Renney & Co Employment Law Solicitors

What exactly is employment law?

2012-01-24T02:32:00.000-08:00

"Employment laws" are what is put into place to protect employees from any mistreatment by their employers and have become a vital part of a country's efforts to protect its citizens.

Most countries have their own version of laws protecting workers, but in general, employment laws address the following concerns:

employees being overworked,

placed in an unhealthy or dangerous environment, or

rendered unable to work without appropriate compensation.

In some countries, employment laws also guarantee that workers can't be unfairly discriminated against plus it allows foreigners a period of time during which they can legally work in the country.

If you would like to discuss how employment law effects you or your business, please get in touch with me.

Employment Tribunal reforms on the way

2011-11-25T03:07:00.000-08:00

The government has published its response to the Resolving Workplace Disputes consultation on reforming the employment tribunal system, and has finalised the proposals that will form the basis of legislative and policy change. The changes to be made include promoting and extending the use of workplace mediation; making changes to compromise agreements; increasing the role of Acas to facilitate early conciliation; increasing the maximum amount for cost and deposit orders in the tribunal; removing lay members in unfair dismissal claims; and introducing additional financial penalties for unsuccessful employers.

There will also be a review of the Employment Tribunal Rules. Watch this space for further updates from Renney and Co Solicitors.

“Cashflow – healthy businesses don’t let unpaid bills mount up

2011-11-11T04:31:00.000-08:00

Most, if not all businesses will need to pursue an unpaid invoice at sometime. The secret is to act early and not to allow debts to accumulate over a long period of time, as the chances of recovery dwindle as time goes by. Renney & Co’s checklist highlights the advantages and disadvantages of the main options available to a business trying to recover a fairly modest trade debt.

Five Big Mistakes You Will Make When Employing People

2011-10-19T10:48:00.000-07:00

Regency Offices will be holding its first Power Breakfast at Cote Restaurant from 8am on Wednesday October 26th. With 20 other businesses at the breakfast, Renney and Co will be doing a brief talk on an element of employment law.

Selling up?

2011-10-17T04:34:00.000-07:00

At Renney & Co our business clients often come to us with employment issues regarding the sale of their business, including questions about whether they can make staff redundant to make the sale a more attractive proposal to potential buyers. Businesses need to be aware of all the legal risks that may arise during a sale. If you are considering selling a business or enterprise, it is important you understand the pitfalls, so we have prepared a helpful checklist which highlights the key issues you will need to consider.

For further information just get in touch.

First prosecution under the Bribery Act 2010

2011-10-10T02:01:00.000-07:00

Well, we knew it would just be a question of time before prosecutions under the new Bribery Act would be taken. We were expecting a major arms dealer to be the first culprit, or perhaps some similar major corporation. But no - the first person to be charged under the Bribery Act 2010 is a court clerk who faces allegations of misconduct. Munir Yakub Patel will be prosecuted for "requesting and receiving a bribe intending to improperly perform his functions " and is due to appear before Southwark Crown Court on 14 October 2011.

Renney & Co’s checklist outlines the new offences introduced by the Bribery Act 2010 and the penalties for committing them. It also highlights practical steps that businesses can take to help avoid breaching the legislation.

Change to unfair dismissal law, Employers set to celebrate!

2011-10-04T04:23:00.000-07:00

The Government has today announced that the qualifying period for the right to claim unfair dismissal will be extended from one to two years on 6 April 2012. The Government is acting on the recommendations of a recent consultation paper 'Resolving Workplace Disputes'. Business groups are delighted with the proposal, although it remains to be seen whether this will lead to a further increase in the number of discrimination claims, for which there is no qualifying period.

Other proposals set out in the consultation included a fee for bringing tribunal claims (currently there is no fee) and the government has announced that this will be introduced in April 2013. This will also discourage workers from bringing claims.

Businesses finally have something to celebrate, although they would be well advised to tighten up all their contracts and procedures to ensure they avoid discrimination claims which can be even more expensive than unfair dismissals, as there are no financial limits to the compensation which can be awarded.

If you are an employer and have any questions, please contact Renney and Co Solicitors in Bath.

Can employers impose pay cuts?

2011-09-12T00:15:00.001-07:00

When a business wants to make a change to the terms and conditions of its employees, it often goes through a process of consultation, seeking agreement to the changes. If, after the consultation period, all or some of the employees do not agree to the proposed changes, the business may be able to dismiss these employees fairly for some other substantial reason (SOSR), offering employment on new terms and conditions.In a recent case, a company asked its employees to take a 5% pay cut after a fall in the company's sales and profits.

Following a company-wide consultation, only two employees refused to agree to the change. The company terminated their employment and offered new terms and conditions on the reduced pay. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the dismissal was fair for SOSR. The case confirms that employers do not have to show that their business reason for making a change was special or extraordinary. Where an overwhelming majority of the workforce accept the change, individual employees may struggle to show that their dismissal for refusing to accept the change was unfair.

Renney and Co Solicitors' checklist highlights some common examples of SOSR for dismissal.

Employers’ duty to make “reasonable adjustments” in the workplace – see our new checklist

2011-08-16T01:17:00.001-07:00

Disability discrimination claims are on the increase, as the legal rights of disabled workers increase. Businesses need to understand their duty to disabled staff to make “reasonable adjustments” when necessary, particularly since the introduction of the recent Equality Act.

But what is a reasonable adjustment? That is the question which is often at the heart of any disability dispute. And what steps should employers be taking to stay within the law, protect their business, and maintain a happy, diverse workforce?

Our checklist explains what reasonable adjustments are in the context of disability discrimination and identifies when a business may need to make them. We think this will be of interest to businesses as well as employees.

Agency Workers Get Same Rights as Permanent Staff

2011-08-08T00:53:00.000-07:00

Businesses who use agencies to supply temporary staff will need to be aware of the new laws which come into force on 1 October 2011 protecting agency workers. For example, after 12 weeks’ of their assignment agency workers will be entitled to the same "basic working and employment conditions" as permanent staff, including equal salary, bonuses, and holiday pay.

Our useful checklist will help businesses get up to speed with the new rights available to agency workers before the legislation is introduced, and to plan ahead accordingly.

Consultant or Employee?

2011-08-01T02:59:00.000-07:00

At Renney & Co we are often asked whether a worker should be classified as an employee, a consultant or another type of worker. This is not always clear, particularly if there is no contract in place between the parties, for example a contract of employment or a consultancy agreement.

There are definite advantages for an individual being an employee rather than self-employed or a consultant, as an employee is entitled to all the rights given by statute whereas a consultant or other worker has limited rights.

There are also tax implications, particularly for employers, if a worker is found to be an employee instead of having self-employed status or being a consultant. If an employer fails to deduct tax at source, the Inland Revenue could track you down and present you with a tax bill including employers’ National Insurance Contributions as well as penalties and interest. In some cases it is possible for employers to offset some of the tax already paid by the “employee”, but not always.

We have prepared a checklist which will be of interest to employers, employees and consultants. This summarises the rights of employees as opposed to other types of workers. If you would like advice on your status, or help with employment contracts, policies or consultancy agreements, please feel free to get in touch with us.

There's no such thing as a free lunch - the bribery act explained.

2011-07-07T23:46:00.000-07:00

At Renney & Co Employment Law Solicitors, some of our employer clients are asking us whether the Bribery Act which came into force on 1st July 2011 will affect their business. A bribe is defined as "a financial or other advantage" offered, promised or given to induce a person to perform a relevant function of activity improperly, or to reward them for doing so. This covers many possible scenarios including gifts, hospitality and entertainment, political or charitable donations, sponsorship and publicity.

The timing of the financial or other advantage does not matter: it is still a bribe even if it is made after the event. Individuals can be liable even if they unwittingly give or receive a bribe, and even the promise of a bribe can be an offence.
The Act introduces 4 criminal offences which can be summarised as follows:

Bribing another.
Being bribed .
Bribing a foreign public official.
Failure of a commercial organisation to prevent bribery by an "associated person" for its benefit (for example consultants, agency workers and volunteers).

An employer is therefore potentially responsible for the actions of a wide range of individuals, some of whom it may have very little control over. If found guilty of an offence, individuals face up to ten years' imprisonment, and commercial organisations can be fined an unlimited amount and prevented from tendering for public contracts.

Employers have a defence if they can show that they had "adequate procedures" in place designed to prevent bribery. However, what constitutes adequate procedures? For guidance on this get in touch and ask for our Guidance about commercial organisations preventing bribery which explains the six key principles intended to give commercial organisations a starting point for planning, implementing, monitoring and reviewing anti-corruption and bribery policies and procedures .
Transparency International has also produced its own guidance on adequate procedures which employers may find helpful.

The Guidance principles are briefly as follows:

Proportionate procedures eg an anti-corruption and bribery policy including financial and auditing controls, disciplinary procedures, performance appraisals, selection criteria
Top level commitment and ensuring the policy is clearly communicated to all workers and those they do business with
Risk assessment eg ensuring that workers understand, and are alert to, bribery and corruption risks, reviewing the training provided to workers on bribery and corruption issues, and reviewing policies on gifts and hospitality to ensure that they adequately address the potential bribery and corruption risks
External risks eg does the business regularly need to obtain licences, permits and other approvals? Or is it involved in public procurement contracts, high-value projects, or projects which involve large numbers of contractors or intermediaries, does it do business in countries considered to be high risk
Due diligence eg making reasonable investigations into all parties the employer has business relationships with, including suppliers, agents and intermediaries and joint venture partners, being aware of why, when and to whom the employer is releasing funds
Communication including training staff, putting internal reporting procedures in place, and penalties for breaches
Monitoring and review eg appointing someone to be responsible for monitoring and reviewing policies and procedures, consider what external events should trigger a review of internal procedures (for example, government changes in the countries in which it does business, corruption convictions or negative press reports of business partners), and ensuring effective financial and auditing controls that pick up potential and actual irregularities are in place

Employers could also consider the extent to which they should carry out additional background checks and vetting during the recruitment process, including bankruptcy checks, criminal record checks and additional references.

