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?

The leading case on the subject for several years has been Lawson v Serco and, in particular, Lord Hoffmann’s Judgment on the question

 “what connection between Great Britain and the employment relationship is required to make section 94(1) the appropriate choice of law in deciding whether and in what circumstances an employee can complain that his dismissal was unfair?”

Lord Hoffmann went on to describe three likely scenarios where a foreign worker would be able to claim that a British employment tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a claim for unfair dismissal.  They were;

1. An employee working a in a political or social enclave (such as an embassy)
2. A worker posted abroad by a GB company (such as a foreign correspondent)
3. A peripatetic worker based in the UK

Expatriate workers outside these categories were not eligible to claim and would have to rely on whatever local legal protection there was available.

In practice those categories have not always proved to be as easy to implement in practice.  An example of this was last year’s case of Duncombe & Ors v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (No 2) a case which involved British teachers employed by the British government to work in an international (not British) enclave. The Supreme Court allowed their appeal, which meant they could bring a claim in the British Employment Tribunal. Giving Judgment in that case Lady Hale said

“It is therefore clear that the right will only exceptionally cover employees who are working or based abroad.  The principle appears to be that the employment must have much stronger connections both with Great Britain and with British employment law than with any other system of law. There is no hard and fast rule and it is mistake to try and torture the circumstances of one employment to make it fit one of the examples given, for they are merely examples of the application of the general principle.” (my emphasis)

In Ravat, Lord Hope said

“The question of fact is whether the connection between the circumstances of the employment and Great Britain and with British employment law was sufficiently strong to enable it to be said that it would be appropriate for the employee to have a claim for unfair dismissal in Great Britain.”

 Thus watering down the test from being “exceptional” to “sufficiently strong”, meaning foreign based employees should have more scope to argue that they should be allowed to bring claims for unfair dismissal within the ET. This, of course, doesn’t make the position any clearer for litigants or their advisers and writing in the 11KBW blog, John Kavanagh QC (who acted for Halliburton) said

It is certainly true that the Ravat decision is employee-friendly – the majority of overseas worker cases will now most likely be caught by s.94 if a long enough list of factors can be produced – but it is open to question whether this is quite what Parliament had intended. Instead, the tribunals are left with a lengthy fact-finding exercise combined with a distinct lack of clarity as to what the relevant facts they should be finding are. From now on, when establishing the scope of s.94(1), anything, it seems, goes.

Is he being too pessimistic? Surely Tribunals will be wary of over-extending themselves, but it may take some more cases to clear up these increasingly muddy waters. In the meantime, what are the factors that might be looked at in determining jurisdiction as part of one of Kavanagh’s dreaded “lengthy fact-finding exercises”? Here are some of the suggestions made in Duncombe and a couple of my own;

• What does the contract of employment say about jurisdiction?  Does it say English law will apply or the parties will submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts?

• In what currency is the employee paid?

• Where does the employee pay tax?

• What contacts did they have with the local community?  Were they in an enclave or fully integrated into the local community

• How was line management exercised?  From the UK or locally?

• What dealings did they have with the UK base?

• Does local law provide a remedy?  If no then the risk of a conflict of laws must recede, making it easier for a Tribunal to seize itself of jurisdiction.

Until Parliament legislates to make the law clearer we are going to be left with the current uncertainty. For once though, we seem to have a pro-employee decision and that is to be welcomed.

Related posts:

1. Holidays and Long Term Sick Leave

The Long Arm of (Employment) Law Just Got Longer? originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 14/02/2012.

If you came to this post expecting a defence of bankers and their bonuses or an erudite explanation of why the City isn’t to blame for the country’s economic woes, I’m sorry to disappoint you.  I thought it time to have a break from employment law and go off piste, as they say. If I wasn’t a lawyer I’d like to be an historian and that is what this post is, sort of, about. Many commuters gripe about the trouble getting into the City; late and crowded trains, the cost of a season ticket and not seeing enough of the family during the week, to name but a few.  And there’s no doubt that it can be a drag. But, lots of things make up for it. More pubs, bars and restaurants and gyms than you could shake a stick at, not to mention recitals in churches, proximity to the West End and all its theatres and shops. However, there is something beyond even that lot.

