The UK’s leading provider of workplace information and consultancy services has reported a recent decline in calls received from employers relating to redundancy issues.

Croner, part of Wolters Kluwer, said this week that just over 13% of callers to its employment telephone advisory service in July were seeking advice on dealing with redundancy, down from a peak of 23% in January.

The number of calls is now broadly in line with those being received in July 2008.

Despite unemployment in the three months to this June having reached its highest level since 1995, Croner suggests that its data indicates the start of a possible levelling-out as fewer employers seek redundancy-related advice.

“While we must be wary about making any predictions on the state of the job market,” Employment Technical Consultant Gillian Dowling said, “the data suggests that we may have seen the peak of redundancies.”

It is possible, she conceded, that the recent figures are influenced by employers who are going through their second wave of redundancies and believe they no longer need assistance.

If so, Ms Dowling said, they must remain vigilant against claims for unfair dismissal.

“With the job market as it is,” she warned, “there is an increased chance that employees could take legal action for unfair dismissal as they are less likely to find another job quickly. At the same time, tribunal awards could be higher due to increased time spent out of work and the potential loss of earnings.”

www.croner.co.uk, 19 August, 2009

Workers sacked by a Christian bookshop have won a substantial payout with the help of shopworkers’ union Usdaw.

The 32 staff were employed by the long-established SPCK chain of bookshops until they were transferred to a charity called Saint Stephen the Great Charitable Trust (SSG) in November 2006.

This was controlled by two American brothers, Mark and Philip Brewer, who tried to force the staff to sign new contracts which would have meant longer hours, fewer holidays and poorer pension rights.

Between February and June last year, all 32 were sacked by the brothers, with many getting the news by e-mail and some being told by colleagues.

Usdaw helped them to lodge claims in the employment tribunal after many were told that they should contact the Texas Bankruptcy Court for any money they were owed.

General Secretary John Hannett said: “We are delighted that these long-serving and dedicated members have finally won the compensation they deserve. We believe they have been treated appallingly, with no regard for British law or for the loyalty of the staff.”

In September 2008, a Case Management Discussion was heard before a Judge in the Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal, to decide how to proceed with the many tribunal claims.

The Judge ruled that it was necessary to decide first who actually employed the claimants, as Usdaw had been obliged to bring proceedings against the charity and two companies controlled by the Brewer brothers.

Because the case was so complex, Mr Hannett suggested that the employees would have been unable to achieve success in their claims without the backing of the union.

Under the agreement reached, each member will receive at least 65% of their agreed amount by the end of August, and the full amount within six months, depending on the sale of assets of the charity.

The individual figures agreed for each member are subject to a three-month confidentiality clause.

www.croner.co.uk, 20 August, 2009

A Scottish postal worker has been compensated after an employment tribunal ruled that he had been dismissed unfairly for taking leave after an occupational accident.

Glasgow Employment Tribunal awarded Jamie McSorley, 25, a compensation payout of £5,000 after he had been sacked by Royal Mail for a three-week absence from work after he injured himself tripping over a wall, reports the Hamilton Advertiser.

The company had claimed that Mr McSorley had been to blame for his own accident and was therefore not entitled to have his absence written off as being caused by a work injury.

However, the tribunal decided that the fall over the two-foot wall constituted a standard health and safety risk for postmen and that it would be unfair to suggest that he had invited his injury.

Employment Judge Hugh Murphy said: “No evidence was laid before us to suggest that the circumstances in this case are exceptional or any way unusual.”

www.healthandsafetypeople.com, 17 August, 2009

The Court of Appeal has handed down its decision in Booth v Oldham MBC, an interesting case about:

• the effect of a failed DDA claim on a breach of contract action brought in relation to an employer’s decision about pension entitlement and;
• the need for exhaustion of remedies provided by the 1997 Pension Regulations before resort to litigation.

Mr Booth was dismissed in August 2001 on grounds of capability, having been signed off for stress and depression. He brought an ET claim for disability discrimination. Had he been deemed permanently incapable of discharging efficiently his duties of employment because of ill-health or infirmity of mind or body then – under regulation 27 of the Pension Regulations (which govern the Local Government Pension Scheme) – he would have been entitled to additional pension benefits. However, after the ET held that Mr Booth was not a disabled person for the purposes of the DDA 1995, the Council decided not to medically examine Mr Booth to establish if he qualified for those additional pension benefits. Whilst Mr Booth appealed the ET decision (unsuccessfully) he did not avail himself of all of the dispute resolution remedies provided by the Pension Regulations.

Mr Booth brought a breach of contract action several years later, arguing that, had they referred him for medical assessment, he would have satisfied the criteria for ill-health under regulation 27 and he would have been awarded permanent ill-health retirement.