Consider the need to carefully document appointment decisions to ensure they are clear, transparent and independent (particularly important where the individual appointed is related to, or has some other relationship with, a client or business contact.)

Training on the employer's anti-corruption and bribery policies and procedures could be included within the induction procedure of all workers, not just employees. This may include agency staff, voluntary workers and independent consultants.

Employers should also audit their expenses processes regularly and ensure there is evidence as to how and why the money was spent for each expenses claim submitted. Do you have an expenses policy?

Consider creating a policy setting out your company’s approach to hospitality, providing guidance on both the giving and receiving of gifts. Depending on business custom and practice, and the potential bribery and corruption risks the employer identifies, employers may want to adopt one or more of the following approaches:

Prohibit workers from accepting any business gifts.
Allow workers to accept business gifts if certain requirements are met and appropriate records kept.
Require workers to gain prior approval of all gifts or entertainment provided to others.
Require workers to document the reason for all gifts or entertainment provided to others.

If you would like more information on how to protect your business, get in touch with us for a free quote - absolutely no obligation.

Job References; employers be careful.

2011-06-10T04:15:00.000-07:00

Employers need to exercise caution when providing references for staff and ex-staff as this can give rise to liabilities not only to the member of staff seeking the reference, but also the company receiving it.

Unless there is a contractual obligation to give a reference, or a professional reference is required (for example in financial services’ sector) employers can as a general rule choose not to give references, or to provide only basic information such as start date, finish date and job title. Many large corporations have adopted this policy. However if an employer does provide a more detailed reference, it must be truthful and cannot be unlawfully discriminatory.

Renney & Co recently represented a claimant who successfully sued her former employer for loss of earnings following an unfavourable reference. She applied for a job with a new employer as a healthcare assistant. She was offered the job subject to satisfactory references. The reference supplied by the old employer to the new employer stated that the claimant was “inflexible” as regards her working hours. The new employer withdrew its offer of employment upon receipt of the unfavourable reference. The reference amounted to unlawful sex discrimination and a breach of the Equality Act 2010 and the Part Time Workers’ regulations, because she had been a part-time worker with child care responsibilities.

The claimant successfully sued for damages for breach of duty and compensation for loss of earnings.

Employers should ensure they have proper systems in place so that all references requested are directed to the right department or person, and also that any comments made by them are not only accurate but are also not unlawfully discriminatory. If you are an employer and unsure of whether the reference you propose to issue might be unlawful, or you wish to withdraw an offer of employment upon receipt of an unfavourable reference, you can find more information on this here or alternatively get in touch with us for advice.

Senior staff and directors liable to pay profits to employers

2011-05-16T02:51:00.000-07:00

At Renney & Co we are often asked to advise clients on the validity of restrictive covenants and post-termination restrictions contained in contracts of employment for senior employees or directors’ service agreements.

Whether or not there are contractual restrictions on activities, company directors have always traditionally owed a duty to act in the company’s best interests, which is often referred to as a “fiduciary duty”. The recent case of Samsung Semiconductor Europe Ltd versus Docherty (2011) represents a significant shift of this duty in favour of employers. Senior employees and directors now also have a duty to confess their own misconduct and can be made to repay any profit made by them from the misconduct.

In the Samsung case, Mr Docherty was an Insurance Manager (ie a senior employee) employed by Samsung. Samsung were not aware that Mr Docherty secretly held a 50% shareholding in another company which provided engineering support and quality control services to Samsung. For several years Mr Docherty ensured that Samsung continued to do business with the company in which he had a shareholding and even provided Samsung with misleading information about competitors to ensure that Samsung did not move its business elsewhere.

When Samsung discovered Mr Docherty’s financial interest in the company it issued proceedings against him and demanded an account of profits made from his dealings with the company over the years. Mr Docherty was ordered to pay to Samsung all the profits he had made from the transactions, even though Samsung were not actually out of pocket (they would have had to buy the services from somewhere in any event).

This case shows that the courts are willing to ensure that senior employees who breach their duty to their employers will not be allowed to profit from it, even in cases where the employer has not suffered any financial loss.

At Renney & Co we recommend that employers and employees who feel they might be affected by this ruling should, as a starting point, check their contracts to see whether they contain a clause requiring the employee or director to disclose any outside interests.

For further information please contact us.

Redundancy and sex discrimination claims by men

2011-05-04T02:05:00.000-07:00

Whenever we hear about claims for sex discrimination it is normally women who are claiming that they have been unfairly treated by comparison to men. However the tables were turned in the recent case of Mr De Belin against Eversheds Legal Services Ltd where the Tribunal declared Mr De Belin had been the subject of discrimination following his redundancy dismissal.

Apparently Mr De Belin and a female colleague, who was on maternity leave, both faced possible redundancy, and the company undertook a points system of various criteria to decide who they would let go. One of the criteria was the turnaround time of billing and receiving payment from clients (typical lawyers we hear you say!) Since the female colleague on maternity leave had been absent for several months, they gave her the highest score possible for that category.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal decided that the company could and should have looked at her performance for the period before she went on maternity leave, instead of simply awarding her the highest possible score.

Therefore the company’s decision to award the maternity leave employee the maximum score in respect of one of the selection criteria, whilst at the same time awarding Mr De Belin his actual score, amounted to sex discrimination and it was decided that Mr De Belin was unfairly dismissed.

This is a reminder that sex discrimination works both ways and employers need to be careful not to favour pregnant women more than is “reasonably necessary” to compensate them for any disadvantage caused by their condition.

We appreciate how difficult it can be for employers in circumstances such as these to get the balance right, and it is clear from this decision that “giving the benefit of the doubt” to a pregnant woman or a woman on maternity leave is clearly not always the safest option. Here at Renney & Co we are advising clients that if a woman who is pregnant or on maternity leave is favoured disproportionately, employers could face a claim by her male colleagues who are disadvantaged by this.

If you require advice or guidance on redundancies or employment issues, please feel free to contact us on 01225 326435 or at info@renneyandco.com.

If you are an employer, have a quick look at our checklist before undertaking any dismissals.

Redundancy: considering alternative employment

2011-04-18T04:36:00.000-07:00

At Renney & Co we are often asked by employers and employees to advise on businesses’ legal requirements of making staff redundant. A redundancy dismissal will be unfair if the employee is not considered for any alternative employment which is available within the employer’s business. The selection of employees for redundancy should be based on objective criteria otherwise the dismissal can be unfair.

However in a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal case, the tribunal held that it is fair for a business to apply subjective criteria when deciding which potentially redundant member of staff should be offered any alternative employment. Therefore employers can undertake a competitive interview process and appoint the candidate it considers best for the job, even if this is based on its subjective view. It simply needs to act fairly and reasonably during the process.

Our checklist sets out what a business has to look for where there is alternative employment for potentially redundant employees.

Get in touch with us if you need further advice.

Employment law update

2011-04-06T01:36:00.000-07:00

This month a number of important changes in employment law take effect and at Renney & Co we thought it would be useful for you to have a summary of what these are. The following is a brief outline of the changes but if you want any further information please feel free to get in touch with Renney and Co.

Abolition of retirement age
From 6^th april the default retirement age of 65 will be abolished. Employers need to think carefully about how to prepare for the change and the circumstances in which retirement will be handled. Renney & Co are advising our employer clients to write to staff to notify them of the changes, and to protect their business by asking staff to agree to give notice of retirement.

Equality Act 2010
A number of provisions contained in the Equality Act 2010 have come into force including provisions relating to positive action in relation to recruitment and promotion and general equality duties. Click here to access our Equality Act checklist.

Additional paternity leave and pay
Parents of babies due on or after 3^rd April 2011, and adoptive parents, will be entitled to additional paternity leave and paternity pay. Employers may want to update their paternity policy and employees may want to check what their current rights are. Paternity and maternity pay (as well as adoption pay) increases from £124.88 to £128.73 per week.

Small employer’s exemption
Starting from 1^st April 2011, companies with fewer than 10 employees and start up businesses will be exempt from new regulations for 3 years after the regulation comes into force. Hopefully this will ease the costs and admin burden on small businesses.

If you have any employment queries or want to check whether your contracts and policies are up to date, get in touch with us at Renney & Co.

£385,000 fine for corporate manslaughter

2011-03-16T04:30:00.000-07:00

Cotswold Geotechnical (Holdings) Ltd has been fined £385,000 in the first ever conviction of corporate manslaughter. An unsupervised employee died while taking soil samples from the bottom of a 3.5 metre deep pit on a building site. The company ignored well-recognised industry guidance requiring excavations more than 1.2 metres deep to be properly supported.

The prosecution demonstrates the need for businesses to have robust health and safety procedures in place. Larger businesses than Cotswold may want to take note of the level of the fine as, at the time of the offence, Cotswold had only eight employees and it is likely that a larger organisation would have faced a much heftier fine.

