Category Archives: disciplinary

Employed or Self-employed? Correctly Label the Employment Status in Your Business

to-be-or-not-to-beSUMMARY: How can your business avoid the employee/self-employed quandary that Hermes Couriers now faces?

Are workers receiving the thin end of the wedge where their rights are concerned? You would be forgiven for thinking the answer is quite possibly “yes” in the light of numerous news reports of recent weeks and months. To date, reports of poor treatment of staff have been made, in respect of Sports Direct and Amazon to name but two prominent businesses, it would seem that Hermes Couriers is the latest company to come under the media spotlight following the compilation of a dossier of complaints that its drivers are treated unfairly. The claims primarily allege that the company has failed to pay its drivers the National Minimum Wage (“NMW”).

Hermes Couriers’s initial response is that the drivers are self-employed workers and not employees and thus not entitled to the NMW. As an individual’s employment law rights differ depending on their employment status, it is imperative that a business correctly labels that status at the outset. With case law littered with examples of those individuals who are genuinely employed versus those who are genuinely self-employed, it is reasonable for businesses to think it is relatively easy to get the label right.

So why is there still room for dispute? Quite simply because case law has given rise to a number of tests/theories which are to be applied when deciding the question. As part of our quick guide series we have identified the six key questions to be asked by businesses in these times of doubt.

The 6 Key Questions:

1. Is it the expectation that the service is undertaken by the individual or does the individual have the right to substitute him/herself with another individual?

If there is no right of substitution (or there is a right but it is a very limited right) this is more consistent with the relationship being one of employment.

2. Is the business obliged to offer work and, when offered, is the individual obliged to undertake that work?

If the business can choose, without limitation, when it offers work and the individual is likewise at complete liberty to decide whether he/she will do the work which is offered, the relationship is more consistent with one of self-employment.

3. Is the individual expected to comply with the business’s policies and procedures (such as its disciplinary and grievance procedures), internal working practices (such as hours of work) and directions/instructions for undertaking the work?

Although it is fair to expect compliance with health and safety policies by both employees and the self-employed alike, the more integrated into a business’s working practices the individual is, and the greater the degree of overall control exercised by the business together point towards an employment relationship. Likewise, if the individual is a member of the business’s various schemes offered to employees (e.g. share option, bonus or medical insurance schemes), the relationship is more consistent with one of employment.

4. Does the individual bear any risk/have the ability to benefit from any profit?

Bonus arrangements aside, if the individual runs the risk of being out of pocket financially when undertaking work for a business, this will point toward the individual being in business on his/her own account and therefore self-employed.

5. Does the individual work solely for the business or for a variety of businesses?

In circumstances where an individual performs services for more than one business at any one time there is a greater likelihood of the relationship being one of self-employment than is the position where an individual works for a number of different businesses during any given period of time. However, a degree of caution should be applied when asking this question as the issue of part-time working can arise.

6. How do the parties term the relationship and who is responsible for accounting for tax?

This last question is one where businesses often fall into difficulties. The description applied to the relationship – even when it is agreed by both parties at the outset of the relationship – is not decisive. Just because an individual has described themselves as “self-employed” does not mean they are for employment law purposes. Similarly, where parties elect to adopt the tax practices of the genuinely self-employed (such as issuing invoices for services rendered) does not automatically mean the courts will find that no employment relationship exists.

When coming to a decision about a worker’s employment status, it is necessary to consider each of the six questions opposed to taking one in isolation to the others; this explains why businesses find themselves in some difficulty when determining the employment status of its workforce. Therefore, despite HMRC’s statement to the BBC in respect of Hermes Couriers which indicates key question 6 is going to be one that receives close scrutiny in determining the exact status of the drivers, it will be the complete picture that is scrutinised.

Only time will tell whether Hermes Couriers is correct in its assertion that its drivers are self-employed. In the meantime your business can avoid similar difficulties by conducting a review of any current arrangements and practices (utilising the 6 key questions above) for those engaged on a self-employed basis.

