<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<copyright>Copyright &#169; 2012 Bethan Jones</copyright>
<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 08:12:25 +0000</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 08:12:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/</docs>
<description>Lanyon Bowlder Solicitors blog.</description>
<link>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/</link>
<title>Lanyon bowdler Blog feed</title>

<managingEditor>info@lblaw.co.uk (Lanyon Bowdler)</managingEditor>
<webMaster>Bethan Jones</webMaster>
<generator>Bethan Jones</generator>
<language>en</language>
<category>Legal</category>
<ttl>1440</ttl>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Increase to Unfair Dismissal Qualifying Period]]></title>
<link>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/increase-to-unfair-dismissal-qualifying-period-336/</link>
<description><![CDATA[
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, announced at the Conservative Party conference that the unfair dismissal qualifying period will rise from one year to two years, with effect from 6 April 2012. This announcement will be a welcome one for employers. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) issued a press release the same day setting out the governments estimates that the proposed changes will save businesses 6 million per year and also result in the number of unfair dismissal claims dropping by 2,000 per year. However, employers should not presume they are completely safe from potential claims in the first year or, from 6 April 2012, the second year, of an employees employment. Claims for discrimination, for example, do not require a minimum qualifying period and so, whilst the number of unfair dismissal claims should reduce, this may result in an increase in the number of discrimination claims, with employees trying to rely on discrimination arguments in the absence of a possible remedy for unfair dismissal. There are also circumstances where a dismissal is automatically unfair even where an employee has not completed a minimum period of service (e.g. where dismissal is because the employee is pregnant). Employers should also ensure that their disciplinary procedures are expressed to be non-contractual (save for provisions relating to the implementation of penalties short of dismissal, other than warnings, such as suspension, demotion, transfer of duties or loss of pay), or otherwise correctly apply any such procedures even when dismissing an employee who does not have unfair dismissal protection, as a failure to follow such procedures may give rise to a claim by the dismissed employee for breach of contract.Finally, employers should be wary of dismissing an employee, without notice or on less than the statutory minimum one weeks notice where that employee is in the 51st, or, after 6 April 2012, the 103rd, week of their employment, as, in the absence of gross misconduct or some other fundamental breach of contract, the effective date of termination will then be extended to the date that the employee's statutory minimum notice would have expired, meaning that the employee will qualify for unfair dismissal protection. However, this principle does not apply in respect of contractual notice periods which are longer than the statutory minimum, e.g. an employee who has been employed for 49 weeks and is contractually entitled to a months notice, but is dismissed without notice, will not qualify for unfair dismissal protection, despite the fact that had he been given proper notice he would have been employed for over a year. He would, however, be entitled to a payment in respect of notice  which could be tax-free, depending on the circumstances. Also, in such circumstances the employer might invalidate post-termination restrictions in the contract of employment.  Whilst the decision to extend the qualifying period is a welcome one for employers, advice should still be sought before dismissing an employee with less than the qualifying period of service to ensure there are no other issues which could give rise to a potential claim and that the employees notice entitlement is dealt with in the way which best suits the employer.If you would like any advice relating to this topic, contact me on 01952 291222 or email bethan.jones@lblaw.co.uk.  
]]></description>
<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:06:51 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/increase-to-unfair-dismissal-qualifying-period-336/</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Bribery Act 2010 - Employers Need to Take Action]]></title>
<link>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/bribery-act-2010-employers-need-to-take-action-327/</link>
<description><![CDATA[
On 1 July 2011 the Bribery Act 2010 came into force. The Act extends the crime of bribery to cover all private sector transactions, as previously only bribery involving public officials and agents were offences, the Act has created a new strict liability offence where commercial organisations have failed to prevent bribery where a bribe has been paid, or received, by an employee, agent and/or other persons connected with an organisation.The potential consequences for failing to comply with the Act include unlimited fines for companies and individuals, as well as prison sentences of up to 10 years for the latter. However, provided a commercial organisation can show that adequate procedures have been put in place to prevent bribery, this will provide a defence where an employee, agent or other person connected with an organisation has committed an offence under the Act. Therefore, businesses would be well advised to ensure such adequate procedures are in place.The Ministry of Justice has published guidance on what an adequate procedure may involve. Businesses should conduct a risk assessment in order to establish the extent of their exposure to bribery, as the extent of the procedures, that will be considered to be adequate, will depend upon the extent of the exposure. For example, organisations that are involved in