News Room

What happens at an employment tribunal

Posted by Stripes on November 23, 2009 (Blog, Employment)

gavelDisputes between employer and employee are usually dealt with by an Employment Tribunal (ET).

The case is decided by the ET at a public hearing (unless an application for a closed hearing due to matters confidential has been granted) and is heard by an ET judge and two lay members. The judge is a solicitor or a barrister and the lay members each represent management and trade unions respectively.

You do not need to be legally represented, although nowadays the complexity of employment law is such that most employers instruct solicitors as soon as they receive the claim, if not before. (more…)


What is workplace bullying?

Posted by Stripes on November 23, 2009 (Blog, Employment)

workplace_bullyingBullying can involve arguments and rudeness but it can also be much more subtle – excluding and ignoring people and their contribution, unacceptable criticisms and even overloading people with work are forms of bullying.

Bullying may be characterised as offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power through means intended to undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient.

Bullying or harassment may be by an individual against an individual (perhaps by someone in a position of authority such as a manager or supervisor) or involve groups of people. It may be obvious or it may be insidious. Whatever form it takes, it is unwarranted and unwelcome to the individual. (more…)


Without prejudice: What it is, and when you should use it

Posted by Stripes on November 23, 2009 (Blog, Litigation)

What is without prejudice?
Despite being in use in British courts for more than a 100 years, the ‘without prejudice’ rule is well known but not necessarily well understood.
Opinions and case law on it have changed, so perhaps this is not surprising. However, it is worth knowing the logic and the basics behind the rule.
The chief goal is to encourage parties in dispute to settle out of court — the idea being that one party can make concessions safe in the knowledge that they cannot be relied on as evidence by the other side should the dispute end up in court.
Which concessions are protected depends on a number of things but the overall legal requirement is that there must be a dispute and the without prejudice communication (which can be anything from written and oral negotiation to e-mails) must be genuinely related to settling the dispute.
To ascertain what constitutes a dispute, ask if the case would be likely to have progressed to litigation if agreement was not reached? It is by no means essential that litigation has started, or even been considered, for without prejudice to apply. There have been cases where communications predating litigation by more than two years have been afforded without prejudice protection.
Whether or not the communication genuinely relates to the settlement of a dispute and so falls within the scope of the rule is more complex. An objective review of the case will determine the intention of the author and how the communication would be understood by a reasonable recipient.
Simply labelling a document or communication ‘without prejudice’ does not of itself attract the legal privilege. Conversely, a communication can attract without prejudice privilege despite not having been labelled as such.
Despite its wide scope, the without prejudice rule is not absolute and even communications made in an attempt to settle a dispute may be admissible if the case requires it. For example, the court may look at without prejudice communications if one party says a settlement agreement has been reached and the other party disagrees. Similarly, if there is a claim that an agreement has been compromised by fraud or other deception, the without prejudice rule may be overturned. The rule may not apply when assessing legal costs after litigation and there is a risk that it does not apply to all admissions of fact.
There is also the right to waive without prejudice privilege but the parties must be in agreement.
While invoking the rule can help to reduce time and money spent taking cases through the courts, anyone seeking to rely on it should be aware that a careful approach is essential.

Despite being in use in British courts for more than a 100 years, the ‘without prejudice’ rule is well known but not necessarily well understood.

Opinions and case law on it have changed, so perhaps this is not surprising. However, it is worth knowing the logic and the basics behind the rule. (more…)


Trident sees the light with merger

Posted by Stripes on September 18, 2009 (Media Coverage)

Crain’s Manchester Business, September 18 2009

Domestic lighting distributor Salford-based Trident has today announced its merger with Leeds-based competitor Ring Lighting.

This merged entity will be known as the Associated Lighting Group (ALG) and will turnover in excess of £35m, making in the second largest player within the market.

David Gutfreund, new chief executive of ALG and former executive chairman of Trident said: “The merger of Ring Lighting and Trident places us in an excellent position to take full advantage of the recovery.

“The merger represents a major consolidation within the industry, and we will be aiming to strengthen ALG’s position over the short term as we look to acquire smaller competitors and increase our market share. Moreover, this move has substantially reduced Ring Lighting’s debt.”