Contact Details

If you would like more information or advice on employment status issues please contact:

fgmedia@fgsolicitors.co.uk

+44 (0) 808 172 93 22

This update is for general guidance only and does not constitute definitive advice.

Sports Direct: Use of Zero Hours Contracts – A Business Model With Exploitation at its Heart? (Part 2)

11578822 - 3d human charcter holding green zero, 3d render, isolated on whiteSUMMARY: The Sports Direct founder Mike Ashley faced the Business Innovation and Skills (“BIS”) Select Committee on 7 June 2016 for an evidence session into the working practices adopted by Sports Direct. A month later, it was widely reported that Sports Direct’s profits had been hit. Mr Ashley’s fortunes have not improved as, at the beginning of this month, it was announced that shareholders will be asked to vote on whether there should be an independent workplace review; and this week it was reported that Sports Direct is to pay £1million to its workers for breaches of the minimum wage legislation.

But how did it come to this?

To recap, Mr Ashley received intense criticism stemming from the Guardian Newspaper’s investigation at the end of 2015, which uncovered allegations that his Company:

1. Failed to pay its workers the minimum wage;

2. Engaged a significant proportion of staff via zero hours contracts and short term hours agency worker agreements;

3. Created a culture of fear throughout its workforce due to arbitrary and outdated disciplinary practices; and

4. Conducted daily physical security searches of employees.

In the first article of a two part series, we deal with the allegation concerning a breach of national minimum wage legislation; the first article can be accessed here.

In this second article, we explore the allegation that Sports Direct sought to increase its profit margins by engaging workers on zero hours contracts and short term hours agency agreements in order to avoid many of the legal obligations of employing staff. We also review the legal considerations that your business should take into account when using either zero hours contracts or being supplied with temporary workers via an agency.

THE ALLEGATIONS

Reports revealed that nearly 80% of Sports Direct’s workers are not employees but, instead, workers engaged via zero hours contracts or short term hours agency worker agreements. During the Select Committee’s evidence session on 7 June 2016, Steven Turner, the Assistant General Secretary of the Unite Union, remarked that this practice has created a “business model that has exploitation at its heart.”

In May 2015 the Government banned exclusivity clauses in zero hours contracts; clauses that prohibit a worker from taking up work under another contract, or which require the worker to get the company’s consent beforehand can no longer be included.

However, alternative work arrangements, specifically the arrangements adopted by Transline and the Best Connection Group, who supply Sports Direct with agency workers, could be placing workers in a worse position compared to if they had been engaged via a zero hours contract post the May 2015 change.

The reason behind this claim is that the Transline and the Best Connection Group do not have an obligation to offer these agency workers any work over and above a minimum of 336 hours over a 12 month period.

However, the agency workers must accept any suitable assignment offered to them unless there is “just cause,” and if assignments are not accepted, it is likely that the worker will not be offered another.

In addition, the workers are effectively forbidden for looking for additional hours elsewhere; workers who have done so have not been offered any further assignments – this is effectively an exclusivity clause in disguise.

WHAT IS A ZERO HOURS CONTRACT?

Zero hours contracts are contracts between a company and a worker and/or an employee, which specifies that the company is not obliged to provide the worker or employee with any minimum working hours, and that the company only pays for work undertaken. Similarly, the worker or employee is not obliged to accept any of the hours offered to them.

CAN ZERO HOURS CONTRACTS STILL BE USED?

Yes, zero hours contracts can still be used by companies.

The change in the law in May 2015 did not ban companies using zero hours contracts completely, instead it prohibits zero hours contracts containing exclusivity clauses.

WHY WOULD A COMPANY USE A ZERO HOURS CONTRACT & WHEN IS IT APPROPRIATE TO DO SO?

