Levy & McRae were engaged by Sir David Murray in obtaining an appropriate and prompt apology from the Daily Telegraph after they wrongly reported the circumstances of him ceasing to be Chairman of Rangers FC. The apology published was…

Sir David Murray and Rangers Football Club

“Walter Smith: I nearly got the sack in February” (9 December). Published: 10:30PM GMT 11 Dec 2009

Our report “Walter Smith: I nearly got the sack in February” (9 December) wrongly reported that Sir David Murray was “forced to step down as Chairman of Rangers Football Club when Lloyds Bank began to exert pressure”.

As we reported in October, Lloyds Bank made clear in its statement that Sir David’s decision to step down was a personal one and not at the behest of the bank. It is well known that Sir David had planned to step down for some time and did so for entirely personal and business related reasons. We are pleased to set the record straight and sincerely apologise to Sir David for any embarrassment or annoyance caused.

The EAT (Underhill P) has handed down its decision in ABN Amro v Hogben, which is authority for the proposition that:-

• where an application is made to strike out a claim for age discrimination on the grounds that it has no reasonable prospects of success, in refusing that application the tribunal is wrong to attach any weight to the possibility that evidence in support of the age discrimination claim may be adduced through cross-examination of witnesses at the substantive hearing, where there is no material before the tribunal to support that possibility.
• where an employer introduces a change from one substantive PCP, to another substantive PCP, and the employees to whom the earlier PCP applied have a different age profile from those dealt with under the new PCP, the change itself cannot be described as constituting a PCP.
• (Expressed as obiter) where the claimant makes a complaint that a redundancy scheme discriminates against younger employees, what has to be justified by the employer is the feature of the scheme which impacts on the claimant. If that feature can be justified the fact that the scheme has other features which may discriminate against other age groups is immaterial unless the employer attempts to justify the scheme by relying on those other features. In those circumstances whether or not those other features are discriminatory may become relevant.

The practice of offering an enhanced redundancy payment in return for an agreement not to pursue any age discrimination claim did not place persons of the same age group as the claimant at a particular disadvantage when compared with other persons. The practice affected all dismissed employees in the same way. Even if a discriminatory impact could be made out the practice would be plainly justified because employers have a legitimate interest in achieving finality as regards all issues arising out the dismissal and the practice was a proportionate means of achieving that aim.

Daniel Barnett, www.danielbarnett.co.uk, 24th November 2009.

A police employee who claimed he was sacked because he thought psychics could solve crimes was not a victim of discrimination, a tribunal ruled.

Alan Power, 62, from Merseyside, had accused Greater Manchester Police (GMP) of forcing him out of his job in 2008 because of his spiritual beliefs.

Despite winning a ruling that his views should be seen as a faith, the tribunal said GMP did not dismiss him unfairly.

“We welcome all races and religions,” a police spokesman said.

During the tribunal in Manchester it was claimed a number of reasons were behind him being sacked.

The tribunal heard the police law trainer, described as a ‘ghostbuster’, was playing the part of an arrested shoplifter during a session at Bruche police training college, near Warrington, in 2004.

But he became visibly aroused during the frisking process.

A sergeant from Merseyside Police who witnessed the scene vowed never to use him again, and Cheshire Constabulary made the same decision because of his “inappropriate behaviour”, the tribunal heard.

The information only came to light in October 2008 after Mr Power, who denied the allegations, secured a job as a specialist trainer and a co-ordinator with GMP.

He was sacked three weeks later, with the force citing his “current work in the psychic field” as a reason.

It was also alleged Mr Power, who claimed to have seen ghosts since childhood, had distributed inappropriate research materials to Merseyside officers featuring the World Trade Center attacks.

Assistant Chief Officer Julia Rogers said: “GMP notes and fully supports the judge’s ruling.

“This matter has never been about Mr Power’s beliefs and we vehemently deny any claim he was discriminated against on those or any other grounds.

“GMP welcomes all races and religions and employs and actively recruits people with diverse beliefs and from many different ethnic backgrounds.”

In an earlier hearing, the employment tribunal said his psychic beliefs fell under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.

Greater Manchester Police Authority had claimed his beliefs did not amount to religious views.

www.bbc.co.uk, Tuesday, 24 November, 2009.

Up to 200 prison officers at Liverpool Prison have begun an unofficial strike.

They walked out at about 1400 GMT for talks outside to discuss grievances with prison bosses and the Government.

The Prison Officers’ Association (POA) said the dispute was over “bullying and harassment” of staff after one of its members went to an employment tribunal.

The Prison Service said the action was “unlawful”. Officers left the site in the evening and are due to continue with the strike on Wednesday.

Prisoners were notified of a ‘disruption to regime’ by notices, signed on behalf of the prison’s governor Alan Brown.

