Author: Victoria Thomson

SA Law’s outstanding work for commercial and private clients has been recognised by the Chambers and Partners 2012 Guide to the UK legal profession.

SA Law has been recognised as a leading regional practice by independent legal research bodies Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500, in addition to achieving The Law Society’s Conveyancing Quality Scheme accreditation.

A leading publisher of legal research, Chambers conducts thousands of interviews with lawyers and their clients every year to identify regional leaders around the world.
All of SA Law’s departments have been recognised as regional leaders in the Northern Home Counties, with Managing Partner Steve Ryan cited as a top tier lawyer: “These achievements are extremely important in a sector that suffers from fierce competition in a slow economy. Achieving recognised first class credentials in the marketplace has never been more essential.” Adds Steve Ryan.

To find out more about SA Law and how our dedicated team can assist your business, visit our website www.salaw.com

Author: Keely Rushmore

Dr Eva Michalak has won £4.5 million in compensation after her bosses mounted a campaign against her when she fell pregnant.

An Employment Tribunal recently awarded the staggering sum of £4.5 million by way of compensation for unlawful sex and race discrimination (a figure which the tabloids have pointed out would be enough to pay 210 nurses for a year). This is thought to be the highest ever discrimination award made in the UK.

Polish born Dr Eva Michalak was employed by the Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust as a consultant.  She claimed that she took maternity leave and on her return raised concerns about payments made to colleagues in her absence (but not to her) which lead to a concerted campaign by the Trust (referred to in the proceedings as the “Get Eva” campaign) to end her employment.  As part of this campaign she claimed that she was subjected to a bogus disciplinary procedure and an unjustified and lengthy period of suspension from 2006 which culminated in her dismissal in 2008.  She said that her dismissal was the conclusion of an extensive process of sex and race discrimination related to the fact that she’d made a protected disclosure and amounted to disability discrimination. The Tribunal accepted her arguments and went so far as it say it was ‘positively outraged’ by her treatment by the Trust and senior employees within it.

It would be fair to say that the case is exceptional. As a result of her treatment by the Trust she developed a chronic and disabling post-traumatic stress disorder, together with depression and anxiety. The Tribunal were told how she was left unable to accomplish the simplest of tasks without oversight and supervision, leading to her husband having to give up work to care for her.  The Tribunal concluded that she would never work again.

Dr Michalak earned just short of £90,000 in her post.  The £4.5 million figure was based on numerous heads of loss, including £30,000 for injury to feelings, £50,000 for psychiatric injury, £170,000 for lost earnings to date, £941,000 for future loss of salary (taking her to retirement age), £666,000 for pension losses, £50,000 for medical treatment, £43,000 for past care and £31,000 for future care. The dismissal had taken place when the statutory grievance and dismissal procedures were in place and therefore the Tribunal had discretion to award a 50% uplift in respect of Trust’s failure to follow the statutory grievance procedure.  The Tribunal said that it would have had ‘no hesitation’ in ordering the full 50% uplift were it not for the amount this would translate to in monetary terms, and instead elected to apply a more modest 15% figure.  A significant portion of the £4.5 million (almost £2 million) was an uplift to take into account the fact that the compensation would for the most part be taxable.  The Tribunal concluded that the Trust and some named respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay the award.

This was certainly an exceptional case but serves as a reminder of the huge potential liabilities that can arise in discrimination cases and the need to ensure that staff receive and understand equal opportunities training.

For more information about Equal Opportunities training, click here.
To read more Unfair Dismissal related articles, click here.

If you would like more information or advice relating to a specific matter, please do not hesitate to contact Keely Rushmore on 01727 798017 or by email at keely.rushmore@salaw.com or any member of the Employment Team.

© SA LAW 2012
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual case.

Author: Vanessa James

A former NHS manager, Elliot Browne, has been awarded £933,115 in compensation, succeeding in his Tribunal claim against the NHS for unfair dismissal and race discrimination;  one of the highest payments ever awarded for race discrimination.

The Tribunal found that Mr Browne had been subjected to “systematic discrimination” and “an intimidating environment” from 2007 until his dismissal in 2008 – although the losing Respondent did not see it that way and have appealed the decision.

Mr Browne worked for the Central Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) for 34 years, and became the first and only black man to hold the position of divisional director for clinical scientific services with the Trust.

Following the Trust’s concerns regarding budget management and leadership in his department, Mr Browne raised what the Tribunal deemed a “well-founded” complaint of discrimination. He claimed that his singling out for criticism was unfair and discriminatory when compared with his employer’s treatment of white colleagues. Following his complaint, the Trust were found by the Tribunal to have “closed ranks” and began disciplinary proceedings to dismiss him.

As a result, Mr Browne was signed off work with stress and claimed his employer’s treatment had left him close to a breakdown. Mr Browne was supported in his claim by Unite who called for the Trust to “tackle its culture of institutionalised racism.” The Tribunal award compensated Mr Browne for aggravated damages, demonstrating its view that the treatment suffered had a severe impact on his health.