The key benefits of a zero hours contract are that a company using these contracts:

  • does not have to guarantee a minimum amount of work, and
  • only pays for work undertaken.

This is useful if your company is a start-up business and you are unsure of your people requirements. Alternatively, zero hours contracts may be useful if a company wishes to engage staff for seasonal work, or to cover absence and holidays.

The other benefit to companies is that the relationship between the company and the worker does not have to be one of employment. However, the worker will still benefit from the right to receive the National Minimum Wage, paid annual leave, rest breaks and will be protected from discrimination.

WHAT SHOULD THE BUSINESS CONSIDER WHEN ENGAGING AGENCY WORKERS?

If like Sports Direct, your company is supplied with workers via an external agency, you should be very clear as to the employment status of these workers because this will affect their rights.

Usually, the arrangement dictates that workers supplied by an agency are classed as workers of the end user client and not as their employees.

From day 1, agency workers are entitled to access to collective facilities (such as canteen facilities, child care facilities and transport facilities) and access to information about employment vacancies. Agency workers are also entitled to take rest breaks, receive the National Minimum Wage, receive Statutory Sick Pay (if they satisfy the relevant qualifying conditions set out in the legislation), take paid annual leave and benefit from protection against discrimination.

Following 12 weeks with the Company, agency workers are entitled to receive the same pay and other basic working conditions as equivalent permanent staff; this can include the auto enrolment pension obligations.

This is a relationship which often gives rise to uncertainty of employment status and, consequently, there are many reported cases on this very issue. Companies are therefore advised to ensure that, when engaging agency workers, they have in place the appropriate documentation with both the agency supplying the worker and the agency worker.

COMMENT:

Exclusivity clauses in zero hours contracts, which could exploit the most vulnerable of workers, are now unenforceable. However, this protection does not address the real issue for zero hours workers, which is the practice of ceasing to use workers who have turned down an assignment because they have accepted an alternative assignment and are unavailable.

In addition, as is evident from the Sports Direct review, Companies are now taking advantage of other working models such as the arrangements adopted by Transline and the Best Connection Group; although these arrangements are not prohibited by law, they raise questions of morality.

Only time will tell if the ongoing review by the BIS Select Committee will result in recommendations for change. In the meantime, we would recommend carrying out a review of the arrangement that your Company adopts for the supply of its staff to ensure that any legal obligations are being met.

CONTACT DETAILS:

If you would like more information on this topic or would like to discuss a specific concern in relation to your business, please contact us:

Call: +44 (0) 808 172 93 22     Email: fgmedia@fgsolicitors.co.uk

This update is for general guidance only and does not constitute definitive legal advice.

The Rio Olympics Are Approaching…What Should Employers do to Prepare?

22444484 - sport icons on computer keyboard buttons original illustrationThe countdown to the Olympics is now in earnest with the opening ceremony just a few days away. Over the coming weeks 306 events are scheduled to be held in Rio. If they have not done so already employers should be considering the potential effects of this four yearly event on their business.  A key priority is ensuring employee attendance. Unlike the 2012 Games in London, few employees will have tickets, but many will intend to watch the Rio Games on the television or internet.

What can employers do to prepare?

  • Decide on a policy for dealing with annual leave requests during the period the Games are on.  If the normal holiday request procedure is to apply, employers should remind employees of this.  If new procedures are to be put in place which simply cover the period the Games run for, highlight these to employees and ensure they are applied consistently.
  • Issue a general reminder of the absence notification/management procedures. That reminder to include a warning that employees could be subject to disciplinary procedures if they are not genuinely sick but provide sickness as the reason for their absence.  Absence levels should be closely monitored to enable the early identification of any high levels of sickness absence.
  • Flexible working may be a consideration which may enable employees to come in later or finish earlier. Considerations can also be given to whether employees can be permitted to swap shifts. Any flexible working arrangements should be carefully handled and recorded to ensure consistency of treatment and to ensure they run for the duration of the Games only.
  • Consider making available a television in a communal area to permit employees to view the Games at work.  This could offer an alternative to employees tempted to either “pull a sickie” to watch the games or to view them at work on the internet.  A number of employees simultaneously watching the games via an internet connection could cause disruption and negatively impact business continuity.  If making a communal television available, employers should highlight that employees will be expected to make up the time spent viewing the Games.
  • There may be an increased use of Social Media such as Facebook or Twitter or websites covering the Games. Employers should ensure that they have a clear policy regarding web use setting out that monitoring will take place, what use is permitted and what the likely sanctions are for a breach of the policy.