dealings with foreign countries, where there are known to be high levels of corruption, will need to ensure they have particularly stringent procedures in place. Transparency International has published an index which details the levels of corruption in each country. Countries scoring the highest include Iraq, Somalia, Sudan and Afghanistan, with Italy and Greece scoring the highest out of the EU countries, although all countries in the world have been noted to have some level of corruption. Similarly, organisations that are involved in complex projects which include a number of different contractors, such as in the construction industry, will need to have detailed anti-bribery procedures. However, organisations that do not fall within the high risk categories should not presume they are not at risk, and therefore no procedures at all are required. We have recently conducted seminars on the Act and an example of bribery that is allegedly not uncommon is for persons in the funeral industry to pay individuals within care homes for information relating to the death of residents within the home, so funeral directors can secure work. Such a practice would be an offence under the Act, and this is a useful example of an industry that, although seemingly low-risk, could still fall foul of the Act.Recommended steps include that businesses shall introduce anti-bribery policies into the workplace, and incorporate anti-bribery provisions into terms of business and any other contracts with third parties. It may be appropriate, when introducing an anti-bribery policy or related terms, and thereafter from time to time, to provide training to staff to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the Act, and the implications of any breach of it. An anti-bribery officer should also be appointed, who should be either someone at board level or a senior employee reporting to the board. Lanyon Bowdler provide advice and assistance with conducting risk assessments and/or formulating and implementing adequate procedures in respect of the Bribery Act. We are able to provide commercial organisations with an anti-bribery policy, together with guidance on the same, for a fixed fee of 100 plus VAT, and half-day training sessions on the Act for employees at a cost of 500 plus VAT. Please contact Bethan Jones on 01952 291222 or email bethan.jones@lblaw.co.uk for more information. 
]]></description>
<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:15:13 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/bribery-act-2010-employers-need-to-take-action-327/</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Supreme Court Update on Establishing Employment Status]]></title>
<link>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/supreme-court-update-on-establishing-employment-status-314/</link>
<description><![CDATA[
The Supreme Court has recently given its judgment in a case that provides an important reminder for businesses who contract  or at least purport to contract  with individuals on a self-employed basis, as opposed to on an employed basis.  Although this case involved car valeters, the principles apply to all individuals and sectors. 
      The valeters were engaged under contracts with a company called Autoclenz Limited which referred to them as sub-contractors.  The contracts also stipulated that the valeters could send substitutes to do their work, there was no obligation on the valeters to provide their services, there was no obligation on Autoclenz to provide work and that the valeters confirmed that they were not employees of Autoclenz. 
            The employment tribunal held that the valeters were employees and, following a series of appeals, the case ended up in the Supreme Court  which also determined that the valeters were employees. 
                  The Supreme Court held that contracts did not reflect the true agreement between the parties and that the reality was that there was no right of substitution, there was mutuality of obligation in relation to the provision and carrying out of work and that the valeters would be paid for that work at rates determined by Autoclenz. The question courts and tribunals should ask in such cases is: what was the true agreement between the parties?  The answer may not necessarily be found in any written agreement. 
                        Businesses looking to engage consultants/sub-contractors should take care to ensure that there is a written agreement which is carefully drafted to minimise scope for finding that the consultant/sub-contractor is in fact an employee, whilst also reflecting the reality of what the relationship is.  This not only affects what employment rights the consultant/sub-contractor has, but also is likely to affect how HMRC views the relationship.  Businesses should seek legal advice should there be any doubts about the employment status of their relationship with a consultant/sub-contractor as it can be a costly lesson if they later discover that there is in fact a contract of employment. 
                              HMRC can claim from businesses unpaid employers national insurance and, to the extent an individual has not accounted for the correct amounts, personal national insurance contributions and income tax, going back up to 6 years  plus interest and penalties  where they find that an individual has been treated as self-employed, when they were in fact an employee.  Businesses can, to an extent, protect themselves when dealing with contractors by including tax indemnities in the terms of the contract. 
                                    Businesses who deal with contractors should also remember that, whilst certain terms are implied into employment contracts, such as in respect of the employees duties regarding confidential information, good faith and also that any intellectual property created by the employee in the performance of his duties will belong to the employer, the same does not apply in the case of contractors and provisions should be included in written agreements to address these points. 
                                           