It’s the sense of history being all around you that you simply don’t get working in Hatfield or Basingstoke (and I have).  This in itself is a paradox because the developers are forever pulling a building down or refurbishing somewhere else. On my 10 minute walk from Moorgate station (now the site of one of the Crossrail stations now under construction) to my office in Lombard Street,  (see picture right). I don’t think there has been a time when there hasn’t been at least one major building development going on at some point. My usual thing is to rush to or from the office, dodging other people, potholes in the pavements and traffic in the road, but every now and then I like to stop and look at what is actually around me. Sometimes I even take a photo on my phone, which can give rise to looks of alarm or bemusement from other pedestrians, some of whom must think I’m certifiably insane.

It’s worth running that risk though because within a radius of about two minutes walk from my office, there is a wealth of fascinating buildings, monuments, curios and other items. It also pops up in literature and, for instance, nearby Gracechurch Street, is mentioned disparagingly in Pride and Prejudice thus

Mr. Darcy may, perhaps, have heard of such a place as Gracechurch Street, but he would hardly think a month’s ablution enough to cleanse him from its impurities, were he once to enter it;

In Austen’s time the City was seen as a disreputable place where no real gentleman would tread. Plus ca change plus ca meme chose, perhaps?

TS Eliot wrote about the Hawksmoor Church, St Mary Woolnoth in his seminal poem The Wasteland (“April is the cruellest month” etc

A crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many,
I had not thought death had undone so many.
Sighs, short and infrequent, were exhaled,
And each man fixed his eyes before his feet.
Flowed up the hill and down King William Street,
To where Saint Mary Woolnoth kept the hours
With a dead sound on the final stroke of nine.

St Mary Woolnoth is at the end of Lombard Street, now hemmed in by Starbucks, EAT and Gymbox.   Rather quaintly a man on a mobile coffee bicycle has set up in residence outside, dispensing Illy coffee. I remember studying The Waste Land for A-level English literature and very absorbing it was too.  However, The Rise and Fall of Reginald Perrin says the same thing more humoursly, in my view.

Wander back down King William Street and you will alight upon the Monument, erected to commemorate the Great Fire of London in 1666 and very impressive it is at 61metres high (311 steps to the top).  Despite having worked less than five minutes walk from it for nearly ten years I have never been to the top. I intend to remedy that this year, especially as it is now open again following a long refurbishment.  The trouble is, I’m not keen on heights.

This might be the solution. See the video below for a view from the top;

If you look carefully enough there are lots of relics of the past.  For instance, just round the corner from my office is the Jamaica Inn, an old pub tucked away in a little maze of streets at the back of St Michael’s Cornhill.  Next to that is an oasis of green, a patch of lawn where office workers can eat their lunches on the benches. Nearby is the George & Vulture restaurant where Dickens used to visit and is mentioned in The Pickwick Papers. It’s miraculous that this area survived the bulldozers.

On Birchin Lane, which runs alongside my office, there is a memorial plaque to a Captain Binney who was brutally killed whilst trying to prevent a robbery from a nearby jewellers. Sadly his was not the only violenbt death to occur in this area; more recently the newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson died  during the 2009 G20 protests on Cornhill.

Finally for this blog post, and still on Cornhill, a most curious relic from the past: a water pump with a trough underneath for people to water their horses.  Sadly no longer in use it is a prominent object which people march past every day never giving it a second glance.  It could do with some restoration and as you can see from the picture below, it is rather old.  I love the idea of walking past something funded by the East India Company.  It’s a direct link back to all those school history lessons, Clive of India and all that.

The other side of the Pump states how it was a replacement for an earlier pump and there has been a well on the site since the 1100s. I’m amazed it wasn’t removed in the 1960s by some modernisation plan, or because it was deemed to pose a threat to health and safety.  But very glad that it has and long may it.

That’s it for this time.  In due course, probably when the weather gets better I’ll get out again and cover some more notable sites.

No related posts.

In Praise of the City originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 12/02/2012.