In summary…

In aiming for business continuity, it makes sense for employers to be:

  • Flexible – in altering working hours to accommodate viewing
  • Clear – in relation to expectations of leave requests, absence and performance
  • Communicative – discuss these matters with employees as soon as possible and continue to remind them of policies as the Games approach
  • Fair and Consistent  - in particular with respect to the way in which requests for time off are dealt with

Contact Details

If you would like more information or advice on business continuity planning for the Games, absence management or disciplinary procedures please contact:

fgmedia@fgsolicitors.co.uk

+44 (0) 808 172 93 22

This update is for general guidance only and does not constitute definitive advice.

On the 8th Day of Christmas…

8th Day of ChristmasOn the 8th day of Christmas my employee said to me…. “I didn’t enjoy the Christmas party as one of my colleagues kept harassing me.”

With the ever increasing demands of work the Christmas party is a great way to say thank you to staff. Most employees, when entering into the party spirit, will remember that there is a need to convey some semblance of good behaviour; sometimes, however a small number of staff are forgetful of this and lose all sense of propriety. In most instances their behaviour will be mildly amusing or annoying but in some cases it can become offensive and distressing.

Regardless of whether the party is away from the workplace and/or not in work time, employment law will still apply. This means employees who behave inappropriately towards their colleagues can be held accountable for their behaviour. Additionally, employers can be held responsible for the conduct of an employee towards a colleague where bullying, harassment and discrimination is involved.

It is therefore important to take seriously complaints of this type and not treat them any differently because the behaviour complained of occurred at a social event. Ignoring such a complaint could lead to a costly employment tribunal claim and reputational damage. Key considerations for an employer wishing to minimise these risks include:

  • Ensuring the complaint is dealt with quickly and impartially under the grievance procedure – the procedure should include the usual stages such as an investigation, meetings and an appeal.
  • Taking disciplinary action if the complaint is upheld.

However, proactive employers can also take preventative steps to minimise the risk of complaints in the first place, such steps can include:

  • Implementing and communicating an equality and harassment policy.
  • Providing equal opportunities training.
  • Dealing with complaints fairly and effectively.

Implementation of these simple steps should enable everyone to focus on the true purpose of the event and have fun at this time of year.

Contact Details

For more details about the issues in this article please contact:

fgmedia@fgsolicitors.co.uk

+44 (0) 808 172 93 22

This update is for general guidance only and does not constitute definitive advice.

Is Caste Discrimination a Workplace Consideration?

 

DiscriminationSUMMARY: Chandhok and another v Tirkey establishes that race discrimination can include caste discrimination.

Caste discrimination in the workplace

The recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) decision in Chandhok and another v Tirkey (“the Tirkey case”) caused a bit of a stir. Whilst many of us focused on the significant award of nearly £184,000 made to the claimant, a domestic worker, in relation to her minimum wage claim, the case was of greater importance as it considered the issue of caste discrimination in the workplace. Until now there has been much debate as to whether a worker who had suffered caste discrimination had the right to legal redress.

Caste usually refers to social levels in certain cultures and racial groups. The impact is that individuals’ positions in society are fixed by birth or occupation and are hereditary. For example, an individual’s caste could be determined by the occupation of their forefathers.

