Employee Management Ltd

One of the areas of expertise our HR consultants here at Employee Management Limited (http://www.employeemanagement.co.uk) possess is helping employers navigate the various employment law pitfalls that occur throughout the lifecycle of an organisation, from its initial incorporation, the recruitment of staff, restructures, redundancies, mergers, acquisitions, and unfortunately in some cases insolvency proceedings.

With hundreds of thousands of employment tribunals being held every year, to the cost of several billion pounds to the UK economy, minimising your exposure to tribunal claims and the costs associated with them obviously makes commercial sense. That makes your company’s approach to conflict management and dispute resolution especially important.

One of the first aspects of the employment relationship that requires close attention are your contracts of employment. Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, it is a legal requirement that employees are provided with a written statement of their terms and conditions before they have spent two months in your employment. However, a basic statement will rarely cater for the needs of most employers. For this reason, our HR specialists would advise you go further than this by ensuring your contracts of employment specify employee obligations and responsibilities in addition to their rights. They should also incorporate measures designed to protect your business such as confidentiality, health and safety, conflicts of interest and post-employment restrictions.

Employee checks are also a vital part of minimising the legal risks associated with employment, with many employees providing incorrect information. It’s why you are strongly advised to take up employment references from past employers, request original copies of educational and professional qualifications and ensure that the prospective employee definitely has the right to work in the UK.

Once employees do begin work, you’ll also want to ensure that you have certain basic rules in place – perhaps in the form of an employee handbook – to leave staff members under no illusions as to their expected conduct and performance. Such rules should also cover the use of IT, in order to ward off both external attack and internal abuse.

There are various other matters to which you’ll need to pay attention if you are to minimise risks to your business, from managing performance and misconduct effectively to handling redundancies appropriately. Here at Employment Management Limited (http://www.employeemanagement.co.uk), we can provide you with the employment law services and advice that are most effective in lessening risks.

Following the collapse of Woolworths in December 2008 an employment tribunal awarded 60 days’ pay to former Woolworths’ employees as a result of the Company’s failure to consult collectively on redundancies. But around 3,000 of the 30,000 employees affected have been excluded from a share of the payout of up to £67.8 million, because they worked in locations with less than 20 staff.

Current legislation determines that statutory consultation periods only apply where 20 or more redundancies are being contemplated – a minimum of 30 days where the number is between 20 and 99 and a minimum of 90 days where the number is over 100.

In this case the tribunal determined that each store should be considered as a distinct establishment, and so some 200 stores with less than 20 staff members did not reach the size necessary for a statutory period of consultation to apply. Some of the stores were only one employee short of being eligible for the protective award.

The unions USDAW and Unite, who had trade union recognition agreements with the Company at the time of Woolworths’ collapse, pursued the protective awards claim for their members. Following the decision USDAW said that it was “bitterly disappointed” that the tribunal had limited the scope of the award, and it was “highly likely” that it would appeal against the ruling. One of the Union’s officers said that the fact that some of their members would not be compensated simply because their store had less than 20 employees was “plain wrong and showed the gaping loophole and injustice of the current legislation”. They are currently seeking further legal advice.

As the Company has gone into liquidation, the Government’s Insolvency Service will be dealing with the payouts.

Employee Management Ltd is an HR consultancy with extensive experience in assisting employers with redundancies. Whether it’s just providing ad-hoc advice, or acting as a business partner to actively manage the process on an organisation’s behalf, we can help avoid the most common pitfalls of insufficient consultation thereby reducing the likelihood of associated employment tribunals.

Sometimes, yes.

Where employment tribunals involve the former employer or colleague of an individual, it may be that one (or sometimes both) of the parties will want that individual to give evidence on their behalf. If this isn’t something the individual wishes to do, he/she isn’t under any obligation unless ordered to do so by the tribunal. Such orders rarely arise in the absence of a prior application from one (or occasionally both) of the parties, but even where an order is made, the individual still doesn’t have to cooperate with the successful applicant in respect of case preparation, e.g. participation in pre-hearing briefings or the advance provision of a statement of evidence.