This level of award, whilst unusual, demonstrates the Tribunal’s current view towards claims of discrimination. In the last 2-3 years we have noticed a marked shift in the Tribunal’s approach and the line of questioning used in hearings, which focuses on ‘subconscious discrimination’ to determine whether there is an inherent culture of discrimination within a workplace.

What is also important to understand is that while the Tribunal found that the treatment amounted to race discrimination, the Respondent did not appear to believe they discriminated.  We can also speculate about why the Respondent did not settle the matter before trial if it was in any way apparent to the Respondent or their legal team that they would lose to such an extent.  This shows that spotting the risks of such a case occurring in any organisation is not that straight forward.

Vanessa James is a Partner and Head of the Employment Department at SA Law. Vanessa specialises in discrimination claims, shareholder disputes and employee disputes.

To read more Unfair Dismissal related articles, click here.

If you would like more information or advice relating to a specific matter, please do not hesitate to contact Vanessa James on 01727 798089 or by email at vanessa.james@salaw.com or any member of the Employment Team.

© SA LAW 2012
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual case

Author: Chris Cook

In October 2011 the Government announced that the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims would be doubling. At this time, business secretary Vince Cable said that ’Businesses tell us that unfair dismissal rules are a major barrier to taking on more people’. However, at this time the government did not confirm whether it would affect existing employees (who may already have qualified for unfair dismissal rights) or just new starters.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has now explained that the aim of the policy is mainly to encourage recruitment and it does not believe that it is “appropriate or necessary to apply it to those already in work”.

The Government has confirmed that employees starting work before 6 April 2012 will be able to make unfair dismissal claims after one year’s service. The new two-year period of qualification will only apply to those who commence employment on or after 6 April 2012. As well as giving employers greater confidence to take new people on, it is also hoped to provide more time for employers and employees to resolve their difficulties as well as easing constraints on the employment tribunal process.

To read more Unfair Dismissal related articles, click here.

If you would like more information or advice relating to a specific matter, please do not hesitate to contact Chris Cook on 01727 798017 or by email at chris.cook@salaw.com or any member of the Employment Team.

© SA LAW 2012
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual case.

Author: Alexis Asher

George Osborne has today announced two forthcoming changes to Employment Law and, in particular, Employment Tribunal practice and procedure.

From 1 April 2012, the qualifying period after which an employee will be eligible to bring a claim of unfair dismissal, will be increased from one year to two years.

There is also the proposal to introduce fees for Tribunal claims. At the time of writing, details have not been fully confirmed. However, the initial information available suggests that claimants will be charged a fee of £250 when issuing their claim, and a further £1,000 when their claim is listed for hearing.

There is further speculation on the fee structure, including the possibility of higher fees where the claim is for a sum over £30,000 and a potential waiving of fees where a claimant can demonstrate they do not have the ability to pay. As yet, it is not clear how an individual’s means to pay will be assessed. There is a suggestion that fees will be refunded to a successful claimant, but lost if they do not succeed in their claim.

The Government’s aim is to reduce the number of claims made to the Employment Tribunal, and boost the economy by encouraging employers to recruit more freely without the fear of claims. It remains to be seen whether the changes will achieve this aim.

We will be keeping you updated with developments and opinion over the coming days.

Contact Us
For further information or to discuss a particular matter or situation in more detail, contact Alexis Asher at our St Albans office by email at alexis.asher@salaw.com or on 01727 798023.

© SA LAW 2011
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.

Author: Alexis Asher

The Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (AWR) are due to come into force on 1 October 2011. Employers need to be aware of the changes these Regulations bring, if running an employment agency or using agency workers as a hirer. Below we look at the main impact of the Regulations in some more detail.

Equal treatment
The main aim of the Regulations is to create equality between agency workers and directly employed employees.
The Regulations provide agency workers with the right to be told of any relevant vacancies at the user’s company during the assignment and the right to be treated no less favourably than a comparable worker in relation to collective facilities and amenities. These rights will be available to agency workers from day one of an assignment (“day-one rights”).
If the agency worker has worked for the same hirer in the same role for 12 weeks, he/she will be entitled equal treatment to that of a comparable employee in relation to rights such as holiday, rest breaks and pay etc as well as access to job vacancies within the hirer’s business.

Your obligation as an agency
If you run an employment agency it is your obligation to ensure that the agency worker is receiving equal treatment by enquiring about the relevant information from the hirer.

Your obligation as a hirer
As a hirer, you must ensure that you comply with the Regulations and that you provide the relevant information to the employment business upon request.

You are prohibited from structuring your business in a way which is intentionally aimed at avoiding the provisions of the new regulations, e.g. you must not move the agency workers round within the business so that they do not fulfil the 12 week qualifying period.

The regulations come into force in October so you must ensure that you and your business are prepared to deal with the changes. You should start by answering the following questions:

1.Do you tend to use agency workers for 12 weeks or more?
2.Do you know who the comparators would be in relation to each agency worker?
3.Do you know which information the employment agency is entitled to request from you?
4.Do you know the impact of the new regulations to your business including costs?
You must ensure that you fully understand the changes and your obligations. There are many factors to take into account and precisely what you need to know will depend on the nature and structure of your business.