                                     
                               
                         
                   
             
       
 
 

     
 
 

     
 
 ]]></description>
<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 13:27:04 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/supreme-court-update-on-establishing-employment-status-314/</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Employee Entitled to 3 Months Notice Despite Employer Making Ex-gratia Payment]]></title>
<link>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/employee-entitled-to-3-months-notice-despite-employer-making-ex-gratia-payment-313/</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Payments made purely in connection with the termination of employment will be free of national insurance and, to the extent that they do not exceed 30,000.00, also free of income tax.  However, notice pay and payments in lieu of notice paid in accordance with terms and conditions of employment are contractual payments and therefore subject to tax and national insurance.  For this reason, some employers choose to dismiss employees without notice, thereby in breach of contract, and pay them damages equal to the net pay that they would have earned had they worked their notice.  Dealt with properly, no tax or national insurance (including employees national insurance) is payable in these circumstances, and this can produce substantial savings for the employer.
Publicis Consultants UK Ltd intended to adopt this approach when dismissing its employee, Ms OFarrell, by reason of redundancy.  Ms OFarrell, who was entitled to three months notice, was dismissed with just four days notice.  Publicis notified Ms OFarrell in writing that she would be paid (i) an ex-gratia payment equal to three months salary; (ii) a statutory redundancy payment; and (iii) in respect of accrued but untaken holiday.  Payments (i) and (ii) were confirmed to be free of tax and national insurance deductions. 
Ms OFarrell submitted claims to an employment tribunal that the Company had committed a breach of contract by failing to pay her her three months notice pay.  The employment tribunal upheld her claims and the Company appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, arguing that the ex-gratia payment amounted to damages in respect of Ms OFarrells dismissal without proper notice.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that, on a correct construction of the letter confirming the payments, the payment was truly ex-gratia, i.e. a gift and the Claimant was contractually entitled to an additional amount equal to three months notice pay. 
Employers seeking to dismiss in breach of contract would be well advised to make it clear in a letter outlining a severance payment, that such a payment is inclusive of damages for dismissal without notice.  Further, if the employer is contractually entitled to make a payment in lieu of notice, the letter should make it clear that it has elected not to exercise its right, and is dismissing in breach of contract in order to prevent any later claim by the Revenue for tax, national insurance, interest and penalties on the amount paid.  It may be prudent to make any enhanced severance payment conditional upon the employee entering into a compromise agreement, which would not only clarify the nature of the payment, but also  if properly drafted - compromise any claims the employee might have, including a claim for notice pay. 
An important point worth noting is that a breach of contract will invalidate any post-termination restrictive covenants and confidentiality provisions in place.  Therefore, if an employee is considered to be a commercial threat, employers should not dismiss employees to whom such post-termination obligations would apply without notice in breach of contract, unless the employee has entered into a compromise agreement which repeats the provisions and confirms that they will remain in force notwithstanding the fact that the employment has terminated.
Employers are encouraged to take advice from a specialist employment lawyer before any dismissal in order to avoid potentially significant liabilities in connection with breach of contract, unfair dismissal and/or unlawful discrimination and to ensure that the most suitable method of termination is applied.  We often find that the tax savings which result from our advice in connection with a dismissal will exceed  sometimes by a considerable margin  the cost of the actual advice.