Generally though, parties are loath to seek witness orders in respect of individuals who are against attending in the first place. This is because a reluctant witness who refuses to liaise with the party that ordered his/her attendance could say anything on the stand – and that is often considered a risk too far in the context of litigation.

However, the situation is slightly different if the party that wants an individual to give evidence is a current employer. Although they still can’t compel him/her to do so, they can certainly apply indirect pressure in terms of the possible consequences that might flow from a refusal to do so, e.g. an unpleasant atmosphere in the workplace, disciplinary action or even dismissal. That said, such individuals are still well within their rights to refuse to say things that aren’t true on the basis that lying under oath is a serious criminal offence – and an employee that suffers a detriment or dismissal for refusing to give false evidence may well have a valid claim for unfair dismissal and/or discrimination by way of victimisation.

More commonly, employers will simply want employees to tell the truth on the stand. Although employees often wish to stay out of such situations, they should bear in mind that the more involvement they had in events that led to the related litigation, the greater justification there is likely to be for taking disciplinary action against those refusing to give evidence for refusing to obey lawful management instruction.

Employee Management Ltd has defended employers in over 3,000 employment tribunals but advocacy is only one element of our comprehensive range of employment law services. For a confidential, no-obligation discussion about a pending case, or any other employment law issue, please contact one of our HR consultants without delay.

As an employer, the possibility of workplace conflict is likely to be one of your greatest sources of anxiety. It seems that employees that had previously worked together with great synergy can so easily find themselves in dispute, over issues that can include anything and everything from claims of sexual harassment to perceived – or actual – inequality of opportunity. This is certainly not something that has gone unnoticed by HR specialists Employee Management Limited (www.employeemanagement.co.uk), which is why the firm offers third party conflict resolution as one of its key employment law services.

Whatever the precise cause of the friction that can arise between individuals in the workplace, there’s certainly little doubt in the minds of most bosses of the damage that it can cause, with productivity swiftly falling and a lack of workplace bonding and team spirit quickly becoming evident. As for the causes, these can range from unfair treatment, poor management and insufficient training to unclear job roles, bullying and harassment, as well as a lack of communication. These situations can differ greatly on a case by case basis and demand very careful and skilful handling if tensions are not to be inflamed further.

Of course, having skills in mediation is a great help, particularly in that stage of the dispute resolution process that marks the transition from informality to formality. You may may feel that you have the ability in-house to resolve the impasse, whether that simply amounts to having a quiet word or turning to more formal, internal company procedures for dealing with grievances. Communication really is of the essence, as simply by talking and listening to employees, you can often diffuse tensions and clear the air.

Nonetheless, if the circumstances seem to demand the presence of an independent and impartial employment law professional with skills and experience in the provision of mediation services in order to help those in dispute to reach a solution which is best for the business, then you will appreciate the conflict resolution services that Employee Management Limited specialises in. Indeed, EML provides you with a means of professionally and discretely resolving situations of internal conflict, with all of the expertise that is required to manage even the most complicated of disciplinary and grievance situations, on your behalf.

By the time you get in touch with EML about dispute resolution services, the given conflict may have become very complex and protracted. It’s why the firm’s expert negotiators call upon all of their hard-earned experience of employment tribunals to carefully consider the nuances of each and every case. They are sensitive to the very different circumstances, emotions and perceptions that can define each conflict situation, and have a well-developed sense of what’s likely to be perceived as “fair” and “reasonable” by employment tribunals should matters escalate to that level, EML’s professionals aim to quickly re-establish harmony and, in turn, productivity.

Contact Employee Management Limited (www.employeemanagement.co.uk) about conflict resolution, and reduce the likelihood of expensive, time-consuming and stressful tribunals.

The Government has confirmed that it is to postpone the extension of the right to unpaid parental leave until 2013.