In 2010 the Government-commissioned report on caste discrimination (“the 2010 report”) recognised that caste discrimination could be an issue for employers. This was the case even though from a legal perspective the concept was not expressly addressed in the Equality Act 2010, which only makes reference to “race” which includes “colour; nationality; ethnic or national origin”.

Examples of workplace caste discrimination

The 2010 report did however provide examples of workplace caste-based unfair treatment, bullying and harassment. These included:

  • Exclusion from work social events and networks.
  • Humiliating behaviour such as “women of so called upper castes not taking water from the same tap from where the so called lower caste person drinks”.
  • Bullying and harassment by superiors which also affected promotion, task allocation and dismissal.  Examples given included:
    • Not permitting someone of a low caste to take holiday when requested.
    • An individual being promoted to manager but his team not accepting his authority because he was of lower caste than them.
  • Recruitment – if employees are taken on by recommendation, this could be because they are of the same caste.
  • Task allocation – a higher caste manager was alleged to allocate better paid work to higher caste employees.

The equal treatment principal

Whilst employers are fully familiar with the legal requirement that all workers must be treated equally regardless of a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, caste discrimination has always been a grey area.

Caste discrimination is a type of race discrimination

The Tirkey case has however provided some long awaited clarity, confirming that caste discrimination can be classified as a type of race discrimination. This case also provides a clear (if extreme) example of caste discrimination in the UK – on the particular facts it was found that Ms T was the victim of unlawful harassment on the ground of her race (as well as other successful claims).

The facts of this case are as follows:

  • Ms T worked for Mr and Mrs C as a domestic worker. Her caste (which is inherited and immutable) is the Adivasi, which is known as a “servant caste”. Adivasis have been recognised as being at the lowest point of almost every socio-economic indicator, and are frequently equated with Dalits (once known as “untouchables”). Ms T claimed that Mr and Mrs C treated her badly and in a demeaning manner, and that this was in part because of her low status which was infected with considerations of caste.
  • The employment tribunal was told that over a four and a half year period Ms T:
    • worked an 18-hour day, seven days a week;
    • slept on a foam mattress on the floor;
    • was prevented from bringing her Bible to the UK and going to church;
    • had her passport held by Mr and Mrs C and she had no access to it;
    • was not allowed to call her family; and
    • was given second-hand clothing instead of choosing her own clothes.

This is (we hope) an extreme situation which does not involve a normal employer/employee relationship. Employers should however be aware that caste discrimination can and does occur in many business situations.  The 2010 report stated that caste awareness in Britain is concentrated amongst people with roots in the Indian subcontinent, who comprise five per cent of the population.

Equality and diversity initiatives can be beneficial

Employers with robust management initiatives around equality and diversity should be in a position to prevent unlawful discrimination on the grounds of a worker’s caste.  Main considerations for any equality and diversity strategy should involve the following:

  • Having a top level commitment to equality and diversity in the workplace.
  • Ensuring there is an equal opportunities policy in place which makes it clear that discrimination, bullying and harassment will not be tolerated. Employees should be made aware of the existence of the policy and the likely sanctions for breaching it.
  • Making sure equality training is an integral part of any training programme.
  • Analysing business decisions and practices which could have the effect of discriminating on the grounds of any protected characteristic including race (caste).  Areas for review include: discipline and grievances; recruitment; promotion; pay and reward; terms and conditions; and access to training.
  • Investigating complaints of discrimination, bullying and harassment under the grievance procedure or, where relevant, the anti-harassment and bullying policy.
  • Having strategies which ensure that the workforce is diverse and is representative of the areas/communities from which it is drawn.
  • Monitoring the effectiveness of the equal opportunities policy.
  • Taking remedial action where inequality is identified.

Those businesses that strive to remove workplace bias will find themselves much better off in terms of staff morale, productivity and access to untapped talent.

