An area manager from Fife has won nearly £25,000 after being sacked after she developed a degenerative eye condition.

The employment tribunal decided that the House of Stirling had unfairly dismissed Veronica Lumsden after the company sacked her when her sight became impaired.

She claimed that her bosses could have provided her with a driver, or allowed her to use taxis on the few occasions that she had to go out of the office.

The company argued that it dismissed Mrs Lumsden on ill-health grounds because her inability to drive presented an insurmountable barrier to her returning to her job as an area manager, a role which required a significant amount of travel. Mrs Lumsden told the tribunal that driving played only a very small part in her role, and she spent most of her time in the Kirkcaldy office of the Fife area team.

The tribunal concluded that the company failed to make reasonable adjustments under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Scotsman Online, January 10, 2005

Employees put in £23 billion of unpaid overtime, according to the Trades Union Congress (TUC), which says the figure highlights the need for regulation of working hours.

The TUC research indicates that last year, 5 million employees worked longer than their contracted hours regularly, for no extra payment. The annual analysis, based on Office of National Statistic figures adds further pressure on ministers to regulate hours. Ministers are currently fighting to keep the UK’s opt-out from the EU Working Time Directive, which allows employers to ask staff to work more than 48 hours per week.

Underpaid overtime is particularly prevalent in London, where 720,000 staff put in extra hours. The average employee who worked extra hours without pay put in another seven hours and 20 minutes a week, amounting to £4,650 a year.

Brendan Barber, general secretary of the TUC commented: “Too many workplaces have come to depend on very long hours. They get taken for granted and staff have to do even more if there is an unexpected rush. Worst of all is that many long hours workplaces are inefficient and unproductive. People are putting in long hours to make up for poor organisation and planning in the workplace.

“The UK’s productivity is lower than many rival countries, with British businesses making up for this competitive disadvantage through longer working hours.”

Financial Times, January 6, 2005

Claims that the UK workforce is beset with a ‘sicknote’ culture have been dismissed as ‘a myth’ by the Trades Union Congress (TUC).

The report, ‘Sicknote Britain?’ revealed that British workers are less likely to take short-term time off sick than in any European country except Denmark. Only Austria, Germany and Ireland lose less working time due to long-term sickness. The report also revealed that public sector employees are off sick less than private workers and the number claiming Incapacity Benefit is on the decrease.

The report also indicated that the majority of employers accept that most workers are genuinely ill during their absence. The TUC argues that the problem is not dishonest absence, but the high numbers of workers (75%) who says they struggle into work when they are actually ill.

The TUC argues that these ‘mucus troopers’ are risking the health of co-workers and increasing the chances of long term sickness for themselves.

The report goes on to set out ways that employers can reduce sickness levels including more flexible working and other elements which create a better work/life balance. It also makes a number of suggestions for how people can be helped off Incapacity Benefit.

The report criticises commentators who suggest that many claims of stress are not genuine. It highlights Health and Safety Executive figures and says that the symptoms suffered by stressed employees are serious and can include mental health and chronic physical health problems.

Brendan Barber, general secretary of the TUC commented: “Sicknote Britain is an urban myth. We take less time off than most countries, and public sector staff are less likely to take time off for a short term illness. When employers complain of sicknote Britain, they are attacking some of Europe’s most loyal employees.”

Trades Union Congress press release, January 7, 2005

Offering flexible working hours is as effective in employee retention for people with professional and managerial roles as an increase in salary, according to research from Woodhurst.

The survey found that 88 per cent of respondents said, all other factors being equal, they would consider moving jobs for a better salary, however 84 per cent would change jobs to achieve more flexible working hours.

Geraint Evans, managing consultant at Woodhurst commented: “This survey reveals that the margin between the appeal of flexible working and more money is a lot narrower than many employers assume. The message is clear, offering your staff more flexibility in how they work, can be as effective a retention strategy as throwing money at the problem.”

The group of respondents, made up of people in professional and managerial roles worked an average week of 49 hours. Seventy four per cent said that they would seriously consider a ‘lifestyle change’, sacrificing money for a better’quality of life’. Sixty nine per cent of those who had partners said they worried about the impact of their working hours on their relationship.

Other findings included: 72 per cent saying they would move jobs for no other reason than the opportunity to work from home, 38 per cent would move because they had been passed over for promotion and 36 per cent to escape office politics.

Fifty two per cent of respondents said they were likely to change jobs in the next two years. This fell to 32 per cent for those who enjoyed greater flexibility to work from home.

Mr Evans concluded: “Employers clearly need to rethink their retention strategies to focus more on addressing the work life balance.”

HR Gateway, January 5, 2005

British Airways (BA) has been accused of sex discrimination by Jessica Starmer, a pilot who contends that the company refused to allow her to work half her normal hours after the birth of her child.

Ms Starmer is taking BA to an employment tribunal, claiming that the company’s refusal to allow her to work 50 per cent of full-time hours, amounts to indirect sexual discrimination. While BA’s restrictions on part-time work apply to both sexes, lawyers will argue that women pilots are more likely to need to work part-time than their male colleagues.

Ms Starmer lodged a complaint in June 2004 and three months later, BA changed its safety rules to prevent junior pilots from working less than 75 per cent of normal hours. BA admitted the rules were changed following Ms Starmer’s request, but said that the decision was taken purely for safety reasons. She is permitted to work 75 per cent of normal hours, but claims that this does not leave her enough time to spend with her child.

