We have successfully negotiated the new production deal and screening rights for the top rated BBC comedy sit com show “Still Game”. The writers, Ford Kiernan and Greg Hemphill who also appear as characters Victor and Jack broke from the previous deal and formed a new company which has successfully negotiated a new series which will be broadcast on prime time BBC  through 2007.

A worker who claims he was sacked after suffering a heart attack has been awarded over £40,000 for unfair dismissal.

Alan Coulter, 56, worked as an accountant for the Park Hotel in Tynemouth. In March 2004 he suffered a heart attack and was scheduled to have an operation that August. Despite receiving a six month sick note he continuing working up until the date of his operation. He returned to work after surgery with a clean bill of health but was informed by his employers, Sewar and Jasbal Singh, that his services were no longer required.

The Singhs legal team argued that Mr Coulter had been unhappy in his job following the hiring of a new employee, a Mrs Newell, and claimed that Mr Coulter had written a note asking for Mrs Newell to be dismissed.

However this was thrown out by the tribunal chairman who said that the note was false and had not been written at the time in question.

Awarding Mr Coulter £41,007 in compensation, the chairman said: “We note that prior to the claimant’s illness the respondents were very satisfied with his performance, to the extent that they gave him a 25 per cent pay rise.

“It was only when he became seriously ill and had time off work with an uncertain work future that the respondents decided shortly before the first anniversary of his employment to dismiss him.

“We are satisfied that the real reason for the dismissal was that the claimant had become seriously ill, had taken time off work and the respondent did not want to risk continuing to employ an employee with a heart condition.”

Source: www.northtynesidetoday.co.uk, September 6, 2006

The Director-general of Age Concern is reported as saying “We firmly believe that a number of employers are guilty of getting rid of their older workers because they are deemed ‘too old’ just before the new age discrimination laws come into effect”.

This includes skilled older workers in the public and health sectors. Redundancies have led to a spate of unfair dismissal unfair dismissal claims, compensation for which is currently capped at £58,400. However, there will be no cap on compensation payable to anyone dismissed from 1st October 2006 who successfully claims age discrimination.

Source: Sunday Times, September 10, 2006

On 1 October 2006, new laws will come into force to protect workers from age discrimination.

What is age discrimination and who suffers from it?

Age discrimination is a prejudice against a person or group of people on the grounds of their age. If this prejudice becomes the driving force behind a decision, it is considered age discrimination.

Although typically associated with the older generations, discrimination can happen to people of all ages. It can involve being passed over for a job or promotion on the grounds that you are too young or because an employer thinks you are too old to do a certain job.

So how do we get protection from this?

At the moment, you don’t. The regulations are being introduced because there is currently no way to combat instances of age discrimination. While regulations cover disability, sex, religion or race discrimination, age has so far not been regulated.

And how will this change following the legislation?

The employment equality (age) regulations will make it illegal for employers to discriminate against employees, trainees or job seekers because of their age and ensure that all workers regardless of age have the same rights in terms of training and promotion.

Several tiers of legislation will be introduced, but specifically it will be an offence to deny someone a job, promotion or training in the workplace because they are too young or old.

The regulations have been divided into four categories: direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation.

Direct discrimination is unfavourable treatment because of someone’s age, while indirect discrimination involves a company’s practices having a disadvantageous effect on employees of a certain age.

Harassment is the intimidation of younger or older employees or behaviour which people of a certain age may find upsetting. Victimisation involves the unfair treatment of an individual who has complained of discrimination or given evidence on behalf of someone else that has complained of discrimination.

The legislation will cover all workers, both contracted and self-employed, and those taking part in or applying for employment-related training including further and higher education courses.

Are there any exceptions?

There are a handful of groups that are not covered by the legislation – members of the regular armed forces or military reserve forces are not included as age is seen as an acceptable way to decide a person’s suitability to the field of combat.

There is also something called a genuine occupational requirement, whereby a person is required to be a certain age for a job. For example, the role of a character in a play or film, or serving alcohol in a bar or pub.

The regulations will also not apply to goods and services, so insurance companies and health firms will still be able to discriminate on the grounds of age.

What will the legislation mean for employees?

A national default retirement age of 65 will be introduced and employers will no longer be allowed to force someone to retire before then.

There will no longer be an upper age limit for unfair dismissal and redundancy and a statutory redundancy payment will be included in your contract. It will also be unlawful for an employer to place a lower-age limit on a position, unless it can be justified.

All employees will have the right to request to work beyond the age of 65, and employers will have a duty to consider, although not to accept, such a request. This will involve an employee meeting with their employer to discuss the request. An employee will have a right of appeal if they are dissatisfied with the outcome of the meeting. This policy will be reviewed in 2011.

And what will the legislation mean for employers?

Employers will be required to revise their recruitment and retention policies, as they will no longer be allowed to use age as a consideration in employment, promotion or retirement decisions. They must also update their equality policy to include the new legislation and disciplinary rules, and all current members of staff should be made aware of the implications of the regulations.

Source: The Guardian, September 7, 2006

Journalist Richard Gizbert was dismissed by ABC TV. The Central London Tribunal found that “the principal reason for dismissing [him] was his refusal to go to war zones” and that this was a health and safety reason which was automatically unfair dismissal under ERA 1996 s.100(1)(c).

