgment in the case of Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd and the answer may well now be that the reach of the ET has just got longer. S.94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that an employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed. This does not present problems where the employee is working in Britain. However, it becomes an issue if the employee is working overseas. In what circumstances can an employee claim protection under British law not to be unfairly dismissed?
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.
Last week the government announced various plans for reforming employment law. I’ll be writing about them shortly…
I wonder if the employee above has just been made aware of his “Compensated No Fault Dismissal” package?
Personnel Today, citing the CBI Employment Trends report, reports that the Agency Workers Regulations (AWR) that came into force on 1st October, have apparently led to employers reducing the number of temporary workers they employ. The CBI calls for an “early review” of the AWR to ensure it is not making the UK uncompetitive and to remove any “gold-plating”.
The Head of the UK Border Force, Mr Brodie Clark, resigned on Tuesday, reportedly in reaction to comments by the Home Secretary that blamed him for a relaxation of biometric and anti-terrorism checks over the summer. Mr Clark had been suspended a few days previously over the matter.
He disputes any wrongdoing and has stated that Ms May’s comments were misleading and had amounted to a campaign of public vilification against him, such that he would not receive a fair hearing. One Home Office source called him a “rogue civil servant”. According to reports in the media Home Office lawyers are telling Ms May that he has a good case and is likely to win. In his resignation statement he said
Don't be Rude about Apple
A trickle of Employment Tribunal cases are coming through on dismissals associated with inappropriate or derogatory comments on Facebook. The most recent, being Crisp v Apple Retail Ltd (unreported, as far as I can see) which held that an employee who posted (unspecified) derogatory comments about Apple and its products on a “private” Facebook page outside of his working hours was not unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct. I would be interested to see the Judgment rather than just the brief summary in People Management Magazine (useful though that is) if anyone has it.
The headlines were grabbed yesterday by the leak of the Beecroft report’s proposal to abolish unfair dismissal in capability cases. Only slightly less newsworthy was Nick Clegg (the Lib Dem Deputy PM, leader of the supposedly caring party of government) announcing proposals to allow employers to have “protected conversations” with employees. This is all part of the same agenda to cut red tape for business and to allow employers to get rid of underperforming workers and, interestingly, to discuss retirement with older workers, without the fear of being hauled off to an ET.
Is Clegg protected?
Twitter, well the bits of it I frequent anyway, have been abuzz with comments on the leaked Beecroft report which proposes abolishing unfair dismissal in capability cases. I blogged on it this morning – click here.
Amidst all the tweets announcing the news there were some interesting and amusing comments, which I’ve collected below. Most tweets I have seen are against the plans, a few make the point that the real issue is one of management and a few support it. This is only a brief snapshot and I didn’t set out to try and gauge public opinion, although it seems those in favour are in the minority.
She's not the only one getting tupped
The front cover of The Daily Telegraph today reports on how Wimpole Hall farm is setting up a “Ram-Cam” which will follow Paolo (an 18 month old ram) while he goes around mating on the farm. The headline story though is “Give firms freedom to sack their slackers”, which discloses the existence of a confidential Downing Street report which recommends abolishing the law of unfair dismissal, thus being the second story about getting shafted on the Telegraph’s front page today.