The British Air Line Pilots’ Association, supporting the case, hopes that it will establish a principle that will encourage many more women to join a male-dominated profession.

Times, January 10, 2005

The pay gap between men and women is widest in the City of London, where women working full time earn 58 per cent of the average male City worker’s salary.

The figures, which were calculated by the GMB general union, are based on Office of National Statistics information. They indicate that female City workers suffer a far higher pay gap than the national average. Recent months have seen high-profile employment tribunal cases, including the Merrill Lynch sex discrimination case. However, much of the pay gap is likely to be attributable to women in the City working as secretaries and support staff, rather than executives.

Significant pay gaps were also apparent in Anglesey, Hartlepool, Blackpool and Poole. Other places, such as the borough of Lewisham, and East Lothian and Stirling in Scotland had virtually no pay differential.

The national earnings gap currently stands at 14 per cent.

The GMB is calling for the Government to force companies to carry out pay audits to check that women are paid the same for work of equal value. Although the Government has finished equal pay audits across a number of public sector organisations, it is reluctant to force audits on companies.

Financial Times, January 6, 2005

A new website has been launched, which allows employees to check the level of their pay against the average salary for their job.

The website, www.paywizard.org has been launched by Income Data Services (IDS) in conjunction with the Trades Union Congress (TUC). The service goes lives as employees return to work following the Christmas and New Year break. TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber, commented: “Pay has been surrounded in secrecy for too many people, making the perfect environment for inequality and discrimination to flourish undetected. ”He said that the service, will “help people find out what they are really worth”. IDS’s head of pay services, Alistair Hatchett, said that companies had nothing to fear from the service and that having access to better information was beneficial to companies as well as individuals, allowing them to make better decisions.

The database highlights a number of regional differences in pay, for example graphic designers in London are paid £16.87 per hour, compared to just £8.89 in the West Midlands.

TUC and Daily Telegraph, January 4, 2005

Up to 25 redundancies, some of them voluntary, are to be made among Lovells’ body of partners under a programme pushed through by its management, according to The Lawyer.

The magazine claims that the review will affect around 35 partners worldwide, with redundancies planned in offices in London, Germany, France, Amsterdam and Asia. Some partners will be de-equitised or offered early retirement, but others will be warned that they face the prospect of leaving the partnership unless their performance improves. Lovells refused to confirm or deny the existence of such a programme when contacted by The Lawyer.

Although the review was instituted by Co-Managing Partner, Lesley MacDonagh, and department heads earlier in 2004,

Ms MacDonagh, together with successor David Harris and Senior Partner John Young, did not conclude it until December, with partners being informed on December 17.

Lovells is expecting its profits to have plunged by as much as 20 per cent by the end of this financial year, and while the programme will not filter through to less senior associates before then, it could prove more far reaching afterwards.

thelawyer.com, December 20, 2004

Stephanie Villalba, a senior banker, lost her sexual discrimination case against Merrill Lynch, on December 22, 2004.

However, Ms Villalba did win her case for unfair dismissal against the firm, and will be able to claim a maximum of £55,000, although it is believed that she will face a seven figure legal bill.

In the judgment, seen as a victory by Merrill Lynch, Croydon Employment Tribunal ruled that there had been no gender discrimination and that Ms Villalba had not been given unequal pay. It said that if the company had expressed similar performance concerns about a man, as had been expressed about Ms Villalba, he would not have been treated more favourably. However, the court did find that she had suffered unfair dismissal, because Merrill Lynch had failed to provide alternative employment at an equivalent level after removing her from her post.

Ms Villalba had claimed that she was made to sit in a stewardess’s seat and serve drinks to male executives on a corporate flight. She further alleged that her boss bullied and humiliated her. The company contended that Ms Villalba was out of her depth in her position as marketing executive for Europe and that she was losing the company £560,000 a week. She was dismissed after she refused to accept other positions within the company. The tribunal did not criticise Ms Villalba’s decision to decline the two other positions offered ‘since they were of lower status and did not constitute suitable alternative employment’.

The tribunal also found that there was a lack of implementation of equal opportunities policy, a ‘culture of secrecy and opaqueness regarding pay’ and a ‘subjective approach to bonuses’.

The exact compensation for unfair dismissal will be determined at a later date.

Times, December 23, 2004

Karen Carlucci, a former executive at Oracle Corporation, has been awarded nearly £100,000 in compensation after she exposed a sexist ‘boys’ club’ culture.

Ms Carlucci, sued the company for sex discrimination and unfair dismissal after she resigned from the firm,following a return from maternity leave, when she found she had been given a job well below her abilities. Her claims of discrimination arose during her maternity leave, when she was told she had been overpaid. Her manager, Adrian Wootton, was angry that her maternity pay, which was calculated on average monthly earnings, and included commission payments, totalled £130,000.

The employment tribunal was told that her manager, Steve Irwin, described himself as a ‘babe magnet’, her former boss Adrian Wootton had sent her a sexist email and had an inappropriate calendar of naked women on his desk. In her resignation letter, Ms Carlucci wrote of being ‘sidelined’ of being forced to leave because of ‘poor treatment’ relating to maternity pay and receiving ‘shoddy behaviour’ on her return to work.

Ms Carlucci received £98,206 compensation for sex discrimination, injury to feelings and loss of private health cover.

Oracle Corporation is appealing.

Times, December 23, 2004