Renney & Co’s checklist sets out the factors which can lead to a business being prosecuted for corporate manslaughter and highlights the penalties for breaching the legislation

Cotswold's conviction for corporate manslaughter

2011-03-03T03:00:00.000-08:00

In February 2011, a jury at Winchester Crown Court found Cotswold Geotechnical (Holdings) Ltd (Cotswold) guilty of corporate manslaughter. This criminal prosecution is the first time a company has been charged with this offence under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, which came into force on 6 April 2008.

The case against the company followed the death of an employee in September 2008 while taking soil samples from the bottom of a 3.5 metre trial pit at a building site. The jury heard that the walls of the trial pit were not supported and soil collapsed into the trial pit, burying and asphyxiating the employee. The prosecution's case was that Cotswold's systems had failed to take all reasonably practicable steps to protect the employee from its unsafe system of work in digging trial pits that were unnecessarily dangerous. The company ignored well-recognised industry guidance that prohibited entry into excavations more than 1.2 metres deep and, at the time of the employee's death, Cotswold had left him unsupervised on site.

To secure the conviction, the prosecution needed to demonstrate that:

• Cotswold's conduct caused the employee's death and amounted to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed to the employee; and that
• A substantial element of the breach was in the way the organisation's senior management managed or organised its activities.
The offence can be penalised by an unlimited fine, and originally, a director of Cotswold, Peter Eaton, was also charged with gross negligence manslaughter. However, in October 2010, Bristol Crown Court permanently stayed those charges due to his ill-health.

The conviction of Cotswold demonstrates the importance for businesses to have a health and safety culture and to ensure that everyone takes responsibility for improving health and safety. If you would like Renney & Co, employment specialists, to review your health and safety or other employment policies, get in touch with us on 01225 326435 or via the contact form on our website.

Bristol Court rules that hotels cannot discriminate against gays

2011-02-28T07:20:00.000-08:00

A lot of local hotel and B & B proprietors will have been following with interest the case of the 2 gay men who sued a Bristol couple who refused them a hotel room when they tried to check in to a double room. This is one of the first cases ever to be brought under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. The hotel owners were devout Christians who believe that sexual relations outside marriage is sinful and have a policy to let double rooms only to married heterosexual couples. However, the Bristol court held that they had unlawfully discriminated against the gay couple and awarded them compensation.

The hotel owners argued that the restriction against letting double rooms applied equally to unmarried heterosexual couples and was justifiable because of their religious beliefs regarding the importance of marriage. The judge said the right of the hotel owners to manifest their religion could be limited to protect the rights and freedoms of the gay claimants and described the Equality Act Regulations as a "necessary and proportionate intervention by the state to protect the rights of others". The judge did however accept that the case affected the hotel-owners' human rights to manifest their religion and forced them to act in a manner contrary to their deeply and genuinely held beliefs, and has granted them permission to appeal. The gay couple were actually “married” ie civil partners, and it would be interesting to know whether the outcome would have been any different if they had not been.

A very thought-provoking case, especially since it involves attaching greater importance to one person’s legitimate human rights over another’s. And interestingly, there would be no come-back for heterosexual couples who had been together for years but were not married. At Renney & Co we advise a number of Hotel, B & B and Pub owners on their rights and duties.

If you would like some guidance on whether your policies might be unlawful or need updating then please contact us.

TUPE: Business obligations on sale or transfer

2011-02-23T08:29:00.000-08:00

Many businesses are unaware of the obligations that arise when they are involved in a transaction where the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment Regulations apply (known as TUPE). Basically, if there is a sale or transfer of the whole or part of the business, TUPE will probably apply. Whatever the size of the transaction or its impact on staff, businesses are required to inform (and in some cases) consult employees or representatives of employees who are affected. Businesses also need to provide prescribed information to the buyer of the business.

A breach of the TUPE regulations can result in a claim for compensation by the employee to the Employment Tribunal, even if the employee is kept on by the purchaser.

Renney & Co have prepared a checklist which explains when TUPE applies and sets out the different obligations on businesses involved in the transaction. For businesses and employees who wish to check their rights and obligations, please click here for further information.

Disability discrimination: Failing to make reasonable adjustments

2011-02-07T09:53:00.000-08:00

Recent cases in the Employment Appeals Tribunal have highlighted the importance of businesses understanding the extent of their obligations under the Disability Discrimination Legislation and the recent changes introduced by the Equality Act 2010.

For example the Employment Appeals Tribunal recently held that an employer was in breach of its duty to an employee by failing to reinstate the employee after he had resigned whilst suffering from depression. This was regarded as a “failure to make reasonable adjustments” as required by the disability discrimination laws.

Renney & Co has produced a checklist to help businesses to understand when the duty to make reasonable adjustments can arise.

National Minimum Wage dodgers to be named and shamed

2011-01-21T02:14:00.000-08:00

As of 1st January 2011 the Government, via the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS), will be naming and shaming employers who flout the National Minimum Wage law. The offending employers will soon be named in a BIS press release, and the purpose of the announcement is said to be to allow the public to make informed choices about who they work for or do business with.

Apparently only those employers who ‘knowingly or deliberately’ fail to comply with the National Minimum Wage obligations and have been issued with a notice of underpayment by the tax man will be added to the list. The rogue employers will apparently be given an opportunity to make representations to have their names taken off the list before it is published. However, BIS will publish if they consider that the employer knowingly or deliberately failed to comply with the National Minimum Wage obligations; failed to take any adequate steps to keep or preserve any National Minimum Wage records; delayed or obstructed a National Minimum Wage compliance officer in their duties; or neglected to pay arrears of pay to workers as required.

The suggestion that the name and shame process will allow workers to decide who they work for strikes us at Renney & Co as somewhat disingenuous. The very fact that the Government feels it necessary to name and shame rogue employers also highlights the fact that many employers are getting away without paying even after they have been caught out. Why else would the authorities resort to this tactic if their enforcement action is effective. Having said all that, we are interested at Renney & Co to see which employers’ names actually appear on the list, so watch this space!
The Minimum Wage currently ranges from £2.50 for trainees/young workers to £5.93 for workers over 21.

If you need more information on this, get in touch with Renney and Co!

Sacked employees lose rights for copying confidential documents

2011-01-13T00:53:00.000-08:00

At Renney & Co, employment solicitors based in Bath, we frequently come across cases of employees who, recognising that something is amiss at work or feeling that their days are numbered, seek to protect their position by copying e-mails and documents some of which may contain confidential information.

That is what happened in the recent case of Brandeaux Advisors, where an employee who felt she was being pushed out of the business started to send large quantities of confidential information to her private e-mail address, thinking that she might need this information in order to protect her future position. Her employer discovered what she had done after examining her e-mail account at work, and applied to the High Court for an injunction restraining her from using the data.

The High Court granted the injunction and also declared that employees who copy or send themselves confidential information in this way are not only in breach of contract but they also lose the right to sue their employer and enforce their employment rights.

The Court appears to have accepted that the employee’s motive for sending the confidential information to her home computer was simply to prepare for a possible dispute, and not for example to poach business or to use the confidential information in any other way. Nonetheless it decided that the ends did not justify the means.

Therefore employers who find that staff have copied confidential information or sent it to their home laptops or PCs could use this to defend claims for breach of contract or even unfair dismissal, especially if they have a policy on the use of confidential data, or an appropriate clause in their contracts of employment.

If you are an employer or employee who might be affected by this, check your contracts of employment or staff handbook and policies to find out where you stand. Or get in touch with us and we will be happy to advise.

“Broken” Employment Tribunal system

2011-01-06T01:20:00.000-08:00

The debate about the fairness of the Employment Tribunal system, and the perceived disadvantages for employers and businesses, continues to rage. The Director General of the CBI John Cridland has today criticised the current Employment Tribunals system, describing it as “broken” and stating that employers are often forced to pay undeserving claimants damages for spurious claims.

Even if employers successfully defend a claim they apparently face an average legal bill of £8,500 (of course Renney & Co would charge a lot less!), not to mention time spent attending the hearing with witnesses and the disruption this can cause to the business.

It is certainly true that there has been a significant increase in the number of claims brought in Employment Tribunals in the UK in the last 12 months, which is perhaps not surprising given the number of staff who will have been dismissed bearing in mind the economic climate. However what seems to be upsetting the Director General of the CBI the most is that fact that employees do not, as a rule, run the risk of having to pay any legal fees even if they lose their case, whereas businesses and employers will lose out regardless, by having to spend time on the case and pay legal fees which they cannot usually recover from the losing party.

The secret for employers is to make sure that they have proper procedures in place before they undertake any dismissals. In that way a claim for unfair dismissal, or discrimination, is unlikely to get off the ground and even if it does, the Employment Tribunal can often be persuaded to order the employee to make a payment (known as a “deposit”) of up to £500 in order to proceed with their claim.

However, an employee bringing a claim for unfair dismissal or constructive dismissal still has the burden of proving that the dismissal was unfair, and many employees are not legally represented in the Tribunal.

Tribunals are also increasingly awarding costs against unsuccessful employees, where they consider that their conduct was unreasonable or the allegations made were false.

Therefore for businesses who wish to avoid facing expensive and time-consuming Employment Tribunal claims, start by checking your contracts of employment and policies, and then make sure that you follow the correct procedures.

