A former presenter on its Countryfile programme is seeking compensation from the BBC for alleged discrimination on the grounds of age and sex.

Miriam O’Reilly, 52, was one of four women in their 40’s and 50’s told in November 2008 they were being dropped from the rural affairs programme.

She is also claiming victimisation, in papers lodged at the London Central employment tribunal offices.

The BBC said it would be “vigorously defending” the case.

A number of staff, including Juliet Morris and Michaela Strachan, left Countryfile when the programme was moved from Sunday morning to an early evening slot.

Former Watchdog host Julia Bradbury, 36, and Matt Baker, 32, were among the new presenters on the revamped programme.

The show’s male presenters, Ben Fogle and Tom Heap, were also removed. But Heap returned later in a reporting role while Fogle became a presenter on Country Tracks, another nature programme in the old Countryfile timeslot.

Ms O’Reilly’s complaint follows rows over other claims that programming decisions at the BBC have been motivated by age.

In 2007, Director General Mark Thompson denied the BBC’s decision to remove then-58-year-old Moira Stuart from her regular news slot on Sunday AM had been because of her age.

And last year the corporation denied similar accusations after replacing Strictly Come Dancing judge Arlene Phillips, 66, with former winner Alesha Dixon, 30.

The BBC recently announced newsreader Julia Somerville, 63, would be appearing alongside other older women presenters.

Award-winning journalist Ms O’Reilly, who has presented Radio 4 programmes – Farming Today and File on 4, is being represented by solicitors Leigh Day and Company.

The firm said she had also been “held responsible, without foundation” for media stories that had accused the corporation of ageism and sexism and “after 25 years with the BBC, work virtually dried up”.

She is seeking compensation for loss of earnings and for injury to feeling.

A BBC spokeswoman said: “Any suggestion that the presenters of Countryfile were replaced on the grounds of age is absolute nonsense.

“Matt Baker and Julia Bradbury were chosen based on their proven successful track record as presenters and their extensive rural knowledge and keen interest in countryside issues.

“Our programmes always strive to reflect a wide range of diversity as possible to ensure we represent the BBC’s audience.

“Kirsty Wark, Maxine Mawhinney and Martha Kearney regularly feature on BBC television and radio shows as well as presenters including Gloria Hunniford, Jennie Bond, Angela Rippon and Annie Nightingale.”

BBC News, Tuesday, 2 February, 2010

ECJ decision – age discrimination

The ECJ has handed down it’s decision in Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co, following a reference for a preliminary ruling in respect of a German national provision which provided that in calculating an employee’s notice period, all years of service prior to the employee’s 25th birthday are disregarded.

The ECJ held:

• The German legislation contained a difference of treatment on grounds of age.
• It was a legitimate aim to afford employers greater flexibility in personnel management by alleviating the burden on them in respect of the dismissal of young workers, from whom it is reasonable to expect a greater degree of personal or occupational mobility.
• The legislation adopted was not an appropriate means of achieving that aim, as the extension of the notice period was delayed for all employees who joined the undertaking before the age of 25, even those with long service at the date of dismissal.
• The principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age as given expression by the Equal Treatment Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding such legislation.

A national court faced with a national provision which it considers to be incompatible with the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age must decline to apply that provision.

Kathleen Donnelly of Henderson Chambers, 27 January, 2010

The Court of Appeal has overturned the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Alemo-Herron and others v Parkwood Leisure Ltd, restoring the employment tribunal’s original decision in favour of the employer.

The case involved 23 claimants, represented by the Unison trade union, who had been employed by the London Borough of Lewisham’s Leisure Department until 2002, at which time the Department was outsourced to CCL and their employment contracts were TUPE transferred.

There was a further TUPE transfer in 2004 from CCL to Parkwood Leisure.

Because the employees’ employment contracts provided that their terms and conditions were in accordance with collective agreements negotiated by the National Joint Council for Local Government Services (NJC), the question was asked whether Parkwood, was bound by pay increases agreed between the NJC and the trade unions after it had become the employer.

The EAT decision had decided that, if a private sector employer inherited a workforce under TUPE that had had the benefit of trade union negotiated pay rises under a National collective agreement, the new employer could still be bound in the future by future negotiations between the old employer and the trade unions — even though the new employer would not be a party to those negotiations, and would have no input into them whatsoever.

Charles Newman, TUPE expert at Beachcroft LLP, said: “This case will come as a welcome relief for private sector employers who take on outsourced contracts. They will not be bound by future pay increases negotiated after a TUPE transfer by the former public sector employer rather than them.”

He said that many had considered the EAT decision to be a very unfair result from a commercial point of view.

Croner News, 03 February, 2010

New fathers are being given the right to take six months’ paternity leave, despite concerns over its impact on firms in the recession.

Gordon Brown will tell union bosses that the plan will be implemented after Business Secretary Lord Mandelson put it on ice because of the economic crisis.

Around 400,000 men a year will qualify for the right to dramatically extended leave from April 2011.

At the moment, they can only take two weeks off, an offer taken up by 60 per cent of eligible men. By contrast, new mothers can take a year off.

As well as a sop to the unions, the move will be seen as naked electioneering.

Labour strategists believe a raft of extensions to parental leave implemented over the last decade have been hugely popular with young working parents.

Essentially, the reforms mean parents will be able to decide how to divide up a total of 12 months of parental leave between themselves.

A mother going back to work after six months off will be able to transfer the rest of her leave to her partner.

They will be paid the statutory rate of £123.06 a week up to the 39-week cut-off period for women, after which the leave will be unpaid.