Blimey or, as Sir Alex Ferguson put it years ago “Football, bloody hell”, or as The Times journalist Simon Barnes put it “Real life, bloody hell”.  I am referring, of course, to the resignation of Fabio Capello as England manager yesterday. Presumably in response to my blog article on the subject

There was always going to be one winner, if the FA were prepared to stand up to him, as they were.  John Read of XPert HR left a comment on my previous blog about Capello saying that he thought the FA had a clause in the Managers contracts which gave them final say over team selection matters, a fact which was confirmed by former FA Chief Executive Mark Palios on the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning.  Assuming that it had not been removed from Capello’s contract he clearly did not have a legal leg to stand on and his best hope of salvation was that the FA would back away from the prospect of losing their manager  just four months short of Euro 2012.  Thankfully they didn’t and stuck by their earlier decision.

The more interesting question is to what extent did the FA manufacture this situation to rid themselves of a manager they clearly had no great faith in?  The acquittal of Harry Redknapp from his tax evasion case  the very same day is too coincidental to my mind to have been a factor in the FA’s decision to stand up to Capello.  I’ve always been a believer in the cock-up theory of history, as opposed to the conspiracy view and if anyone can cock anything up, it is the FA.

However, perhaps on this occasion, they might just (fortuitously) have got it right. Judgment, Luck, More, by, than: please rearrange to make a familiar phrase.

P.S As an Arsenal fan I’m hoping that Harry Redknapp will be installed as full time England manager as soon as possible; this evening would be fine.

No related posts.

Capello a-go-go originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 09/02/2012.

The ability of the FA to shoot itself in the foot never ceases to amaze me, but I must admit to feeling justa little sorry for them over the John Terry affair.

The Chairman, David Bernstein, in my view, made the right decision in stripping Terry of the England captaincy, but then had the decision attacked by Fabio Capello, the Head Coach who said;

“I completely disagree with the FA about the John Terry decision and I have told that to the chairman. … The court will decide. It’s going to be civil justice, not sports justice, to decide if John Terry committed the crime that he is accused of. … I considered and still consider Terry as the England captain. I think we first should wait for the trial conclusion.”

 No ambiguity there then.  I suspect his reaction has more to do with trying to assert his waning authority than putting forward a reasoned argument on the actual issue itself (although it does call his judgment on that issue into question) and it brings him into conflict with his employers.  It was surely unwise of Capello to go public with his views, even if he did privately disagree with the FA’s decision.  David Davies, the former FA Executive Director, suggested Capello may have breached his contract of employment.

Capello may well be in breach of contract.  I would expect his contract to contain a clause saying that he won’t make any derogatory or detrimental comments about his employer and whilst his words are not derogatory, they are certainly detrimental to the FA because it flags up a big difference of opinion between manager and Board in one of the most high-profile businesses around in the run up to a major tournament.

More fundamentally, Capello may have broken the implied term of mutual trust and confidence in stating his disagreement so clearly. He must have known his words would cause embarrassment.  Perhaps he doesn’t care?  Maybe Capello doesn’t relish the prospect of another summer of high expectations and shattered dreams? If so, trying to get sacked by your employer would be one quick way out, but it doesn’t seem likely.  The problem for the FA now is what should they do about Capello’s outburst?  If they pretend it never occurred they look weak and if they do assert their authority they run the risk of being without their manager in the run up to Euro 2012, either because they have to sack him or he resigns. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t: as usual.

On the Terry issue itself there has been a lot of debate over whether he should have been dismissed before his criminal trial, with many people saying that he should be held innocent until proven guilty.  I think that is too simplistic and fails to take into account both the highly public and highly personal nature of the England captaincy.  For instance, there is a need for all members of the England team to set a good example and in Terry’s case that is called into question.  His commitment to the FA’s Respect agenda and supporting the anti-racist work it has been doing over the last few years is also compromised.

Further,  can a man who is accused of racism effectively lead a dressing room that contains black players, including the brother of the man he is accused of insulting? It’s all very well to talk about players being professional, but some issues run too deep.

There is also no principle which says employers must not take disciplinary action before criminal proceedings have been completed: see this very useful piece on the xpert HR blog.

A final thought: What is John Terry’s employment status with the FA?  Is he an employee or a worker? The position of England captain is presumably an honorific one and he hasn’t (yet) been deselected for England, so don’t expect him to trundle off to the nearest Employment Tribunal to seek reinstatement.

No related posts.

Fabio Capello: In Breach of Contract? originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 07/02/2012.