For more information on dismissals, take a look at our checklist.

Redundancy payments increase on 1st February 2011 and bad weather strikes again

2010-12-20T01:07:00.000-08:00

Employers and employees should note that on 1st February 2011 statutory redundancy pay will rise from £380 for a week’s pay to £400. The maximum award for unfair dismissal will also go up to £68,400 from £65,300 – an increase of nearly 5%.

Only staff who have been continuously employed for 2 years or more are entitled to redundancy pay, although claims for unfair dismissal can be brought after a year’s service.

The bad weather has hit us once again this year and many people will find they are unable to get into work. This can be devastating for some businesses which may already be struggling to balance the books. This raises the question of whether staff have to be paid if they do not turn up for work because of bad weather, and some may be surprised to hear that employees are not automatically entitled to be paid if they do not turn up for work due to the weather conditions. A good starting point to see whether you are eligible for payment is to look at your contract of employment.

If you want more information on this, ACAS have issued a useful advice and guidance on their website which can be found on the “Transport and Adverse Weather” page at www.acas.org.uk. This site also includes an answer and question online customer contact form to answer your specific enquiries.

Businesses may want to consider implementing an “Adverse Weather and Travel Disruption Policy” dealing with travelling to work, alternative working arrangements, late starts and early finishes, absence and pay, school closures and other child care issues. If you are interested in finding out more about this please get in touch with Renney and Co on info@renneyandco.com or ring 01225 326435.

ACAS launches new free online tool for businesses.

2010-12-10T01:23:00.000-08:00

ACAS, the employment relations service, has launched a new free online tool to help businesses identify and resolve problems at work. The site offers practical guidance to employers on maintaining good employment relations. It also directs businesses to other useful resources in order to help address or prevent potential staff problems.

The tool, named “The Model Workplace”, consists of 10 key workplace topics, ranging from recruitment to making changes to contracts of employment, and includes interactive multiple choice questions and feedback on how employers can make improvements.

The service is aimed at saving businesses time, money and stress and will be particularly useful for small to medium sized businesses (SMEs) and all employers who do not have in-house professional HR support.

The online diagnostic tool can be accessed by visiting the ACAS website at www.acas.org.uk/modelworkplace/

If you have any questions about this service or would like further advice on HR and staffing issues, please feel free to contact Renney and Co on info@renneyandco.com

Britain’s Got Talent claim struck out

2010-11-22T00:28:00.000-08:00

A contestant for the “Britain’s Got Talent “ TV show has just had her claims against the show's production companies, and two of the show’s judges Simon Cowell and Amanda Holden, struck out.

Emma Czikai submitted two tribunal claims following her unsuccessful audition for the TV talent show, claiming that the respondents had failed to make reasonable adjustments for her disability (fibromyalgia) at the audition, and that the broadcasting of her performance on ITV and on the internet amounted to harassment under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

At the audition Simon Cowell in his inimitable style told Miss Czikai that she had a 'horrible singing voice' while Amanda Holden added: 'I just can't see how she can't see that she can't sing.'
The former nurse claims she was ridiculed in front of 20 million viewers and the trio took away her 'self respect and dignity' in order to boost the programme's ratings and profit.

Fortunately for Simon Cowell, Amanda Holden and the production companies, the tribunal held that the auditions did not amount to a recruitment exercise and that the purpose of the show was simply for entertainment, and to determine who should win a cash prize and a place on the Royal Variety Performance. Even though, at the end of the competition, some individuals are offered contracts amounting to employment, that was not the purpose of the show. Although the "audition release form" signed by Mis Czikai gave the production company the right to insist she enter into a recording and merchandising agreement if she progressed to the second round of the competition, this was not a normal employment situation.

Although Miss Czikai lost her case, one of the main points relied on by the tribunal in deciding that this was not a "recruitment exercise" was the fact that, although participants may in some cases be offered a contract amounting to employment, that was not the purpose of the show. Being avid fans of “The X Factor”, at Renney & Co we understand that one of the avowed purposes of that competition is to decide who should be offered the prize of a lucrative recording contract with one of Mr Cowell's companies. So we can’t help wondering whether Miss Czikai’s claim would have succeeded if she had been auditioning for “The X Factor” instead.

And the moral of the story? If you really don’t want to be harassed and ridiculed, don’t apply to go on Britain’s Got Talent.

If you want advice on any bullying or harassment issues in the workplace, give us a ring 01225 326435.

Student seeks £200,000 in race row case

2010-11-05T04:45:00.000-07:00

No wonder University fees are going up!

Apparently long gone are the days when University Professors were expected to be, shall we say, a little eccentric. Student Hadil Bakir is claiming £200,000 compensation against Durham University for abuse she claims to have suffered at the hands of her Supervisor Mrs Rumaisa Bashir whilst studying Muscular Dystrophy. Mrs Bakir accuses her tutor of bullying her by asking her to ditch her project to take over another project, calling her a “cry baby” and banging a fridge door against her head!

Well, well. Who would guess what goes on in the world of academia. Allegedly.

At Renney & Co we advise businesses and individuals on how to deal with allegations of bullying and harassment in the workplace. If you need advice on this, pick up the phone for a chat.

Good news - tax break worth £50,000 for new employers!

2010-10-10T22:53:00.000-07:00

Just a quick reminder for all those people out there who are thinking of setting up their own business or have set up since June 2010 – you could be eligible for a break from paying National Insurance Contributions which could save you up to £50,000. The scheme is available to businesses started between 22 June 2010 and 5 September 2013 and will apply to earnings paid by participating businesses on or after 6 September 2010. The scheme is only available to all new businesses, which may be incorporated businesses, sole traders or partnerships.

The principal place of business of your company must not be in an “excluded region” so we’re sorry to say that if this is any of the following areas you probably do not qualify:
Excluded regions
The principal place of business must not be in any of the following excluded regions:
· Greater London.
· The Eastern region, comprising of:
o Bedford, Cambridgeshire, Central Bedfordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk, Suffolk.
o The non-metropolitan districts of Luton, Peterborough, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock.
· The South Eastern region, comprising of:
o Buckinghamshire, East Sussex, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Kent, Oxfordshire, Surrey and West Sussex.
o The non-metropolitan districts of Bracknell Forest, Brighton and Hove, Medway, Milton Keynes, Portsmouth, Reading, Slough, Southampton, West Berkshire, Windsor and Maidenhead and Wokingham.
However if you are a new business based in the South West region (including Bath, Swindon, Trowbridge, Bristol) you should qualify for this tax break. For more information just take a quick look at our checklist.

For established employers there are other ways of reducing your NIC bill, for example salary sacrifice arrangements. This usually involves an employee giving up part of their entitlement to salary which is subject to income tax and National Insurance contributions, in exchange for a new or enhanced non-cash benefit, which benefits from a full or partial exemption from tax and/or NICs.

The most commonly used salary sacrifice arrangements are:

employer contributions to registered pension schemes
employer-supported childcare
cycle to work schemes
For more information just take a look at our checklist

Laura Ashley here we come!

2010-09-29T09:43:00.000-07:00

At Renney & Co, employment solicitors in Bath, we were amused and surprised by the findings of the recent study undertaken by Exeter University’s Psychology Department which reveals that staff who have control over the layout of their work space are not only happier and healthier, they are also a third more productive.

This flies in the face of the usual practise of large companies who tend to standardise their office space and favour a working environment where personal items are discouraged in preference to creating a “corporate image”. Many company offices are contemporary and functional but apparently this has the effect of making staff feel uncomfortable and less engaged, not only with their colleagues but also with their work.

Exeter University’s research showed that staff who were allowed to decorate their work space or were consulted over design changes were on average 32% more productive than their counterparts who had no input into their working areas.

So apparently if you want to see your profits soar, get your paint brushes and photo frames out, and start getting your staff to re-design their workspace right now!

Ex-employee ordered to pay £10,000 to employer for costs

2010-09-21T09:09:00.000-07:00

Employers often feel that the employment regulations are weighed heavily in favour of employees, particularly since an employee can bring a claim for compensation in the tribunal safe in the knowledge that employment tribunals are unlikely to order employees to pay costs, even if they lose their case.

However at Renney & Co, Employment Solicitors in Bath, we have successfully defended a number of claims on behalf of employers where the tribunal has ordered the employee to pay the employer’s legal costs because of the employee’s conduct.

One example of the Employment Tribunal awarding costs against an employee is the case of Mr Grieve who sued his former employer, The Royal Devon and Exeter Foundation Trust, where he worked in surgery.

Before his dismissal Mr Grieve had reported that proper procedures were not carried out when an anaesthetic was administered to a patient during surgery. The complaint was investigated by the Hospital and found to be unsubstantiated. Mr Grieve alleged that his subsequent dismissal was unfair and that he had been dismissed for “whistle blowing” and had also been the subject of “victimisation and harassment”.

After hearing all the evidence, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the real reason for Mr Grieve’s dismissal had nothing to do with his “whistle blowing”. The tribunal also felt that Mr Grieve’s conduct had been vindictive and aggressive, and that he had actually been sacked for refusing to attend occupational health sessions to help him to get back to work after being signed off sick for several months with work-related stress.

Mr Grieve had been warned by the tribunal that his claim had little prospects of success and elements of his claim were vexatious. At the final hearing the tribunal made an award of £10,000 costs against him.