The claim was dismissed by the High Court and, subsequently, by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held:-

• given the finding of the ET in relation to disability, Mr Booth could not successfully contend that the Council remained under a duty to medically assess him. Lord Justice Thomas stated that there was no need to consider whether a person who is found not to be under a disability under the DDA will always fail to establish permanent incapacity under the Pensions Regulations since there was clear evidence in this case that Mr Booth did not satisfy the latter test.
• as the Pension Regulations provided dispute resolution machinery by which to challenge the Council’s decision, which Mr Booth had not availed himself of, he had no right to bring his claim at all.

www.danielbarnett.co.uk, 19th August, 2009

A senior police officer has told an employment tribunal that he was “victimised” because he is dyslexic.

Chief Inspector Phillip Haynes, 42, of Gloucestershire Police, says he was passed over for promotion after he raised the condition with his bosses.

Mr Haynes claims a letter detailing extra time he needed to pass his superintendent exam prejudiced the promotion board against him.

The force told the hearing in Bristol that they had tried to help Mr Haynes.

Victoria Von Wachter, representing Gloucestershire Police, said the force had done a lot to assist Mr Haynes during the selection process.

Mr Haynes, of Newnham-On-Severn, said he first became aware that he might have been dyslexic when he was 12.

After twice failing the interview stage for promotion to Inspector, he sought help from a dyslexia expert who wrote to Gloucestershire Police asking for special allowances to be put in place for Mr Haynes in his day-to-day duties and in future interview situations.

Mr Haynes said he thought this communication “caused the (promotion) board members to decide that I was not fit to be a Senior Police Officer”.

He said he felt “victimised” after his next promotion application was failed at the paper application stage.

He was also unhappy at subsequently being moved from being an acting Superintendent back to being a Chief Inspector.

The former soldier, who joined the county’s constabulary in 1989, said: “I have found my treatment to be extremely distressing.”

The hearing continues.

BBC News, 26 August, 2009

A former Cumbrian health boss is to appeal against a tribunal’s decision not to award him £700,000 compensation for alleged unfair dismissal.

An employment tribunal said NHS Cumbria was right to dismiss Nigel Woodcock before his 50th birthday to avoid paying £500,000 in enhanced benefits.

Mr Woodcock lost his job as Chief Executive of the North Cumbria Primary Care Trust in a 2006 reorganisation.

Mr Woodcock’s legal team expressed “extreme disappointment” at the ruling.

Mr Woodcock was given a redundancy payout of £225,000, but he claimed he was owed more and was targeted because of his age.

The PCT maintained that his job no longer existed after the reorganisation and that it acted reasonably to save the taxpayer money.

But Mr Woodcock’s solicitor Sarah Lawrence said: “We are extremely disappointed with the decision reached by the tribunal.

“Mr Woodcock had a long and distinguished career with the NHS and feels he has been treated very badly.

“We are currently reviewing the tribunal’s decision in some detail with our client and will undoubtedly be advising Mr Woodcock to appeal against the tribunal’s findings to the employment appeal tribunal.

“On that basis we are unable to comment further.”

Sue Page, Chief Executive of NHS Cumbria, told the tribunal hearing in Carlisle that she had taken her decision in order to save the taxpayer more than £500,000 which would have been due to Mr Woodcock once he turned 50.

She admitted she made Mr Woodcock redundant by letter in May 2007, without meeting him first to explain.

BBC News, 17th August, 2009

Susan Pope lost her job as a school nurse after she was arrested for smacking her 10-year-old son.

No criminal charges were brought, but she failed to win her job back at an employment tribunal.

Susan told BBC Radio 5 live’s Richard Bacon about paying the “ultimate price” for disciplining her child.

In May 2007, Susan Pope, from Malvern in Worcestershire, smacked her 10-year old son during a family row.

“We were going through a tremendously difficult time with my eldest son, and tensions in the house were pretty awful,” she says.

“My middle son had picked up on swearing and I warned him that I would smack him if he continued to use revolting language, and that’s what I did.”

Her elder son, who was 15, then called the police, who came to the family home, in what Susan likens to a “raid”.

She told BBC Radio 5 live: “They came and had a look round and went away, and then social services became involved”.

Susan and her husband, who had also administered smacks to their children in the past, were arrested a few days later for “child abuse”, and Susan spent a night in the cells.

She told Richard Bacon that she was upset at how the police responded to her eldest son’s call, although she said she accepted that the police should follow up on cases of suspected abuse:

“I feel horrified that what goes on in your own home in this sort of minor problem that lots of families have, horrified that the police and social services can just invade your life, and that they’ve got a lot to answer for.”

No charges were brought, but Susan, 46, was later dismissed in January 2008 by her employer, Malvern St James School, where she worked as a nurse.

The school said it sacked Susan because her children had been placed on the Child Protection Register, and it was reluctant to allow unsupervised contact with pupils who might be vulnerable.

Susan told the BBC she believes her dismissal was unwarranted.

“The school stuck the knife in and decided to terminate my employment by sacking me, knowing that there were no criminal issues to answer to”, she said.

An employment tribunal upheld the school’s decision, but Susan feels aggrieved that she lost her job when a colleague at the school had retained their post despite having a criminal conviction.

“That’s why I was taking them for unfair dismissal, because they were treating one person very different than another, and one person had a criminal record and I didn’t and I haven’t. And I thought that that was very unfair really, and I would have also expected my employer to support me.”