The European Council’s Parental Leave Directive comes into force on 8 March 2012 but the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) has said that the Government, because of its ongoing modern workplaces consultation, intends to use the grace period that allows member states a twelve month delay in the implementation of the changes.

The extension would have given parents of children under the age of five the right to take an additional five weeks unpaid parental leave, giving them up to eighteen weeks leave in total for each child. In May 2011, the Government stated that the increase would be incorporated into the system of flexible parental leave as set out in its Modern Workplaces consultation, but even with the delay the increase in unpaid paternal leave will still come into force more than two years ahead of other proposed changes to family leave, which are expected to be implemented in 2015.

As few employees currently take their full entitlement to unpaid parental leave it is unlikely that the extension to the implementation date will be a major issue.

At Employee Management Ltd, our HR consultants have extensive experience of originating and maintaining policies and procedures in relation to support for working families and can advise on any matters relating to parental leave issues.

For further details of the full range of HR and employment law services available from EML, go to http://www.employeemanagement.co.uk/.

Recent years have seen a significant change in the long-established relationship between employee and employer. It was once a given, for example, that a person’s employer was practically the highest power of all, with employees being subject to their rule, as if subjects to a king. However, this is not an accurate portrayal of the 21^st century employer-employee relationship, as HR specialists Employee Management Limited (http://www.employeemanagement.co.uk) explain.

Different workplaces will have different internal policies as to how either party is to act in certain situations, which naturally leads on to the matter of employment tribunals and their exact role. Employment Tribunals are regulated by the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council and administered by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. Employment tribunals are non-governmental public bodies that operate in England and Wales that are completely free (at least at the present time!) to both employers and employees.

Generally, employment tribunals are presided over by a panel comprised of a judge qualified in employment law and two non-legal ‘lay’ members who have experience of dealing with employment problems in the context of UK employment law both from the perspective of the employer and that of the employee, Cases frequently heard by tribunals include those involving claims of unfair or wrongful dismissal, redundancy payments and discrimination in the workplace, with all of the evidence being presented under oath and the decisions of the panel being legally binding.

Most employers will want to avoid employment tribunals, not least given the time and money they soak up. Having the right strategy in place for the avoidance of tribunals is a vital priority for many companies, and it certainly helps to have robust contracts of employment and an employee handbook that clarifies company policy on key aspects of the employment relationship. There are, however, inevitably circumstances in which you will need to call upon employment tribunal representation services such as those that are offered by Employee Management Limited.

It’s why our professionals work across the UK, providing firms with alternative employment law services to solicitors. Over the course of more than 3,000 tribunal applications that EML has been retained to defend, it has achieved a great amount of success, whether that amounts to outright success at tribunal, or considerable damage limitation in those cases where it has only become involved after the lodging of a claim.

As ever, whether the tribunal hearing concerns minor discrepancies in pay or more complicated and litigious discrimination cases, it is important to call upon professionals that will negotiate aggressively and offer the most competitive hourly rate compared to those of law firms and solicitors – professionals such as those at HR consultancy Employee Management Limited at http://www.employeemanagement.co.uk/.

From 6 April 2012 and subject to Parliamentary approval, RIDDOR’s over three day injury reporting requirement will change and the trigger point will increase to over seven days’ incapacitation (not counting the day on which the accident happened). The deadline by which an over seven day injury must be reported will increase to 15 days from the day of the accident.

Incapacitation means that the worker is absent or is unable to do work that they would reasonably be expected to do as part of their normal work. 

Employers and others with responsibilities under RIDDOR must still keep a record of all over three day injuries – if the employer has to keep an accident book, then this record will be enough.

If you require any further guidance or support on the latest workplace safety legislation, or any other Health & Safety at work issue, please contact one of our health and safety consultants without delay.

It has been confirmed by the Government that the increased qualifying period for protection from unfair dismissal will only apply to employees who start a new job on or after 6 April 2012. 