Both Ring Lighting and Trident are major suppliers to DIY, grocery and high street retailers – supplying chains including B&Q, Argos, Focus DIY, Pagazzi Lighting, Homebase, Tesco, ASDA, Shop Direct, TX Maxx, Wilkinson and Next.

Ring Lighting and Trident will be operationally managed as two separate entities each with their own client base, overseen by teams of senior personnel. The newly-formed ALG board will comprise of five main board directors. Chaired by Nicholas Jeffrey, it will include; David Gutfreund as Chief Executive, Bruce Davidson, MD of Ring Lighting, Brom Dixon, MD of Trident and David Green as Group Finance Director.

The deal was funded by Burdale Financial – the invoice finance arm of Bank of Ireland. Manchester-based TMG Corporate Finance and law firm Stripes Solicitors advised on the deal.


Swine flu and the implications for employers

Posted by Stripes on August 23, 2009 (Employment)

Swine of a flu
The current expert opinion is that a swine flu pandemic will truly hit in the autumn. This will have significant implications for employers who should now start making contingency plans.
In this article we look at what employers should consider when dealing with absences and adapting working arrangements to ensure the business can continue to function efficiently with a reduced workforce.
Absences during a pandemic will include genuine sickness absences, the taking of time off to look after dependants and absences for other reasons such as sheer reluctance to attend or travel to work.
Employers will need to review their sickness absence and sick pay policies to ensure these are appropriate.  They should prepare for significant levels of sickness absence of at least 5-7 days per person. One priority will be to keep the genuinely ill away from work and changes in company policy may have to be made; for example employees should not return until it is safe for them to do so, rather than when they feel better. If attendance at GP’s surgeries is restricted sickness may have to be self certified and employers should review their policies so that abuses can be managed.
Other absence issues may arise when employees take time off to care for sick dependants.  Employers who currently pay for this may decide to review their policies so that payment is limited to a certain number of days.  The statutory right to take time off extends to a ‘reasonable period’, which is likely to be longer than employers are currently used to. In light of this, employers should review their holiday policies to see if these allow them to require employees to take holiday at the employer’s direction.
During a pandemic it is also likely that employees will be absent for a variety of other reasons, such as a reluctance to attend work in case they are infected. Actively insisting the sick stay at home should encourage the healthy to come to work, but employers will need to be sensitive to genuine concerns and may be able to agree different working arrangements, such as working from home. However any unreasonable refusal to work may lead to disciplinary action.
Another challenge for employers will be keeping services operating ‘as usual’ with a reduced workforce.  Employers are likely to cancel or rearrange planned employee absence, redeploy (and retrain) staff, seek more overtime and allow annual leave to be carried over to the next year.  Employers may need to introduce more flexible working, such as changing working times.  Employers must remain conscious of the difficulties of unilaterally imposing contractual changes and all changes should be undertaken within a framework of effective and, where possible, early consultation.  Employers will have to decide whether there is sufficient flexibility within the employment contract to make the required changes or whether consent or other measures are necessary. The unilateral imposition of contractual changes is risky and can lead to claims for breach of contract and unfair dismissal.
UK international employers may wish to consider temporarily covering roles with overseas personnel who can be redeployed from group operations. Aside from possible quarantine controls which may impact on freedom of movement in a full scale pandemic, the UK entity must ensure that any foreign employees have the necessary permission to work in the UK. Business visitors cannot undertake productive work in the UK without the employer running the risk of civil and criminal penalties and immediate redeployment of staff will not always be feasible.
A full-scale pandemic will challenge all employers. Now is the time to anticipate your business needs so that employment issues can be resolved with as little disruption as is possible.

Absences during a pandemic will include genuine sickness absences, the taking of time off to look after dependants and absences for other reasons such as sheer reluctance to attend or travel to work.

Employers will need to review their sickness absence and sick pay policies to ensure these are appropriate.  They should prepare for significant levels of sickness absence of at least 5-7 days per person. One priority will be to keep the genuinely ill away from work and changes in company policy may have to be made; for example employees should not return until it is safe for them to do so, rather than when they feel better. (more…)