The risk in non-compliance has not yet been determined fully, and this is an area that will evolve through case-law. However, failing to understand and implement the required measures could have costly consequences both financially, and for the reputation of your company.

Further Information
If you are interested in learning more about the AWR changes or how it affects your business, come along to one of our free ‘Temporary (Agency) Workers -Equal Treatment’ Seminars. To find out more or to book your place, click here.

Contact Us
For further information or to discuss a particular matter or situation in more detail, contact Alexis Asher at our St Albans office by email at alexis.asher@salaw.com or on 01727 798023.

Author: Alexis Asher

It is the time of year when employers will have been flooded with requests for leave. Often employers are unclear about their right to refuse holiday requests, and how to balance workloads with personnel being out of the office.

Below are some top tips on managing holiday absence:-

1. Ensure you have a Holidays Policy in place which covers the procedure for requests and grounds for refusal;
2. Ensure that you follow the policy at all times in order to avoid potential discrimination against any employee;
3. Remember that you have a right to refuse holiday requests if there is a genuine business reason to do so, e.g. if another employee from the same department has already been granted holiday for the same time and the absence of another employee would result in an unmanageable workload;
4. Limit the number of employees who can take annual leave at any given time;
5. If the business requires you to do so, you could specify periods when annual leave cannot be taken, e.g. January in retail businesses so that there is adequate staffing to deal with the sales.

Author: Chris Cook

With Summer (hopefully) on the way, the issue of appropriate attire in the workplace can become problematic for employers.

More and more offices are introducing dress-down days and “business casual” dress codes in an attempt to create a relaxed atmosphere at work. Hot weather can also lead to conventional office wear becoming too restrictive. This can cause problems and create uncertainty as to what is acceptable office wear.

An easy way to avoid problems is to include details on dress in the company staff handbook. This not only protects employers, allowing them to set guidelines on what will be acceptable or not, but also assists employees who may otherwise find deciding what to wear a challenge.

Employers should be careful to operate any dress policy consistently to minimise the risk of a claim of discrimination being made. It is also important to bear in mind any employees who may hold religious beliefs which dictate certain items of dress and ensure that any policy does not place such employees at a disadvantage.

Author: Alexis Asher

The News of the World is set to close after 168 years, having been accused of hacking into the phone lines of various individuals. Approximately 200 News of the World staff face redundancy, ranging from its editor Colin Myler, to advertising, marketing, administration and other editorial staff. Redundancy consultation is now thought to have begun.

Last night, journalists at the Sun newspaper had walked out in protest to demonstrate support for their colleagues at News of the World. News International has, as yet, refused to comment on rumours that the Sun could now become a seven-day-a-week operation.

The unfolding of the phone hacking crisis earlier this week led to several News of the World advertisers suspending their advertising with the paper until the police investigations into the hacking allegations had been completed. Ford was the first advertiser to announce it was to pull advertising from Sunday’s News of the World.

Controversially, the News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks is not yet thought to be losing her job, despite being the editor of the News of the World at the time of some of the alleged hacking. The Prime minister has commented today that Ms Brooks’ resignation was reportedly offered, and that this should, in his view, have been accepted by James and Rupert Murdoch. David Cameron has also reassured the public that his administration will be launching a full judicial review into the phone hacking.

The paper is set to print its last edition this Sunday, without any advertising. However the forthcoming investigations mean this will not be the last we hear of the News of the World.

Author: Chris Cook

Last week Facebook was accused of invading personal privacy “by stealth” after it started using facial recognition technology without informing its users.  The technology scans faces of people in tagged pictures and matches that information with other pictures to allow users to tag them automatically.

The technology has been used in the US version of Facebook for a number of months, although in that situation users were informed of the pending introduction of facial recognition technology weeks in advance.

While the majority of users will not be concerned as to the introduction of this technology, concerned users are able to disable the technology by adjusting their privacy settings so as to effectively “opt out” of the service.  However, bearing in mind the current data protection legislation, there is some debate as to whether Facebook has gone about this in the right way.

Where individuals can be identified from photographs on the Facebook site, the information will constitute personal data within the remit of the Data Protection Act 1998.  This in turn would necessitate the person using the photographs to have obtained the consent of all of the individuals appearing in the photograph before posting on a social networking site.  While this would not necessarily be a problem where those individuals are tagged to each other on the Facebook site, it is arguably an infringement of the Data Protection Act for processing personal information without having obtained prior consent.

These issues can also be translated into the workplace, where photographs of employees routinely appear on business websites without due consideration having been given to legal compliance issues.  It is important to obtain prior written consent from all individuals for their photograph to appear on your business’ website before it is used.

If you feel that the time has come to review your business’ usage of personal data belonging both to customers and employees to ensure compliance with the Data Protection Act, please contact Chris Cook on 01727 798019 or by email at chris.cook@salaw.com