Obviously, ex-employees whose claims have good prospects of success and are not vexatious have nothing to fear. However if proceedings are issued without good cause, and the ex-employee’s conduct is considered vexatious, employers can expect not only to successfully defend the claim but also to recover their legal fees.

For further information on how to avoid employment tribunal claims, and to successfully defend them, please feel free to contact Renney & Co Solicitors, employment law specialists.

Ban on health questions at recruitment stage

2010-09-14T00:46:00.000-07:00

From 1st October 2010 employers will need to check whether their recruitment health questionnaires and interview questions are unlawful otherwise they could find themselves facing a compensation claim for disability discrimination.

The Equality Act 2010 comes into force on the 1st October and mainly seeks to bring greater equality to all workers. Section 60 of the Act effectively prohibits employers from asking job applicants questions about their health. The only exception to this will be if the work itself requires specific functions that are intrinsic to the job. For example an applicant applies for a job as a “landscape worker” which requires manual handling and lifting of heavy paving slabs, in which case the employer may ask questions about the applicant’s health to establish whether he or she is fit enough for the job. The employer would not however be allowed to ask any health questions which did not relate to that job, for example “do you or have you in the past 12 months suffered from depression”, as this would go beyond the remit of the work.

Therefore employers must be extremely cautious when deciding which health questions to ask in pre-employment questionnaires and at interview. If the wrong questions are asked and a disabled job applicant is not offered the job, or even an interview, this could result in them bringing a direct disability discrimination claim against the employer. It will be down to the employer to prove that no discrimination took place and that the applicant’s disability was not the reason for rejecting the application.

It is expected that the introduction of this Act on 1st October will help disabled people overcome the problems experienced by many with a history of health or disability issues. According to the disability lobby there is considerable discrimination against disabled people at recruitment level, particularly for those with mental health issues. Many job seekers are put off even applying for jobs because of pre-employment health questions. The new regulations could bring about the most significant change for disabled people that we have seen in the past decade.

For more information about the Equality Act 2010 and how this might affect you, please see the checklist on our website.

Employers - don’t become a tribunal statistic

2010-09-08T08:26:00.000-07:00

Hot off the press, Renney & Co, Bath Employment solicitors, have been reading the latest Ministry of Justice annual statistics for Employment Tribunals across the UK for the period 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 and they make for a pretty depressing read for employers.

The 2009/10 figures show:

· 76% increase on claims for redundancy payments;
· 36% increase on age discrimination claims;
· 29% increase on breach of contract claims;
· 34% reduction on claims for failure to inform and consult on redundancy;
· The claims most likely to be withdrawn are equal pay claims and sex discrimination claims (but we would point out that this is probably because many of those claims were settled out of court.)

Overall, there has been a staggering 56% increase on the total number of claims compared to 2008/09, which must be attributable to a large extent to the current economic climate.

Our experience in handling tribunal claims at Renney & Co tells us that some employers are still not following any, or any proper, employment procedures, but that even those employers who do may still find themselves on the receiving end of a tribunal claim by an aggrieved member of staff. Bearing in mind that compensation awards for unfair dismissal can be up to £55,300, and there is no upper limit for discrimination claims, it’s worth investing some time and effort in getting it right first time.

The good news is that you can do a lot to avoid being sued, by making sure that you follow the correct procedures. You need to be able to concentrate on running your business instead of dealing with expensive and time-consuming claims. So be smart and check your employment procedures before you act, to make sure that your business doesn’t end up as another employment tribunal statistic.

Slave Labour

2010-08-26T22:30:00.000-07:00

At Renney & Co, Employment Solicitors in Bath, we were relieved to hear that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority is taking action against unscrupulous employers and has revoked the license issued to a Lancashire Gangmasters’ firm, run by Jose Rosa and his accomplice Maria Baptista. The firm’s Latvian staff were apparently working for as little as £3 an hour as fruit and vegetable pickers on farms and in factories, were given no holiday pay, and forced to live in squalid conditions.

That’s not all either - arguably the worst aspect of their employment was the fact that, because they were not paid enough money to live on, employees borrowed money from the firm which they then had to pay back with interest, which meant that they ended up working all hours with no hope of ever paying off their debt to their gangmaster. That amounts to slave labour in our book.

Fortunately the Licensing Authority had the resources to investigate complaints about the company and took action by revoking the Gangmasters’ firm’s licence. Let’s hope that the government’s proposed public spending cut backs will not affect the Licensing Authority’s ability to investigate cases like this or allow more people like Mr Rosa and Ms Bapista to make a profit out of this sort of activity in the UK. None of us want to see this sort of blatant exploitation go unchecked or for the UK to be home to this kind of business.

Take the bull by the horns

2010-08-23T09:46:00.000-07:00

According to a survey conducted by the Home Learning College, over a quarter of British adults are desperate to change their job, with men and older workers showing more dissatisfaction than most. Of the 3,000 employees interviewed, over half of them said they wished they could do something completely different in work.

Interestingly, a survey by a healthcare cash plan provider Medicash shows that men are far more likely than women to phone in sick due to stress in the workplace. Most of us would agree that a certain amount of pressure at work can enhance performance, but if that pressure is too high and becomes relentless, it can seriously affect employees’ health and lead to sickness and long-term absenteeism.
Renney & Co, Employment Solicitors in Bath, are finding that more and more employers are coping with significant levels of absenteeism as well as facing claims for work-related stress. Employers can keep this problem at bay by keeping a close eye on absenteeism and the reasons for any sickness absences. At Renney & Co we recommend implementing a sickness policy if employers do not already have one, and ensuring that return-to-work meetings are held.

Sensible employers take a keen interest in the health of their staff and make sure that they are able to cope with the workload. If a member of staff is struggling or not up to the job, it is advisable to undertake an appraisal and then take steps to help them to improve performance. If that doesn’t work, taking disciplinary action on capability grounds may be the best option.

Our advice is to take the bull by the horns and deal with any problems regarding sickness or poor performance, as businesses who ignore the problem find it often just gets worse.

So give us a ring and we can help you make the right decisions and check your sickness policies for you - 01225 326435.

No intention of working a day past 90

2010-08-01T22:15:00.000-07:00

It is well publicised that the compulsory retirement age of 65 will be done away with this year, and it is looking quite likely that by 2012 there will be no compulsory retirement age for employees at all, and that employers will no longer be able to justify forcing their staff to retire if they wish to carry on working. This will pose a big question for most businesses – which retirement age to choose for its organisation and whether it will be legal. No one wants to be facing an accusation of age discrimination, but do businesses really want an ageing workforce who can’t afford to give up work because their pensions are worthless or non-existent, and state pensions a joke? And how will this affect opportunities for young people who are trying to get a foot on the job ladder?

Maybe it will end up a bit like driving - you can carry on indefinitely until you voluntarily give up your license, fail your eye test, or cause a bad accident? And will the traditional golden handshake be replaced by a diamond or ruby handshake – or maybe no handshake at all – a shaky lie down may be all that some of us can manage by then.

Well Renney and Co are not convinced that this one has been too well thought out, and I, for one, have no intention of working a day past 90. What about the rest of you?

Sex discrimination works both ways

2010-07-01T03:04:00.000-07:00

Men or Women

Well the World Cup is finished for us Brits, but the guys can still celebrate the decision made in the recent case of De Belin v Eversheds Legal Services Ltd, where the employment tribunal decided that favouring a pregnant employee can be sex discrimination.

In this case the employer had to choose whether to make Mr de Belin redundant, or his female colleague (who was on maternity leave). Mr De Belin was selected for redundancy, as he had a slightly lower score than his pregnant colleague, but this was only because the employer had awarded the female colleague a maximum notional score (for time taken to collect payment for work done) for the period when she was away on maternity leave. If the employer had scored her on her actual performance before she went on maternity leave, her overall score would have been lower than Mr De Belin’s, which means that she would have been made redundant instead of him.

Mr de Belin raised a formal grievance and appealed against his dismissal, but to no avail. Following his redundancy dismissal he issued proceedings for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination.

The employment tribunal agreed with Mr De Belin that the employer had discriminated against him on grounds of sex by inflating the score of his female colleague to take account of the fact that she was on maternity leave. The tribunal also decided that the discriminatory application of the selection criteria made his dismissal unfair.

At Renney & Co we are handling a number of claims for sex discrimination, which are increasing in number as the normal 12-month service rule does not apply. We also advise employers and employees on how to handle formal grievances, dismissals, and appeals. So whether you are an employer who wants to make sure they never face a claim for discrimination, or an employee who has been unfairly treated, we can help you to get the right result.

For more information, please get in touch with us via our website.

Exams are over. What is the minimum wage?

2010-06-23T03:48:00.000-07:00

Hurrah the exam season is now over for thousands of teenagers and students.
How many of them will be able to find work and what sort of labour market awaits them, you might be wondering? There is no doubt that many companies can barely afford to keep their existing staff, let alone recruit young people who will need training and close supervision. But at the same time enthusiastic new recruits help keep businesses fresh and up-to-date and a lot of companies recognise the real value that trainees, apprentices and internships can offer. So now is the time for companies to be looking to recruit the best of the school and college leavers and graduates.

Here’s a guide to the new minimum wage rates coming into effect on 1/10/2010:
· £5.93 per hour for low paid workers aged 21 and over, up from £5.80;
· £4.92 per hour for 18-20 year olds, increased from £4.83; and
· £3.64 per hour for 16-17 year olds, increased from £3.57.