It is understood that staff who were already booked for duty continued to work during the walkout.

One inmate, known only as Gaz, told BBC News that the prison had been in lockdown since about 1130 BST.

In a call to BBC Radio Merseyside, he said: “The screws [slang for prison officers] can’t handle it, so they have gone on strike and we have been locked in.

“It’s an absolute nightmare in here at the moment. There isn’t a prison officer in sight.”

A Prison Service spokesman said the action related to an “ongoing investigation into an allegation within the prison”.

Steve Baines, Prison Officers Association: “We want to get the matter resolved”.

“This is being investigated under the National Offender Management Service’s code of conduct and it is our belief that the actions taken so far by the prison management are appropriate within the circumstances.

“The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (as amended) makes it unlawful to induce prison officers to go on strike or to take other industrial action which could put the safety of the public, prisoners or staff at risk.

The POA said the dispute follows an employment tribunal brought by one of its members against the Prison Service in September.

The POA said both the governor of the prison and a deputy governor were “heavily criticised” by the chairman of the tribunal.

A POA statement said: “Unfortunately, since that time, POA members at HMP Liverpool have been subjected to what they describe as ‘continued bullying and harassment’ by the senior management at the establishment.”

Colin Moses, National Chairman of the POA, called on ministers to intervene.

He said: “We can only hope that Prison Service management will engage in a positive manner to resolve this dispute, rather than, as we have seen on previous occasions when they have resorted to the courts as a first response.”

POA members at Liverpool want an investigation into the actions of Mr Brown and his deputy and an apology from the Prison Service for the “overly dogmatic and unfair treatment” that they say they have had to endure.

The union said it was in talks with Prison Service chief executive Michael Spurr.

Merseyside Police officers said earlier that they were working with the Prison Service to “ensure the prison remains secure”.

“Police officers are policing the peaceful protest currently being carried out by prison officers outside the prison,” a spokesman said.

“Following usual practice, Merseyside Police has implemented contingency plans and will continue to liaise with the Prison Service and representatives of the prison officers throughout the protest.”

www.bbc.co.uk, Tuesday, 17 November, 2009.

The Court of Appeal has handed down its decision in Chaggers v Abbey National, which is authority for the following propositions:

• in a discriminatory dismissal case, it is proper for a tribunal to reduce compensation to reflect the chance that the claimant would have been dismissed lawfully in any event.
• the dismissing employer remains liable for ’stigma loss’, if other employers are unwilling to offer employment because the claimant has previously brought proceedings. This will usually feature in the normal loss of earnings calculation of how long it will be before another job can be found. But in exceptional cases, stigma loss might form the only head of future loss, e.g. where the claimant would definitely have been dismissed in any event. In such cases, an employment tribunal might make an award of future loss for a specific period attributable to the stigma, or a modest lump sum might be more appropriate (similar to a Smith v Manchester award in personal injury cases).
• the level of compensation is in itself capable of being an exceptional circumstance within s31(4) EA 2002 entitling an employment tribunal to reduce the uplift below what would otherwise be the minimum of 10%.

Daniel Barnett, www.danielbarnett.co.uk, 16th November, 2009.

A company boss has been jailed after he admitted forging documents in a bid to influence an employment tribunal.

Jason Robinson, 36, who managed a car hire firm in Falkirk, faked a contract and warning letter after a former receptionist accused him of harassment.

Edinburgh Sheriff Court heard that when Susan Moffat was sacked from the firm, Robinson created the documents to avoid paying her £1,750 compensation.

He was jailed for four months for perverting the course of justice.

Fiscal depute Alexis Armit told the court that while Ms Moffat was employed with Robinsons firm from December 2005 to June 2006, she was paid her wages in cash and had never been given a contract to sign.

However, at an employment tribunal on 9 March, 2007, Robinson produced a contract of employment and a letter of warning he alleged had been signed by Ms Moffat.

Ms Moffat denied seeing the items and later produced copies of her signature which differed from those on the forged documents.

A later tribunal ultimately found in her favour and she was awarded £29,500.

When contacted by police officers about the discrepancy, Robinson made a full admission.

He admitted presenting the false documents and attempting to influence the judgement of the tribunal and pervert the course of justice.

Defence agent Virgil Crawford said his client had taken issue with some of the evidence at the tribunal.

But, he added: “In the course of the proceedings, he realised certain procedures had not been followed by himself and in particular no written contract of employment had been issued by him.

“By the close of business he knew he would have to go into the witness box and he was worried about criminal proceedings.”

Sheriff Isabella McColl said the case was one of the most serious cases of attempting to pervert the course of justice she had seen.

She told Robinson that the system of justice relied on honest evidence and to produce forged documents at an employment tribunal undermined the whole system.

www.bbc.co.uk/news Friday, 13 November 2009.