Cases

Chandhok and another v Tirkey [2015] IRLR 195

Contact details

For more details about discrimination in the workplace, developing workplace equality and diversity strategies and training please contact:

fgmedia@floydgraham.co.uk

+44 (0) 1604 871143

This update is for general guidance only and does not constitute definitive advice.

Can I bring a friend?

16229690_m - CopySUMMARY: Employers are increasingly expected to be flexible when allowing employees/workers to be accompanied.

The right to be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing

Given the recent decision of the High Court (Stevens v University of Birmingham) which indicated that an employee should have been permitted to have a professional representative present at an investigation hearing and changes to the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures and the non-statutory guidance, employers are often left bewildered as to who the employee/worker should be permitted to bring with them to a disciplinary hearing.

The statutory right to be accompanied applies where the employee/worker is invited to attend a disciplinary hearing.  Disciplinary hearings for the purpose of this right are those hearings that could result in:

  • a formal warning being issued;
  • the taking of some other disciplinary action.  For example, suspension without pay, demotion or dismissal; or
  • the confirmation of a warning or some other disciplinary action.  For example, an appeal hearing.

The right applies to capability as well as misconduct hearings.  It does not apply to investigatory meetings.

Choice of companion

The following is a summary of who can be a companion:

1. An individual employed by the trade union of which they are an official

The employee/worker does not have to be a member of the trade union to which the official belongs.

2. Any other official of a trade union

See immediately above.  This person has to be certified by the trade union as having the experience/training to act as the companion.

3. A work colleague

  • The work colleague will have the right to paid time off during working hours.
  • The work colleague must not be subject to any detriment or dismissed because they have acted as a companion.
  • The choice of the work colleague does not have to reasonable – the employee/worker can choose whoever they wish.  It used to be thought that if the work colleague was at a remote geographical location, an employer could veto the employee’s/worker’s choice, but this is no longer the case.

4. A person to support the employee in difficult circumstances

These difficult circumstances are limited and are likely to include:

  • a companion who can translate where English is not the employee’s/worker’s first language; and
  • a companion to assist where the employee/worker has a disability or has mental health issues.

5. A lawyer

There is no general right to bring a lawyer to a disciplinary hearing.  There may however be:

  • a right under the contract of employment; or
  • a right as a result of the Human Rights Act 1998 where the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings would have a “substantial influence” on a decision of a regulatory body (or similar) that could bar someone from their profession.  For example, the medical, legal or accountancy profession.

6. Any person specifically identified in a policy/procedure/contract of employment

Employers should always check to establish whether their own policies/procedures/contracts of employment provide for different types of companion.  For example: a family member, a legal representative or a friend.

A flexible approach

Employers should also note that an employee has a statutory right to ask for a meeting to be rescheduled if necessary in order for his or her chosen companion to attend as long as the alternative date suggested is within five working days of that proposed by the employer.

Employers are increasingly being called upon to permit employees and workers to bring along individuals who do not fall within the traditional companion category.  Whilst employers can reject an employee’s/worker’s choice of companion in some cases, employers should be aware that tribunals appear to be expecting employers to take an increasingly flexible approach to the persons permitted as companions.

Employers should take advice if they are unsure as to whether they should permit the person an employee/worker has asked to be accompanied by and should ensure their own policies are clear on this point.

Cases

Stevens v University of Birmingham [2015] EWHC 2300

Contact details

For more details about permitted companions for employees/workers at meetings please contact:

fgmedia@fgsolicitors.co.uk

+44 (0) 1604 871143

This update is for general guidance only and does not constitute definitive advice. 

Early Conciliation – A New Era – Q&A

Handshake (123rf ref 9932791)We think we have underpaid ten of our employees. Someone mentioned early conciliation – what’s that all about?

Early conciliation (EC) is a new process and is intended to give parties the opportunity of settling disputes through ACAS to avoid tribunal claims. EC for most types of claim became mandatory from 6 May 2014. It covers, for example; the following types of claim; unfair dismissal, breach of contract, discrimination and equal pay, protection from a detriment and in the situation you describe, unlawful deduction of wages.