There is no statutory limit to compensatory award in such cases and he was awarded £98K. The EAT has allowed ABC’s appeal against the finding of automatically unfair dismissal but has allowed a cross-appeal by Mr Gizbert. In doing so it decided that he was technically an “employee” as the requirement of “mutuality of obligation” was satisfied (contrary to the original tribunal’s thinking) as the employer was obliged to offer at least 100 days work per annum and although Mr Gizbert could reject the offers he had to have a “good faith” reason for doing so. The result is that he is now able to go ahead with a fresh “ordinary unfair dismissal” claim.

Source: www.emplaw.co.uk, August 30, 2006

Amid mounting concern about standards of literacy and numeracy among school leavers, McDonald’s has announced plans to tackle the educational and skills needs of its workforce by moving into education.

The scheme involves online learning out-of-hours, at home or on McDonald’s own computers, paving the way for students to take GCSE-equivalent qualifications in supervised exam centres within 200 of its 1,200 outlets. Employees will be able to sit exams in a dedicated room in the outlets, whenever they are ready to do so and at any time of the year.

At the centre of the venture is a website called Our Lounge, which will enable McDonald’s staff to access career and lifestyle information. More than 60 per cent of McDonald’s staff are under 21, and the company believes that these workers would benefit from practical assistance.

The online scheme will assess employee’s basic skills and recommend areas of improvement. With the support of online tutors, employees will be able to improve their skills and gain level 1 and 2 qualifications.

David Fairhurst, vice president of people at McDonald’s, said: “The fact is that if the Government and businesses like us do absolutely nothing then, by 2020, 4 million adults will not have the literacy skills expected of an 11 year old, and 12 million will fall short in numeracy.

“We expect up to 1,000 McDonald’s employees to gain GCSE equivalent qualifications in the next 12 months.”

Source: Guardian, September 19, 2006

Increasing minimum holiday leave to 28 days will benefit workers and employers alike, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) argues.

In its submission to the Government’s consultation on increasing statutory minimum leave to 28 days for full time employees, the union maintains that the move is completely affordable and urges the Government to ignore employers’ claims that the change will prove too costly.

Currently, employers can force workers to take the UK’s eight public holidays from their annual leave entitlement, leaving some employees with as little as 12 days holiday a year. However, under the proposed changes, this loophole will be closed and employers will no longer be permitted to do this.

TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: “Increasing the minimum amount of holiday leave is another step down the road to a better work/life balance and that is good news for workers and for their bosses. Everyone needs a decent time off work if they are to avoid feeling overworked and stressed. The increase in annual leave will give employees time to recharge their batteries and return to work refreshed.”

Source: TUC press release, September 13, 2006

A gay worker who was suspended from his job after complaining about humiliating graffiti has won his claim for constructive dismissal.

In May 2005, Chris Martin, who was employed at Parkam Foods in West Yorkshire, made a verbal complaint about homophobic graffiti he had discovered in the men’s toilets but no action was taken.

He then wrote to his employers about the graffiti and other behaviour asking why nothing had been done. His employers placed a warning in the toilets but this related to presence of graffiti and not to homophobic behaviour.

Mr Martin claims that he was made to feel “like a piece of dirt” by his employers after continuing his complaint and in November 2005 Parkam Foods suspended him. He later resigned in protest.

In a written reserved judgment, an employment tribunal said that it found the graffiti, which it viewed on a mobile phone photograph, to be “offensive and homophobic”.

It also ruled that by failing to investigate Mr Martin’s grievance properly it had not complied with its own procedures.

Mr Martin’s solicitor commented: “Discrimination at work on the grounds of sexual orientation was outlawed three years ago. In spite of this, this case shows that some workplaces are not complying with the law.”

The hearing is due to reconvene later this year to assess compensation to Mr Martin.

Source: Times, September 18, 2006

Top executives could be the biggest beneficiaries of the new Employment Equality (Age) Regulations and some are already beginning to consider the impact of the regulations on severance packages, according to City lawyers.

City law firms are also reporting an increased demand from companies seeking to shore up their formal performance and dismissal procedures, and to ensure that they apply to senior management, in an effort to protect against employment claims.

Many lawyers and human resources specialists believe that directives and senior executives will be the main pool of potential litigants when the regulations come into force in October 2006. A recent survey by CM Murray found more than 75 per cent of respondents thought the laws would change the way companies handled the dismissal of directors. It also found that 78 per cent of respondents believed employers were likely to extend formal performance management and dismissal procedures to directors and top management even though most companies would still prefer a “quiet departure”.

The survey also suggests that if directors’ exit packages become inflated as a result of the regulations, companies could risk an angry backlash. Sixty seven per cent of respondents thought there would be significant corporate governance concerns over negotiated director packages if they were inflated by age discrimination compensation, and that this could lead to more “reward for failure” scenarios.

Source: Financial Times, September 12, 2006

The date for coming into force of the pensions-related parts of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 SI 2006/1031 (reg 11 and sch 2) is to be put back from 1st October 2006 to 1st December 2006.

This is said to be to “give schemes more time to adjust to the new regulations following significant activity in the pensions sector. It will also allow a short informal consultation period to assess whether any amendments are required to provide greater clarity for schemes and employers”.

Source: www.emplaw.co.uk, September 13, 2006