At Renney & Co we help businesses right the way through the recruitment process from making sure your adverts are not illegally discriminatory to advising on contracts of employment or apprenticeship agreements. So if you’re thinking of taking the plunge and recruiting this summer, give us a ring for a chat on how to stay on the right side of the law or contact us via our website!

Cadbury’s takeover leaves a bitter taste

2010-06-01T23:18:00.000-07:00

Last week the Takeover Panel Executive issued a statement of public criticism of Kraft Foods Inc. for failing to meet the standards of care and accuracy required by the Takeover Code when making statements about Cadbury’s Somerdale facility during the course of its offer for Cadbury. Kraft repeatedly issued statements that it would be in a position to keep the Somerdale facility running and " to invest in Bournville, thereby preserving UK manufacturing jobs.".

The Panel accepted that Kraft had only had access to “limited information” in the public domain when making such statements. When Kraft took over earlier this year, it was apparently only then that the company realised that Cadbury's plans to close the Somerdale facility were so far advanced that it was unrealistic to reverse them and that in excess of £100 million had already been invested by Cadbury in building new facilities in Poland to which the Somerdale production lines would be transferred. The Takeover Panel’s main criticism of Kraft was that its repeated announcements that it could continue to operate the facility in the UK had “no reasonable factual basis” whatsoever.

Here at Renney & Co we find it quite remarkable that Kraft was unaware of Cadbury’s irreversible financial commitment to transfer the business to Poland. No doubt Cadbury’s hundreds of redundant staff will also be asking themselves how it is that Kraft was so ignorant of the facts, and able to make such empty promises, leaving a bitter taste in everyone’s mouth.

At Renney & Co we advise businesses and individuals on the rights and wrongs of redundancy situations. If you are looking for advice on redundancy or business transfers, feel free to give us a ring. As a sweetener we offer a no obligation telephone consultation.

U2 "not fit for purpose"

2010-05-26T05:50:00.000-07:00

What a shame U2 have pulled out of Glastonbury because of Bono’s bad back. This sudden announcement has left us here at Renney & Co in a gambling mood, and our money’s on Bon Jovi, although that’s only because one of us has always had a soft spot for Jon. Or how about the Boss taking over instead, or rocker Cher....... we don’t care as long as it’s rock and roll.

We doubt very much that Michael Eavis will be suing U2 for breach of contract, being the kind-hearted chap that he is. In legal terms clearly Bono will not be fit for purpose by next month in any case. But what about businesses who find they can’t perform their side of a deal because of staff illness, unexpected absences (volcanic ash for one) or delays caused by matters beyond their control? Well two words spring to mind – contracts and insurance. Make sure you have both in place so that even if you are left in the lurch with no goods to produce or band to perform, you can switch acts quickly without any financial repercussions.

At Renney & Co we help businesses to stay on target so that they produce a class act each time. If you need to have a chat about whether your contracts or insurance policies are fit for purpose give us a ring. And go on, tell us who’s your favourite replacement for U2, answers on a postcard please.......................

Coalition Government - Employment Law Points Agreed between David Cameron and Nick Clegg

2010-05-17T02:48:00.000-07:00

At Renney & Co we thought that this week’s blog would simply have to include something about the recent elections and the plans that the Coalition Government have announced which will affect employers and employees alike. So to summarise, the following points have been agreed by the Coalition Government to date:

· State pension age is to rise to 66 and the default retirement age is to be phased out and a link between state pension and earnings to be restored.

· Next year’s 1% national insurance tax rise is to be partly scrapped.

· Increased income tax allowances for the lowest paid workers from April 2011.

· A cap on immigration from outside the European Union.

· Tax breaks for married couples and civil partners.

· Abolition of the proposed ID cards.

· State benefits only to be paid where there is “a willingness to work”.

· A clamp down on “unacceptable” bonuses within the banking sector.

Let’s hope that the new Coalition Government will be able to deliver what seems to be a fairer tax system at the same time as effectively tackling the national debt. Renney & Co would be interested in hearing your views so go on – let us know what you think.

Training and Study Leave: New Rights for Employees

2010-05-12T10:50:00.000-07:00

Employers should note that employees will be entitled as of April 2010 to request time off work to undertake study or training. The new rules apply to all staff with 6 months’ service or more.

Employers have a duty to give “serious consideration” to all requests. The right to request training time will apply with immediate effect to all businesses with 250 or more staff, and to all other businesses from April 2011.

What does this mean for your business? Well, although as an employer you do not have to grant time off for study leave or training, you must be able to show that you have given the request serious consideration. Failure to do this could land businesses in trouble. Employers do not have to pay for the training which needs to be for the purpose of improving the employee’s effectiveness at work and the performance of the employers’ business (although it does not have to lead to a formal qualification.)

Employers do not have to pay staff for time taken off for training, although for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Regulations, time spent carrying out training which is approved by the business during normal working hours counts as time at work for national minimum wage purposes, so may need to be taken into account.

This is an important new regulation and Renney & Co are advising our business clients to consider whether they would benefit from a policy statement being added to their staff handbook. This should make it clear to staff and managers how a request for study leave or training needs to be handled.

The government has produced a leaflet aimed at employers the new right to request time to train. If you would like a copy you can obtain this from BIS website or ring us at Renney & Co on 01225 326435 and we will be happy to send one out to you.

Volcanic ash - making a mountain out of a molehill?

2010-04-26T05:40:00.000-07:00

We’ve heard of making a mountain out of a molehill... but when it comes to a volcanic mountain, we’ve made a right hash of it!

We are astounded at Renney & Co by the disruption caused by the volcanic eruptions so far away, and wonder who could have predicted that Icelandic volcanic ash could have caused such a huge disruption to UK businesses ?

A number of Renney & Co’s clients have been asking us whether they will have to pay their staff for days when they are unable to work because they could not get a flight home. Well, technically it is the employee’s responsibility to get into work, so there is no automatic entitlement to be paid during such an absence. However, many employers are choosing to take a more flexible approach either by paying their staff full or part wages, or agreeing to treat some of the absence as paid annual leave.

Employers faced similar problems in January when staff could not get into work due to the icy conditions, and who knows what other disruptions might be around the corner?

This is a good time for companies to check their terms and conditions and see what provisions they have in place where they cannot fulfil their obligations, for example due to force majeure, the weather, an Act of God, or even terrorism.

Employers might also want to check their staff handbooks and policies and consider whether they might benefit from a “no fault” absence policy.

At Renney & co we can help you with this to minimise your financial losses in the event of another disruption so why not get in contact with us?

We promise not to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Renney and Co really is the Best of Bath

2010-04-20T08:51:00.000-07:00

At Renney and Co, the specialist employment solicitors in Bath, we are not in favour of blowing our own trumpet, but.............it is not everyday that the work we do for our clients is recognised and awarded by an independent authority.

This is exactly what happened at a recent Best of Bath event. We were officially recognised as one the best businesses in Bath and the certificate is now proudly displayed in our new offices in Wood Street.

If you are seeking employment legal advice from one of Bath's best businesses, get in touch with us at info@renneyandco.com or fill out the form on our website,

Please don’t nod off – budget 2010

2010-04-01T06:41:00.000-07:00

At Renney & Co we felt that this week could not pass without an item on our blog about the 2010 budget and some of the implications for employers and employees. Nothing particularly exciting here, so you may want to read this blog at the end of the day especially if you are having difficulty getting off to sleep. The main points therefore are:

National minimum wage goes up to £5.93 in October 2010.
Company car tax is reduced by 50% for ultra low carbon cars from April 2010.
For working parents with small children, the child tax credit for toddlers will be increased by £4 per week (but not until April 2012). Also fathers will get increased paternity leave - up to 26 weeks', if the mother returns to work early.
People aged over 60 will qualify for the working tax credit if they work at least 16 hours a week (but not until April 2011).
“Discussion documents” will be looking at various perceived tax avoidance schemes

So there you are. Sleep tight. If you are running a business and would like to comment on the pre-election budget please post your comments below.

Terms and conditions apply

2010-03-23T02:58:00.000-07:00

Here at Renney & Co we deal with a fair amount of terms and conditions on behalf of companies and consultants who want to make sure not only that they will get paid for their services but also that any requirements are clearly set out.

There was an interesting development in this field last week in the case of RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller Gmbh & Company KG (UK Production), where the Supreme Court found that, although the parties had never signed the written agreement, the terms of the draft agreement were still enforceable even though they were expressed to be “subject to contract”.

This demonstrates the danger of beginning work without having a signed agreement in place, and businesses should be aware that by beginning to carry out their side of the contract they may waive the protection offered by a "subject to contract" provision.

So our advice to companies and consultants is to agree the precise basis on which the work is to be done and get the terms and conditions signed early on.

The moral of the story: agree first and start work later!

Get in touch with us if you feel your legal bits need an overhaul – we will be happy to have a no obligation chat!

Get an advantage

2010-03-18T06:25:00.000-07:00

Renney & Co are advising some of our clients to get an advantage over their competitors by introducing an equality and diversity policy to the business. This will not only help you to become compliant with current discrimination laws, but also to avoid potential claims for discrimination.

There is already a government crack down on the public sector dealing with companies which have poor track records on anti discrimination, and this practise is extending to the wider business sector.

Some companies have a procurement policy stating that they promote equality and inclusion through their supply chain. These companies will therefore only contract with companies with the same strategies in place.