It was wrong of the Forfeiture Committee to strip Fred Goodwin of his “K”. It smacks of a politically motivated knee-jerk reaction (as in knee to the groin) and does more to bring the honours system itself into disrepute than the actions of one man. He may have been guilty of incompetence or, more likely, recklessness, but that shouldn’t justify this action.

What about those peers who have been convicted of crimes – Lord Archer or Lord Taylor of Warwick, for instance?  Lord Black of Crossharbour (Conrad Black as was).  Why do they still have their peerages?

Charles Moore  in the Telegraph summed it up thus;

So far as anyone knows, Sir Fred Goodwin has not committed a crime, nor – the other criterion of forfeiture – has he been “censured/struck off etc by the relevant regulatory authority”.

He is not generically different from all the other Knights (and peers) of the big-bank Round Table who, in various ways, got it wrong – Sir George Mathewson, Sir Tom McKillop, Sir Victor Blank, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, to name but a few. It is merely that we all happen to have heard of him. Should the whole lot be purged?

For the powers that be to be able to erase what they themselves have done is not a bracing corrective, but hypocrisy.

Morally, it is like those Stalin-era photographs in which leading comrades on the Kremlin balcony were airbrushed out once they had fallen from favour.

We need to keep the honours we have handed out so that we can carbon-date the folly of each age.

What this all demonstrates is the folly of a system that awards gongs to your mates, to be taken away when the government changes colour.  Let’s have honours for sportspeople, writers and artists and people who do good work in their local communities, but abolish for those who get them because of who they know or for doing their (high-level and well remunerated) jobs.

No related posts.

A Nail in the Coffin of the Honours System? originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 01/02/2012.

It’s been a while since I did a podcast, so here is my brief round up of some of the statutory changes and big cases coming up in 2012.  It saves me writing as well. More blogs next week and, hopefully, more podcasts too.

Related posts:

1. Podcast#1
2. Podcast#2
3. Jobsworth meets Charon QC

Podcast#3 – What’s coming in 2012? originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 28/01/2012.

To claim a 10% discount on the conference fee quote "Scutt10"

Click here to book

Last year I wrote about Miriam O’Reilly’s successful age discrimination claim against the BBC when she was thrown off Countryfile.  Yesterday it was reported in The Guardian that she is going to leave Auntie and run a women’s support network and seek other challenges. The parting is being reported positively, with Ms O’Reilly not taking the opportunity to stick the boot into the BBC, as she might well be justified in doing.

Leslie Seldon

Age discrimination is a topical for employment lawyers at the moment because this week the Supreme Court is hearing the case of Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes, another age discrimination case which will (hopefully) give guidelines on the circumstances in which it is permissible for an employer to require an employee or, in this case, a Partner in a law firm to retire.  Age discrimination is the only type of discrimination that can be justified.  The question therefore is: what is justifiable?  It is hoped that this judgment will provide some guidance on this thorny issue. More probable of course, as @ljanstis has predicted, is the outcome where it will all be said to depend on the facts in each case (with Lady Justice Hale strongly dissenting), leaving the situation just as unclear as it is at the moment.

Seldon should be finished today and the Judgment, which will be handed down in due course no doubt, will be keenly anticipated. To recap:  the Court of Appeal held that it was possible for a partnership to justify the compulsory retirement of an individual at a particular age if it can be shown that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.  In this case although it was held that forcing Mr Seldon to retire was directly discriminatory, it could be justified on the basis of it allowed associates to come through the ranks and achieve partner status, which also meant they wouldn’t leave to further their careers elsewhere, it facilitated succession planning and reduced the need to remove partners through performance measures.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Seldon’s appeal. It’s an issue that goes to the heart of the age discrimination problem with strong arguments on both sides.  Which takes precedence: an employers’ right to manage its business and encourage new blood or throwing good people out just because they’ve passed a particular birthday?   Personally, I hope Mr Seldon wins because otherwise I can’t see how the age discrimination legislation can have any credibility.

Not that Homer

There is also another age discrimination claim being heard at the Supreme Court – on indirect age discrimination. Homer v West Yorkshire Police is about indirect age discrimination.  Following the introduction of a new career structure he was refused entry to the highest pay band because he did not have a law degree.  Mr Homer brought a claim for indirect age discrimination on the grounds that at 61 years of age he would be unable to gain a law degree before he retired, unlike younger applicants. Again, judgment is awaited.