Susan lost the tribunal earlier this month.

She says she has pursued a complaint against social services, and her solicitor is currently pursuing a complaint against West Mercia police, the force which arrested her.

“I just don’t think the whole thing was handled properly at all.

“We would have been more than willing to voluntarily speak to the police – they didn’t have to arrest us and lock us up in a cell.”

Susan, who is now working as a lingerie salesperson, says she remains upset with her son for involving the police and finds it difficult to put the experience behind her:
“Daily life has to go on, really, so you can’t keep running over old ground, but, deep in my heart, it’s something that will live with me forever.”

She told BBC Radio 5 live that it was “difficult” to say whether it was right to smack her son: “Like many, many parents, there comes a time when ‘no’ isn’t enough. It (smacking) is not against the law, and many people do smack their children as a last resort, so I did what I did, and I’ve paid the ultimate price for it.”

Rosalind Hayes, Headmistress of Malvern St James School, issued a statement saying: “The principal priority for the school has always been the welfare of its pupils and at no time has this been compromised.

“The tribunal has accepted that at all times the school sought, and heeded, advice from experts in the field of child protection and acted in accordance with the policies and procedures set out in the Government’s Safeguarding Children directives.

“The unanimous decision of the employment tribunal to dismiss the case against Malvern St James is welcomed and Malvern St James will continue to follow best-practice in matters of child welfare.”

BBC News, 19th August, 2009

A black Magistrate who claimed her promotion was blocked after reporting hostile treatment of black defendants was victimised, a tribunal ruled.

Iris Josiah, from Palmers Green, North London, was unfairly treated after complaining of racial discrimination, an employment tribunal found.

But the panel, sitting in Stratford, East London, rejected claims that she suffered “direct race discrimination”.

Miss Josiah can now pursue damages following the ruling.

During the tribunal she alleged she witnessed the “hostile treatment of black defendants by some fellow Magistrates”.

This included “harsh remarks, severe sentencing, disregard for personal mitigation, easy findings of guilt, and most likely to be sentenced to prison”, the tribunal heard.

After making the complaint, Miss Josiah was suspended from sitting as a Magistrate, removed from a part-heard case and told that she would be able to resume her role if she withdrew her allegations.

Following a decision to re-instate her, it was a further four months before she next sat.

The panel decided these actions amounted to “less favourable treatment” and upheld Miss Josiah’s complaints of “race discrimination victimisation”.

But in its ruling, the panel added: “The claimant was less favourably treated in these respects because of her complaint of race discrimination and her subsequent proceedings, not because of her race.”

BBC News, 21 August, 2009

A disabled woman from North-West London has won her employment tribunal against clothing giant Abercrombie and Fitch.

Riam Dean, 22, who has a prosthetic arm, claimed she was “diminished” for not fitting the “look policy” at the Savile Row store in Central London.

A central London tribunal awarded Miss Dean £8,000 for unlawful harassment and ruled that Abercrombie and Fitch failed to comply with employment law.

But the tribunal found Miss Dean did not suffer disability discrimination. Miss Dean, who has just finished exams at Queen Mary University in East London, had claimed she was made to work in the stockroom for not fitting the brand’s “all-American” image.

The tribunal heard she resigned from the store following the spat and was left “distraught”.

Abercrombie and Fitch (A&F) maintained throughout the hearing that it valued inclusiveness.

But the tribunal upheld Miss Dean’s claim that she had been unlawfully harassed for a reason relating to her disability.

The judge found that A&F’s handling of the row had failed to comply with employment law.

The tribunal surmised that Miss Dean, from Greenford, was wrongly dismissed. But her claim of direct disability discrimination was described as “not well founded”.

Miss Dean was awarded £136 basic compensation and £1,077 for loss of earnings.

The panel, which accepted she felt “humiliated” and experienced a “loss of confidence” following the dispute, also awarded her £6,800 for hurt feelings.

Miss Dean, who was forced to work in the stockroom after wearing a cardigan to cover her prosthetic arm, had originally sued the company for up to £20,000.

The ruling stated: “The tribunal is satisfied the reason for the claimant’s dismissal was her breach of the look policy in wearing a cardigan.

“Whilst the tribunal is satisfied the claimant’s dismissal was a consequence of her unlawful harassment, it can not be characterised direct disability discrimination.”

Solicitor Steve Beverley, who represented Miss Dean at the tribunal, said: “I’m delighted for Riam who showed great courage – not only in bringing this case against a huge multi-national company, but in facing a challenging cross examination.

“It is all very well having glossy staff handbooks dealing with discrimination procedures – but you must actually apply them.”

In a statement, counsel for A&F David Cupps, said the findings of the Tribunal were based “on the events of a single day” and that these “were not at all representative of Ms Dean’s overall employment with A&F”.

“We continue to believe that these events resulted from a misunderstanding that could have been avoided by better communication on the part of both parties,” said Mr Cupps who added that the company continued to support the rights of disabled individuals.

BBC News, 13 August, 2009