Companies who end up on the receiving end of a discrimination claim could find they lose a significant amount of business. Take for example the case reported last week involving UK construction company Brett Martin which has been supplying its products for the 2012 Olympics main athletics stadium. An Employment Tribunal last week ordered the company to pay over £50,000 to a Croatian employee who complained of racist bullying. The construction company was held to have encouraged a “climate of fear” and was guilty of “shocking discriminatory behaviour” at its Northern Ireland factory.

However, the compensation payment for racism is probably the least of the company’s worries, as the judgment is likely to jeopardise their contract for the 2012 Olympics construction projects.

At Renney & Co we act for a number of companies tendering for work where it is either useful, or essential, to demonstrate a zero tolerance policy towards discrimination. Those companies automatically have an advantage over their competitors simply by introducing these policies. Definitely worth investing in, and the result will be a happier workforce too.

Bullying and sickness

2010-03-15T06:35:00.000-07:00

At Renney & Co, Bath's dedicated Employment Solicitors, we have been following the case of MP Jim Devine, who some of you will recognise as one of the few MPs who are still facing charges for expenses fraud. Interestingly as well as expenses fraud Mr Devine is also facing an accusation of unfair dismissal, bullying and harassment, by his former constituency office manager Marion Kinley. However the tribunal hearing date in Edinburgh was recently postponed because according to Mr Devine's GP, the MP is suffering from "marked anxiety" and would as a result be "unable to acquit himself adequately in court." In other words Mr Devine has called in sick to avoid the tribunal hearing. Most of us would agree that justice delayed is justice denied, and wonder why it would appear to be relatively easy to avoid the charges by presenting a sick note.

We are sure there are a large number of employees out there who genuinely have been pushed to the limit and cannot face work due to the bullying and harassment that goes on. We have dealt with cases involving all types of bullying, from managers persistently shouting abusive language at staff, exhibiting unwanted explicit porn on PCs, assaulting staff, and even one case of a manager stopping his secretary from going to the loo without putting up her hand and asking permission first! As unemployment figures and the pressure to increase profits go up, so apparently do levels of bullying and stress.

At Renney & Co we are seeing a huge increase in the numbers of complaints raised by employees at all levels about bullying and harassment. This can often lead to claims for unfair dismissal, harassment and victimisation which can be costly for employers to defend. Not to mention the distress and bad feeling caused to all concerned in the workplace. Senior managers and Directors are having to spend valuable time dealing with these complaints, at a significant cost to businesses, not to mention the cost of time taken off work by staff who call in sick with work-related stress.

We are recommending to all our business clients to consider whether they have a bullying policy in place. Then make sure steps are taken to train staff in what amounts to bulling, and how to raise complaints at an early stage so they can be dealt with before they escalate. You’d be surprised at how effective these simple measures can be. Not much help for MP Jim Devine though, who apparently only has himself to blame for his work-related anxiety and stress.

Do you have any thoughts on this topic? Why not email me at jennifer@renneyandco.com

Accidents Will Happen...

2010-03-02T22:35:00.000-08:00

The first ever prosecution of a company under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 will commence at Bristol Crown Court at the end of this week. The prosecution results from the death of Alexander Wright, a 27-year old geologist who died when taking samples in a trench which collapsed on top of him. A Director of the company will also be personally charged with manslaughter.

At Renney & Co we are currently defending a claim on behalf a company which dismissed an employee who failed to follow health and safety instructions and caused serious injury to his work colleague when he failed to replace a guard on a saw. Instead of replacing the guard after removing it from a machine on which he had been working, the employee left it on one side of the machine and when his work colleague came to use the saw he was very badly cut and lost three fingers.

This case has raised interesting questions about how much responsibility lies with individual workers to ensure that they look out for their own safety as well as the safety of their work colleagues. Obviously we are expecting the Employment Tribunal to agree with us that it was fair to dismiss the employee who had caused his colleague serious injury, particularly as the employer client is able to show that they had provided considerable training on health and safety matters to its staff.

If you need advice on the rights and wrongs of dismissals where health and safety issues are involved, ring us for a no obligation chat on 01225 427270. Alternatively, email me direct here if you would like to access our information sheet setting out guidelines on corporate manslaughter and health and safety offences jennifer@renneyandco.com

Fit notes coming in on 6th April

2010-02-24T23:01:00.000-08:00

As of 6th April if you visit your GP complaining of being too ill to work, you will be issued with a fit note instead of a sick note. Psychologically, a fit note is making us at Renney & Co feel better already!

The fit note means that GPs are encouraged to think about what kind of work their patient is capable of doing instead of the current system which does not give much information about the patient’s illness or when he or she is likely to recover and be able to return to work. The Department for Work and Pensions hopes this will save the economy £240m over the next ten years, by aiding the recovery and return of sick workers, and maintaining their skills. Both employees and their employers could benefit from this change, as increasingly companies are not allowing employees to return to work unless they have a completely clear bill of health - often because they are afraid of being accused of negligence.

A fit note should help to identify what kind of work can be undertaken, although it could mean that employers may need to consider a temporary adjustment of duties in order to accommodate a return to work.

If you would like to find out more about the new arrangements, the DWP has produced a guidance for GPs, whilst the Directgov website also has information for companies and employees.

Or you can always ring us at Renney & Co on 01225 427270 and we will be happy to discuss this with you.

Use it or lose it brother.........

2010-02-22T23:21:00.000-08:00

A survey commissioned by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has found that fathers prefer to work for companies offering flexible working and over 90% of dads with pre-school children also said they believe it is important for fathers to have the option to take paid paternity leave.

However, many of the fathers interviewed were completely unaware of their rights, and the survey found that:

• 20% of dads with kids aged 16 or under did not know if their company offered flexible working to fathers or that by law, they are entitled to request flexible working;
• 33% of dads with pre-school children did not realise that paid paternity leave is law, or know how to go about claiming it (dads normally need to apply for paternity leave 15 weeks before the baby is due).

In this economic climate, employers cannot always afford to offer a pay rise, but there are many other benefits which can be set out in policies to keep your staff happy.

Get in touch with Renney & co if you’d like to find out more.

So come on dads - use it or lose it!

Asda price paid by employees….

2010-02-22T01:12:00.000-08:00

Asda Stores have just been handed a decision by the Employment Appeals Tribunal allowing them to impose new terms and conditions of employment upon staff who refused to agree to a new pay structure. The Tribunal agreed with the superstore that because there was a contractual right to alter terms and conditions of employment to accommodate “business needs”, this allowed it to impose changes to rates of pay and hours of work upon staff.

Apparently, as long as the changes were properly implemented and Asda acted in line with the duty to “maintain trust and confidence”, this was acceptable. Interestingly, only a minority of staff had refused to agree to the changes, and at Renney and Co we wondered whether the Tribunal would have decided that the position was different if the majority of staff had refused to sign up to them.

If you need advice on whether or not a reduction or change in pay or hours can lawfully be imposed, get in touch with Renney and Co for help on this tricky issue or email me on jennifer@renneyandco.com

Blowing the whistle on the NHS........

2010-02-05T05:18:00.000-08:00

Senior officials at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich, must be pondering their positions today after Croydon employment tribunal made a unanimous decision that they were in breach of whistle blowing legislation by suspending a senior consultant urologist from work after he wrote to them highlighting the negative effects on patients of money-saving measures.

Renney & Co understand that the consultant wrote letters to management complaining that the reduction of specialist nurses and closure of the specialist urology ward was detrimental to the care of patients, and suggested that the reduction in levels of patient care could make the Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust liable for medical negligence claims. He was promptly suspended from work as a result.

Well, apparently the employment tribunal has ordered the hospital to reinstate the consultant and to pay him substantial damages, because of the way he was treated.

What a pity the hospital management didn’t come to Renney & Co for advice on whether their actions might be illegal before they took action against the consultant. We could have saved them, or should we say the public, a lot of money! Or instead of trying to silence or punish the consultant for speaking up, the hospital management team might have been better off considering whether their own posts should be cut back in order to make savings.

At Renney & Co we are currently dealing with several whistle blowing claims, including one involving a public-funded organisation which allegedly dismissed a member of staff for highlighting financial irregularities, and another against a political party for reporting other illegal activities. All highly sensitive and sub judice at present of course, but email me at jennifer@renneyandco.com and I will keep yo posted or subscribe to this feed.

Provision of Services Regulations

2010-02-02T04:27:00.000-08:00

Many of our clients will need to understand what the introduction of the Provision of Services Regulations 2009 will mean to their business. The Regulations came into force on 28 December 2009 and will apply to the majority of private sector businesses providing services in the UK. They require businesses to make information available to customers, and to deal with customer complaints promptly.

The Regulations also prohibit discrimination against individual customers in the provision of services on the basis of their place of residence. Failure to comply can result in proceedings, including enforcement action by the Office of Fair Trading, which can severely damage your business’ reputation, not to mention bank balance!

We have published a checklist to help you get up to speed with your obligations under the Regulations. Please email me and I will send them to you free of charge. jennifer@renneyandco.com

Work Till You Drop…

2010-02-01T04:02:00.000-08:00

The retirement age of 65 should be abolished altogether – that is the official view announced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission last week.

Apparently, it is thought that as the economy recovers, there is a “very real threat” that the UK will not have enough workers, and the Commission has recommended a whole raft of proposals for the over 50s, including media campaigns sponsored by the government to tackle ageism, comprehensive health programmes for older workers, and an overhaul of recruitment practices.