You can watch the progress of these cases via the Supreme Court website and Sky “Supreme Court Live”, unless you’d prefer to watch the cricket on Sky, which I wouldn’t recommend as England are currently 68 – 4.  Whether the Judges will be as equally decisive remains to be seen.

Related posts:

1. Goodbye House of Lords, Hello Supreme Court
2. Redundancy and Age Discrimination
3. Bankers and Age Discrimination

Age Discrimination Cases At the Supreme Court originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 19/01/2012.

Get a 10% discount on the booking fee for the above conference by clicking here and quoting “Scutt10″

During the Christmas break I read an article in The Independent about an increase in the number of “Valium addicts” being created by GPs and it stated

“Doctors are being sued for creating prescription drug addicts amid claims they have failed to follow safety guidelines published more than 20 years ago”

The number of clinical negligence claims is said to be increasing, from people who have been prescribed benzodiazepine drugs (which include diazepam/valium and lorazepam/ativan) for long periods of time and who have suffered injury and illness when coming off them.  The report suggests that GPs are still prescribing the drugs and quotes a Professor Malcolm Lader who believes there is a link between long-term tranquiliser use and brain damage as saying the Royal College of GPs is in denial about the issue.

This got me thinking on several levels.  The first was a reminder that when I was an articled clerk (ie trainee solicitor) back in 1991-93, I was told by my firm to “look after” the ten or so (legally aided) clients we had who were involved in the Benzodiazepine (BDZ) litigation which, at the time, was the biggest class action ever seen in the UK. The central thrust of the claims was that the drug companies should have known, or did know but didn’t act on the knowledge that long term prescription of BDZs could lead to injury. I don’t recall doctors being named as Defendants. It was frustrating work because all the exciting legal and medical stuff was done by the lead firms and my High Street firm acted as little more than a remote outpost, receiving instructions in the monthly bulletins from the lead firms, instructing the medical experts on the recommended lists and waiting for the inevitable outcome, which was collapse of the whole litigation after about three years.

Looking back it was obvious that the Plaintiffs, as they were then known in those long ago days pre-Woolf, would fail on the issue of causation.  In essence our clients, all of whom had (as far as I can recall now 20 years on) fairly nasty and intractable mental health issues anyway and it wasn’t possible to prove that the quality of their lives would have been much better without the drugs. Are we about to see a re-run of that litigation and that outcome?

In the first instance the potential defendants are different – last time it was the drug companies and this time the people prescribing the drugs who, surely, really should know better following the previous litigation? Breach of duty of care shouldn’t be much of an issue, but I suspect causation will be … again.

The story also got me thinking about the bigger scandal, which is the complete lack of meaningful assistance for people suffering from mental illness.  I’ve acted over the years in both personal injury and employment cases for many people suffering from mental illness and have seen the effects personally to me at close quarters. Doctors seem to have a very limited arsenal of tools with which to treat what is a massive problem in the UK.  They seem to have a wide variety of drugs to hand over (SSRIs, MAOI, TCAs etc) but trying to find a treatment other than a “mother’s little helper” is much harder.  Most of these drugs seem to take ages to work, give horrible side-effects when being taken and don’t do anything to cure the underlying problem.  That seems to be the task of so-called “talking therapies”, but try finding your way through the maze of counsellors and psychologists and any other number of “therapists” offering this or that “method” and it may lead you to the point of madness anyway. Even if you find someone, how do you know they are competent and won’t cause more harm than good? You might expect the overstretched NHS to struggle to offer anything, but do the big charities offer anything better?  Trying to find a support group for someone suffering from acute anxiety seems virtually impossible, for example.

Talking therapies are supposed to be much more successful in curing mental illness but it seems from what I have seen to be a neglected area.  Taking another pill instead is easy – it takes away the crisis but not the long term underlying cause.  I have some sympathy for overstretched GPs who can only spare 5 minutes with each patient at maximum.  Perhaps the NHS should spend some of the many millions it undoubtedly spends on anti-depressant drugs on developing and regulating the “talking therapy” sector, perhaps in conjunction with the relevant charities.  Will it take a potentially massive litigation against the NHS in the form of another BDZ class action to cause public policy to change?

