16 May 2012
Gail Escolme writes:
A Birmingham tribunal has found that the dismissal of a driver/handyman, for feeding the boss’s dog a piece of lamb was unfair. The employee argued that what he had given the dog was a piece of fatty lamb, whereas the employer argued that it was a bone, and the dog had undergone surgery previously after eating conkers.
The Tribunal found that a 12 minute phone call in which the employee was dismissed, the decision having been made prior to the phone call, on the admission of the employer, rendered the dismissal unfair. The employer was criticised by the tribunal for acting unreasonably in failing to investigate properly, not giving the employee the courtesy of a face to face discussion and using the telephone to tell him he was sacked.
Moral of the tale – follow procedures and act reasonably when making decisions to dismiss.
By Alison Hine, 16 May 2012 –
08 March 2012
Suzie Fisher writes:
Seeing yet another van driver using his mobile phone whilst driving (and on one occasion eating a sandwich as the same time too!) prompted me to remind employers of the potential liabilities they face if their employee causes an accident whilst driving at work.
If your employee causes an accident whilst driving during the course of their employment, then you /your insurers will be liable to compensate the victims. Because using a hand-held mobile is thought to make it four times more likely that the driver will have an accident, you need to be sure you have done everything you can to ensure that your employees do not do this.
Employers should have a policy setting out that drivers must not use hand-held mobile phones whilst driving. Whilst you may provide or permit them to use hands-free equipment if fitted, the police may still prosecute if it is considered that it was causing a distraction. If it comes to your attention that an employee is breaching your policy, then it would be a disciplinary offence.
You must also remember that an employer can be prosecuted if it is considered that they are “causing or permitting” the employee to use a hand-held whilst driving. You must therefore ensure that it is clear that you do not condone their use For example you must not telephone an employee who does not have hands-free, when you know they are on the road.
By Alison Hine, 08 March 2012 –
27 January 2012
The expected increase in parental leave from 3 months to 4 months, which was to be introduced in March 2012, has been delayed by BIS because of their review of parental leave which will be undertaken as part of the Consultation in Modern Workplaces. BIS intends to use the additional year provided by the Parental Leave Directive and will now implement the Directive in March 2013.
By Gail Escolme, 27 January 2012 –
18 January 2012
On 6 April 2012 the qualifying period for unfair dismissal will increase from one to two years. BIS has now confirmed that, subject to Parliamentary approval, the new two-year qualifying period will only apply to employees whose employment begins on or after 6 April 2012. Those who are already in employment before that date will retain the current one-year qualifying period. The Conservative government adopted the same approach in 1985 when increasing the qualifying period to two years.
By Gail Escolme, 18 January 2012 –
26 October 2011
Reaction to a report commissioned by the Government in which it is suggested that unfair dismissal should be scrapped will certainly divide opinion. The unions are, unsurprisingly, furious, whereas employers who have felt trapped within the huge amount of legislation regarding the employment relationship are likely to welcome such a move.
However, before hysteria sets in, let’s look at what we have currently. Employers can, until April next year, terminate the employment of any employee, up to a year’s service, (as long as it is not for a discriminatory reason, or for an automatically unfair reason, in which case no length of service is required to bring a claim) without fear of facing an unfair dismissal claim. From April 2012 employers will have 2 years in which to terminate employment without fear of unfair dismissal claims being brought.
Whilst it is true that there is a significant amount of employment law legislation, if the employer at least familiarises itself with disciplinary and grievance procedures, and monitors the conduct and capability of its employees sufficiently to spot an employee that is unwilling or unable to do the job (for non-discriminatory reasons of course) then the employer can terminate the employment without fear of reprisals before the current one year service requirement (2 years from April) for the employee to be able to claim unfair dismissal.
However in many cases the employer does not monitor employees sufficiently at the beginning of their employment. It is often obvious very quickly whether an employee “fits” within the business and if they do not, then steps should be taken quickly to terminate their employment, ideally after they have been given the opportunity to improve but still before the service requirement is reached. If an employee suddenly becomes less efficient after some years of service, there is usually a reason for it, which if investigated can usually be overcome. Otherwise disciplinary procedures can be implemented to give warnings and ultimately dismiss if warranted. Ultimately good management goes a long way to having a good workforce.
I do agree that the employment legislation burden should be lessened for small employers who are genuinely finding it difficult to deal with it, however I am concerned that the baby may be thrown out with the bath water. Interesting times ahead I think!
By Gail Escolme, 26 October 2011 –