At present, employees usually retire at 65, or at “normal retirement age” for the job, which can be less than 65 if it can be “objectively justified”. Employees also have the right to put in a request to work beyond 65 which employers have difficulty refusing without good reason.

However it is clear from the recent “Heyday” case, in which Age Concern challenged the legality of the current UK retirement employment regulations on the basis that they contravene European law, and from the Commission’s report, that we are likely to see the retirement age raised to 70 or above, or possibly abolished altogether, in the next few years. How we all cheered at Renney & Co when we realized we would be probably all be working until we drop.

No doubt those of you whose pensions have been obliterated over recent years, or who do not have a pension at all, will be delighted to know that you may soon be able to work ad infinitum, or do we mean ad nauseam?

Well, retirement is probably not all it’s cracked up to be anyway, we are telling ourselves. And we were encouraged by the report of Sophie Meakin, the Bath woman who recently celebrated her 100th Birthday, who worked in a laundry from the age of 15, and latterly in an “office environment” until the fabulous age of 76! Congratulations Sophie – living proof that hard work pays off.

If you want to discuss the rights and wrongs of dismissal by reason of retirement, or need to know how to go about retiring staff without facing an unfair dismissal claim, get in touch with Renney & Co for a no obligation chat.

Silver lining - new compensation limits from 1 February 2010

2010-01-26T01:40:00.000-08:00

The annual change in maximum compensation limits in employment tribunals for unfair dismissals takes place on 1 February 2010. Fortunately for employers, instead of going up, the maximum compensatory award in unfair dismissal cases actually goes down from £66,200 to £65,300 for dismissals after 1 February. This is the first time there has been a reduction in years, which no doubt many companies will be relieved to hear.

Renney & Co has also heard that the Federation of Small Businesses is calling for a moratorium on new employment regulations, to give companies a break from the burden of constant changes. Well, watch this space....

At Renney & Co we help companies to avoid claims for unfair dismissal by advising on the correct employment procedures and payments. Make sure you keep on the right side of the law and get in touch if you need advice on any disciplinary or dismissal issues.

2010-01-19T07:29:00.000-08:00

Renney & Co were astounded to read the story of 60-year old Albert Stewart, the bin man who was taken off his usual round and given an official written warning by his employer last week. What misconduct was he guilty of to warrant this penalty, you might ask yourself? The heinous offence of clearing up rubbish that had been left beside an overflowing wheelie bin!

Apparently, householders in West Lancashire Borough Council can be fined up to £1,000 if caught leaving rubbish outside wheelie bins, so the Council is clearly miffed at being short changed here, and robbed of the opportunity to issue a fine.

Well, some of you might be thinking it’s quite proper that Mr Stewart is bang to rights, that he should know better after working as a bin man for 33 years, and that it’s a fair cop. But at Renney & Co we thought it a great shame that a little common sense could not be applied by the bureaucrats in this case, as Mr Stewart was probably just trying to help keep our streets clean and tidy, especially after the usual Christmas and New Year rubbish pile-up.

We have advised a lot of companies over the years on disciplining or dismissing staff for a variety of reasons - redundancy, misconduct, incompetence and even dishonesty, but thank goodness we have yet to be asked about disciplining staff for working too hard.

If you need advice on the employment regulations and what is or isn’t legal, get in touch with us for a chat. We promise not to talk rubbish, and to offer sensible solutions to your problem.

And the 2009 Award for Service to the Public Goes to… The Banks?

2009-12-11T22:40:00.000-08:00

I was reading with interest today the case of Mr Allen v Royal Bank of Scotland which I am sure everyone has now heard about. Mr Allen is the wheelchair-bound customer of RBS who successfully took them to court and obtained an injunction forcing the RBS to install a lift to allow him access to its main Sheffield branch. Currently, public access to the 19th century listed building is apparently via a flight of stone steps. This is believed to be the first case under the Disability Discrimination Act where a building alteration injunction has been granted against a service provider. Although it does not relate to the employment regulations of the Disability Discrimination Act the case will still be of relevance to employers and anyone responsible for diversity matters, as the key issue was the duty to make reasonable adjustments.

One of the arguments that the RBS raised in its defence was that the Judge had wrongly equated access to the premises with access to the services. The Court of Appeal disagreed, stating that a key feature of a bank’s service is the provision of traditional “face to face” contact with staff. Well, in that case you might feel that we are all being discriminated against as it seems that face to face contact with banking staff has become quite a rare thing. This applies not only to banks but to many other service providers, particularly utilities. I know that I am not the only one who finds it frustrating beyond belief to be transferred to a call centre which specialises in putting you on hold for such a long period of time that you have forgotten why you were ringing in the first place (is there such a thing as phone rage?)

But back to Mr Allen. His case demonstrates that many banks simply do not understand, or choose to ignore, how important it is to businesses and private customers alike to have that face to face contact with banking staff, and that most of us do not want to be fobbed off with telephone banking or call centres. So come on banks, let’s see you earn those bonuses by giving your customers a better deal!

Remember, if you are taking on a loan to set up a new business or re-financing an existing business and need legal advice, do get in touch with us on 01225 427270 or use the contact form on our website.

Executions of 2 company directors

2009-11-27T07:11:00.000-08:00

At Renney & Co we were shocked to hear that China had executed two company directors last week for their role in the tainted milk powder scandal. Nineteen other high-ranking executives were also imprisoned. The milk powder was apparently contaminated with melamine, an industrial chemical used to make plastics and fertilisers and, when added to food products, registers a higher protein content than the food actually contains. Melanine is known to cause kidney failure – the contaminated milk powder killed 6 babies and over 300,000 other infants became critically ill.

Many would say that the company executives responsible for putting profits before health deserved the ultimate punishment of death. However the case highlights the fact that there is practically no supervision of food health and safety by the inspection authorities in China, which is an appalling state of affairs.

By contrast in the UK, we quite rightly expect the employment regulations to protect us against unscrupulous businesses, and look to the Health and Safety Executive to enforce employment law. With the recent introduction by the government of the offence of corporate manslaughter, we are now seeing company directors and senior executives being prosecuted where the company’s negligence is to blame for the death of a worker. If found guilty they will face a prison sentence, not just a fine.

It is often tempting for business owners to shelve health and safety matters and to deal with more pressing day to day issues. When advising on employment matters generally we will point out to our business clients if we feel there is a need to address health and safety, and provide a Health and Safety Advisory Service to make sure our clients stay on the right side of the law.

If you have any concerns about health and safety in the workplace, just pick up the phone for a chat or use the contact form on our website.

Body language

2009-11-20T08:59:00.000-08:00

Renney and Co had to laugh when we read the case report this week regarding a claimant who brought a claim against her employer for unfair dismissal and complained about the employment judge’s body language after the case went against her.

The claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on the ground that one of the employment judges (a lay member of the tribunal) was biased against her. Why did the claimant think this? Because apparently the judge had been “smiling openly at the employer’s barrister”, “muttering words of agreement or disagreement when the claimant gave her answers” and “looked disapprovingly down her glasses at the claimant”. Oh dear!

Conjuring up images of scenes from Rumpole of the Bailey I wish I had been a fly on the Employment Tribunal wall. In fact the Employment Appeal Tribunal did not agree that the judge’s body language meant that she was biased or had already made up her mind. But the whole saga has alerted me to the possible dangers of smiling openly at barristers, and never again will I lean back in my chair and look disapprovingly down my glasses at people. As if I would.

Oh well, thank goodness the Judge didn’t nod off and start snoring, now that’s what I call real body language.

What is in a Name?

2009-11-18T22:55:00.000-08:00

Job titles fascinate me.
Naturally, in my line of work I meet a lot of employees as well as employers and people’s job titles can be as varied and odd as their choice in hairstyles. It never ceases to amaze me how little can be ascertained from a job title, for example..… Operations Director, Manager of Operations, Managing Operative, Director Manager… the list is as long as it is meaningless. Having a job title which includes the word “Director” may sound impressive, but is quite often in reality a managerial role, which in turn may be a glorified supervisor. So what is a true Director, apart from someone who is registered at Companies House? Well correct me if I am wrong, but it should be someone who is driving the business forward whilst at the same time taking full responsibility for whether or not the business is a success. A successful Director recognises the need for the business not only to keep customers and clients happy but also its staff.

A good Director also recognises the need to deal with issues before they get out of hand, especially staff issues. Getting the right processes and systems in place for the business is challenging, but once you have done it you will reap the benefits over and over. Obviously I see this from the point of view of a lawyer who helps businesses make decisions about staffing issues which is just as important as marketing, operations or finance. Bearing in mind that tribunal claims have risen by nearly 50% in the last year, hands up who wants to spend their time and energy (not to mention money) defending a claim.

I am interested to hear what you think – any takers out there?

Keeping up to date

2009-11-11T04:49:00.000-08:00

Employment law legislation changes frequently and we can advise you if you are uncertain about the effect these changes may have on your legal position. We pride ourselves on giving an honest, reliable, service in a friendly and practical way.

So if you need to speak to us in confidence, fill out the form on our website and we will come back to you.

Welcome to our Blog

2009-11-10T09:52:00.001-08:00

As of today, Renney & Co Solicitors in Bath have a dedicated Blog where we will post helpful advice, industry news and ideas to help clients and prospective clients in the potential minefield which is employment law.

If you have something that you would like to discuss, please get in contact with us using the form on our website.