Ministers say the move will help smash Britain’s ‘macho’ culture of men working through their children’s early lives.

The announcement will be seized on by critics as evidence that the Government is caving in to pressure from its union paymasters.

The plans have angered bosses, who say extended rights for fathers will be hugely disruptive, particularly for smaller firms.

In one survey, two-thirds of employers said new paternity rights could cause them ’some’ or ’significant’ difficulties.

The British Chambers of Commerce expressed shock that the Government was implementing the plan just as firms were struggling in the downturn.

“We have called for a moratorium on all new employment legislation,” said Director General David Frost.

“There is absolutely no guarantee that businesses are going to be back to full health by 2011. This is going to be an administrative nightmare for businesses.

“It’s going to be a huge diversion for companies when they can least afford it.”

There is particular concern over who will be responsible for policing the system. Government documents suggest new fathers will be allowed to sign themselves off for six months with no eligibility checks by the Government.

They should only be entitled to take the time off only if their wife or partner has gone back to work.

But the fine print of the Government’s plans reveal that no official checks will be made with the mother’s employer, prompting fears that firms could be conned by men whose partners have not really returned to employment.

The documents state: “There may well be a risk of fraud. The financial and time costs in the verification process would be significant and are likely to outweigh the benefit derived.”

Small firms will be able to reclaim 100 per cent of the money they pay to fathers on paternity leave, but larger firms will only get 92 per cent back.

James Chapman, Daily Mail, 15th September, 2009

An ex-police officer who alleged she was bullied because of her “posh” background has lost her claim for unfair dismissal against Surrey Police.

An employment tribunal in Croydon, rejected Alison Wheeler’s claims that her sacking was “sexist and ageist”.

Former opera singer Miss Wheeler, from East Molesey, now a singing teacher, was seeking £350,000 compensation.

Assistant Chief Constable Ian Dyson branded the case as “scurrilous” and said it “cost the force considerably”.

Former public schoolgirl Ms Wheeler gained a diploma from Trinity College of Music in London and worked as a mezzo soprano for 10 years before joining Surrey Police in January 2006.

The tribunal heard that a month before she was due to complete her two-year probationary period she was sacked for cowardice, dishonesty and incompetence.

She lost the confidence of colleagues after she failed to act during an affray in which a fellow officer was punched and kicked to the ground outside a police station.

Police said she did not use her CS spray, exposing herself and members of the public to danger.

Her superiors also said she was often late for duty and failed to take responsibility for some of her assignments.

Officers assessing her said they observed “regular under-performance” and she was dismissed in December 2007.

Mr Dyson said the force made no apologies for dismissing someone who was not suitable to be a police officer.

“Far from discriminating against Ms Wheeler or writing off her potential at the first sign of weakness, we supported her – as we do with all new officers – and created an action plan to help her achieve her goal of becoming a police officer,” he said.

“Despite this, her poor performance continued during her probationary period and she failed to help a colleague who was being attacked and to uphold her duty to the public.”

BBC News, 21 December, 2009

A teacher sacked for spraying young children with air freshener has dropped her fight against unfair dismissal.

Elizabeth Davies of Neath was accused of “humiliating” children aged between three and six who accidentally wet themselves in a Swansea school.

An investigation found she made pupils who had soiled themselves remain in their dirty clothes at Hafod Primary.

But shortly after her hearing at an employment tribunal in Cardiff started she withdrew an unfair dismissal claim.

It was claimed the 49-year-old sprayed pupils with the air freshener and ordered them to stand on newspaper until their parents came to collect them.

Mrs Davies, a nursery school teacher for 20 years, was also found to have made the children wash their hands in pure disinfectant.

The teacher was suspended for 18 months from her post at Hafod Primary School in Swansea over child protection concerns.
She was later sacked so took the school to the employment tribunal.

Mrs Davies, of the Cilfrew area of Neath declined to comment after the case.

Tuesday, 19 January, 2010

The Forum of Private Business (FPB) has called for the shelving of plans to scrap the default retirement age.

The Government has proposed removing an employer’s option to retire workers when they reach 65, claiming the change will prevent an anticipated skills shortage.

But the FPB says, if the move goes ahead, it could prove highly damaging to thousands of small firms.

Currently, there is nothing to stop an employee working on past 65, providing his or her employer agrees to the move.

But the FPB believes this will prove a huge problem for thousands of small firms, hampering their abilities to plan for the future.

FPB Chief Executive Phil Orford said: “I don’t think anyone would dispute the valuable contribution older workers make to the economy. With people living longer and healthier lives, the skills and experience older people can bring to the workplace are widely recognised.

“However, at the moment, there is nothing to stop anyone from working beyond 65, providing it suits both parties. The current law works perfectly well, so why tamper with it?

“By scrapping the default retirement age, all the Government will do is take yet more control away from business owners, add even more complexity to workplace law, and open the door to costly and painful employment tribunal cases.”

The FPB has set out it’s views on the issue in response to a Government consultation process, which closed yesterday (Monday 1 February, 2010).

In it’s response to the consultation the FPB emphasised the need for small firms to be able to plan ahead, especially during times of economic uncertainty.

But the announcement comes as Chris Ball, the Age and Employment Network’s Chief Executive, said: “Mandatory retirement is utterly unnecessary and causes untold damage to Britain’s economy and the lives of people forced out of work when they are most vulnerable.

“Employers are beginning to realise that older workers can make the difference between success and failure. They should be encouraged to welcome older workers, help them stay in work and not to push them out of the door.”

David Woods, 02 February, 2010