Therefore, the current one-year qualifying period will continue to apply to employees who started their employment before 6 April 2012. 

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) referred to the objective of the policy being to encourage recruitment as the reason why it was not deemed appropriate or necessary to impose the increased qualifying period on those already in work. 

The transitional arrangements will mirror those that accompanied the last increase to the qualifying period back in 1985. 

The associated regulations are expected to be published soon and will be subject to parliamentary debate.

In the meantime, Employee Management Ltd can help ensure the effective management of performance and procedural fairness of related dismissals via the provision of robust policies. We can also undertake comprehensive workplace investigations into associated disciplinary and grievance issues and if a situation escalates to litigation then tribunal representation is one of our main employment law services. If your business has a current need in any of these areas, please contact us without delay.

A businessman and former mayor of Nottingham was sentenced in early January to 26 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, and ordered to undertake 180 hours of unpaid work and to pay £4,000 in costs by Nottingham Crown Court, after pleading guilty to a number of fire safety breaches at his factory premises in the city, Trent Valley Trading.

Following the concerns of operational fire crews, officers from Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service visited the premises and issued an enforcement notice. After visits to assess progress and advise on achieving a satisfactory fire safety standard, officers allowed the businessman extra time to comply with the notice. He was prosecuted when it became apparent that he had ignored the deadline and continued to trade without ensuring that his premises were safe.

Sentencing the business owner, the judge said he had put the needs of the business before employee safety, adding that many of the measures would have been inexpensive. He had been minded to impose a nine-month sentence but, in light of particular mitigation, he reduced and suspended it. The defence lawyer had conceded that the offences would justify a custodial sentence.

Nottinghamshire’s fire protection station manager said: ‘The absence of a fire risk assessment is a particularly bad aspect of this case, especially after numerous reminders.’

This case again highlights the importance of business owners keeping up to speed in respect of their health and safety responsibilities. At Employee Management Ltd, our health and safety consultants have many years of experience in providing professional support in this regard. In particular we can carry out Fire Risk assessments to meet the requirements of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

For a confidential, no obligation discussion on the assistance they can provide, please make contact without delay.

The Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) requires companies and individuals to keep personal data to themselves. The eight defining data protection principles (including ‘personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully’ and ‘personal data must not be held on record for longer than necessary’) ensure compliance with the DPA. HR consultants Employee Management Limited (http://www.employeemanagement.co.uk/) looks at three high profile cases surrounding DPA issues, and asks if you, whether an individual or part of an organisation, are compliant.

Some cases with DPA aspects have been hitting the headlines in recent months which reveal how far-reaching data protection can be. It’s not only companies who gather vast quantities of personal data – such as banks and insurance companies – who can fall foul of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if they do not comply with the DPA. Individual professionals also need to proceed with caution when it comes to the personal details of others as a recent case proved. A barrister faced fines from the ICO for failing to encrypt a laptop which contained sensitive personal data relating to individuals involved in eight court cases that he had been working on. That laptop was stolen and the sensitive information compromised. In addition to the fines, the ICO said that the case “should act as a warning to other legal professionals”.

Nor are MPs beyond the reaches of the DPA, as the case against MP Oliver Letwin showed. Mr Letwin was found to be dumping paperwork in bins around London, papers which held personal information. The Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, confirmed that his actions constituted a breach of the DPA, ordering Mr Letwin to sign a written commitment stating not to do so again, and stating that “I’m sure this case will also prompt other MPs to review their handling of personal data to ensure they’re doing all they can to keep it secure.”

In another case, a nursery school lost a backup tape containing the personal details of 70 pupils and their parents, including health information on some of the children. When the ICO investigated, it found that the tape had not been encrypted and the school was forced to agree to improve its procedures for handling personal data going forward.

These cases show that no individual or organisation is immune to the regulations set out by the DPA. If you or your organisation are in any doubt about compliance with the DPA, consult the HR specialists Employee Management Limited. For further information go to http://www.employeemanagement.co.uk/.