How will we know if conciliation has started?

There are five stages to the EC process:

  • Stage 1: The claimant must contact ACAS to provide notification of their intention to bring a claim and will provide your details.
  • Stage 2: The ACAS EC officer (CO) will contact the claimant to clarify the complaint.
  • Stage 3: The CO will then contact you to see if you would like to participate in conciliation.
  • Stage 4: If both parties are willing to discuss settlement there will be a period of conciliation for up to a period of one month. This period can be extended for up to 14 days with both parties’ agreement, where there is a prospect of settlement occurring. The CO will explore the options for resolution without the need for a tribunal hearing. This could include the claimant withdrawing the claim or conversely, you paying compensation or in dismissal cases, considering reinstatement or re-engagement. ACAS cannot make any judgment or provide you with legal advice.
  • Stage 5: The CO will end the EC process and issue a certificate where at any time it appears that there is no reasonable prospect of achieving settlement. If settlement is reached the CO will prepare a COT3 setting out the terms of the settlement.

Do we get a choice?

Yes. Each party can choose whether or not to participate. If either party refuses to enter into conciliation an EC certificate will be issued to confirm this is the case. You can also withdraw from the process at any time. A claimant is not prevented from bringing a claim if they choose not to participate in the EC process so long as they initially contact ACAS.

Do we have to pay for the service?

No. It’s free.

Will there be ten separate EC periods in this case?

Not necessarily. If one of the employees in the group of ten has already complied with the EC requirements in relation to the same dispute and the claims are similar, the others will not need to comply with this obligation.

When can the employee bring the claim?

The claim cannot be brought until the CO has provided a unique EC reference number. The EC period can give the claimant a longer time period in which to bring a claim of up to one extra month, with a possibility of a two-week extension.

As we have lots of minor tribunal claims each year, do you have any tips for managing early conciliation?

We would recommend that you have one point of contact in your HR Department or at a senior management level for dealing with ACAS. This should be publicised as it is possible employees may give their line manager’s details to ACAS.

You can of course nominate your legal representatives to deal with the CO. This may be advisable where the claim is likely to be complex or the amount of money involved is high. In any event, legal advice may assist at any stage of the EC process to help you understand the merits of the potential claim and decide whether settlement is the right way to proceed bearing in mind ACAS cannot advise you. Not all cases will be suitable for settlement but where they are, EC provides an early cost free mechanism for doing so on a confidential basis.

Contact Details

For more details about Early Conciliation please contact:

fgmedia@fgsolicitors.co.uk

+44 (0) 1604 871143

This update is for general guidance only and does not constitute definitive advice. 

Effective Disciplinary and Grievance Investigations and Hearings


Sherlock (123rf ref 10449419)

 

Date: 13 June 2013

Time: 8am-10am

Venue: Floyd Graham & Co offices

Cost: Free

 

 

Staff misconduct or employee complaints?

Effective investigations and hearings which follow a fair and legal process are key to avoiding costly tribunal litigation in these types of cases.

Join us to observe active role play which will expose some of the common pitfalls.

Take away practical advice and learn about:

  • What an investigation should consist of including evidence gathering
  • Holding a hearing
  • Complying with the ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance
  • Handling problem areas such as reluctant witnesses and absent employees
  • How to avoid costly tribunal claims

To avoid disappointment reserve your place by email: fgmedia@floydgraham.co.uk.

We look forward to welcoming you to our next seminar.

Can an Employer Have Two Bites of the Cherry in Employment Disciplinary Matters?

Summary

The dismissal of two employees connected to the Baby P case have been held to be fair despite the fact that the employees were originally given written warnings. The employees were subsequently subjected to second formal disciplinary proceedings for the same allegations and by new management, the result of which was their dismissal from the London Borough of Haringey.

Continue reading