The third thought I had on the issue was that back then most of the Claimants were funded by legal aid.  That won’t happen this time.  The participants will all be signed up on No Win No Fee agreements, backed by insurance (if the ATE industry will support it) meaning that if it collapses again it won’t be the taxpayer footing the bill. Undoubtedly many deserving Claimants won’t be able to seek redress.

None of this is new of course.  The Rolling Stones sang about it over 45 years ago;

“Kids are different today, I hear ev’ry mother say
Mother needs something today to calm her down
And though she’s not really ill, there’s a little yellow pill
She goes running for the shelter of a mother’s little helper
And it helps her on her way, gets her through her busy day”

No related posts.

Mother’s Little Helper? originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 12/01/2012.

For some light relief, take a look at the the 25 Top Oddball Interview Questions of 2011, as compiled by Glassdoor.com, a website that allows people to say what they really think about the company they work for.  These questions were ones that were really asked in interviews, apparently.  My favourite  (and I say that sitting here in the comfort of my own home and not sweating in an interview) is “Just entertain me for five minutes. I’m not going to talk”.  How would I answer? Nervous laugh?  A song and dance routine. Tell the guy he’s a complete ar*e and walk out?  I don’t know and I hope I never have to provide that answer.

Nor would I want to prove that Germans are the tallest people in the world, or If I was a Microsoft Office program which one would I be?  One question which put me in mind of the dreaded employee of the month award was “If you could be #1 employee but have all your coworkers dislike you or you could be #15 employee and have all your coworkers like you, which would you choose?”.  Tricky.  Almost as tricky as how you’d get an elephant into a refrigerator. Potential answer? “Bovvered? Do I look bovvered?”

The one I’d feel happiest answering though is “If you could be a superhero, what power would you possess?”.  My answer?  The power to detect bullsh*t well in advance.

Try as I might I can’t think of any witty or pithy responses to any of these questions.  I’m sure my fear of being out of work, whilst motivated at least 90% by wondering how to pay the mortgage is also a fear of having to sit in an interview and try and be polite whilst facing cretinous questions like these. Apparently George Melly, the late great Jazz singer once was cornered by a group of thugs intent on beating him up.  He managed to escape by loudly  reciting a Dada -ist poem that convinced his would be assailants that he must be deranged, so they left him alone.  It seems like a good idea to me.

The subject of complete nonsense takes me nicely on to Lucy Kellaway’s most recent podcast. It’s only 5 minutes long and well worth listening to – click here  Listen to Lucy – The Guff Awards 2011

In it Lucy reveals her choices for the most vacuous bit of corporate jargon from the last year – mission statements, promises to give 100,000% to the job and so forth.  She also gives an award for the best (ie worst) euphemism for redundancy.  The company  concerned announced that it was “managing for value”.

Related posts:

1. 10 questions to ask if you’re made redundant

Oddball Interview Questions & Other Guff originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 11/01/2012.

Europe’s largest annual online recruitment conference returns to central London on 26th January 2012. We have an exclusive discount for readers of this blog.

The 10th anniversary conference – “Online Recruitment 2012: The Year Ahead” will focus on online recruitment strategy, candidate attraction, mobile, online law and global social media, You’ll hear from other industry leading speakers as well as network with 500 professionals at the industry’s largest event.

1. Google are presenting on Google+ and mobile within recruitment.

2. ITV are talking about how they have successfully implemented a new careers website and social media strategy.

3. The FIRM are talking about 3,000 FIRM employer recruitment strategies.

4. Boots are back talking about the market a year on and how they successfully used Facebook for social hiring.

5. There’s a social media recruitment legal and compliance masterclass which should be really interesting.

6. Monster are talking about how BeKnown could change the recruitment world forever via Facebook.

7. LinkedIn are discussing their vision of the future of online recruitment in 2012.

8. Plus Enhance Media – the conference organisers – giving insight from the world’s largest piece of online recruitment research.

We’ll be there (obviously) and readers of Jobsworth can get a 10% discount on tickets! To find out more about the conference click here and when booking use the promotion code SCUTT10 to secure your discount.

See you on the 26^th Jan!

No related posts.

Advert: Online Recruitment Conference 2012: The Year Ahead originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 04/01/2012.