     
 
 
 ]]></description>
<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:28:07 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/employee-entitled-to-3-months-notice-despite-employer-making-ex-gratia-payment-313/</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Employees Not Employers May Have to Pay Compensation for Discrimination]]></title>
<link>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/employees-not-employers-may-have-to-pay-compensation-for-discrimination-300/</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Where an employee has suffered discrimination or harassment at the hands of another employee, which is done in the course of the discriminating employees employment, the employer of the discriminating employee will be vicariously liable for his acts, unless the employer can demonstrate that it took all reasonable steps to prevent the him from committing the discriminatory act(s) complained of or any other discriminatory acts of that description. 
Claims for discrimination and/or harassment, which include acts committed by an employee, can be brought against the employer and also the employee who committed the discriminatory act. If an employees act has led to an employer being found to be in breach of the discrimination legislation, that employee could also be found to be personally liable for the discriminatory acts if he knowingly aided the unlawful act. For acts of discrimination after 1 October 2010 (when the Equality Act 2010 came into force), it does not matter whether the employee knew he was aiding the unlawful act, unless that employee committed a discriminatory act but reasonably relied on a statement by their employer that it did not contravene the Equality Act 2010. 
Where both the employee and employer are found to be liable, the tribunals have sometimes, in the past, apportioned any compensation payable between them, quite often with the bulk of the liability being apportioned to the employer, on the basis that it is more likely to be able to pay. Unlike in unfair dismissal claims, there is no cap on the level of compensation that can be awarded for discrimination claims.
However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that tribunals do not have the power to apportion awards of compensation and generally should not do so unless there is clear evidence that distinguishes the damage caused by each of the discriminators, in which case each discriminator will only be held liable for that part of the damage which is attributable to each of them. There is also nothing to preclude the discriminators apportioning any compensation between themselves.
Therefore, an employee who succeeds in a claim for discrimination and/or harassment, and is awarded compensation for which two or more parties are held to be jointly and severally liable, will be able to enforce the whole of the award against any one of the discriminators, for example the employer. A disgruntled employer may seek to recover all or part of the compensation from any employees for whom it is vicariously liable. Alternatively, where the employer does not pay or is insolvent, meaning the award cannot be enforced against it, a claimant could pursue the other employee who was jointly liable with the employer.
This case will provide an incentive for claimants to join in employees as respondents to a discrimination claim to apply more pressure to settle, as the prospect of potentially being liable for the whole award of compensation would be a frightening thought for any employee.]]></description>
<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:27:18 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/employees-not-employers-may-have-to-pay-compensation-for-discrimination-300/</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Employment Law Update - Notice Periods &amp; Effective Date of Termination]]></title>
<link>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/employment-law-update-notice-periods-effective-date-of-termination-289/</link>
<description><![CDATA[
Employees who wish to bring a claim for unfair dismissal, and certain other employment-related claims, must submit their claim to an employment tribunal within 3 months of the effective date of termination. This time period will be extended only in limited circumstances, so it is critical to understand when the 3 month period begins.Where an employees employment is terminated with notice, the effective date of termination is the date on which the notice expires. The period of 3 months within which an employee must submit a claim to the employment tribunal includes the effective date of termination itself (e.g. if a period of notice expired on 9 May 2011, any claim for unfair dismissal must be submitted no later than 8 June 2011).The Employment Appeal Tribunal has recently clarified what the effective date of termination is where the employment is terminated on notice. Dr Wang was given 3 months notice of dismissal by his employer, the University of Keele, by a letter that was emailed to and read by Dr Wang on 3 November 2008. Dr Wang, having sought legal advice and believing the effective date of termination to be 3 February 2009, submitted a claim to the employment tribunal on 2 May 2009, in the belief that this was the last day of the 3 month period for submission.The University argued that, upon the ordinary construction of the letter, as notice of dismissal was given and received on 3 November 2008, the 3 month notice period expired on 2 February 2009 and therefore the last day Dr Wang could submit his claim was 1 May 2009, meaning he had lodged his claim out of time. The employment tribunal upheld this and so Dr Wang appealed.The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that notice did not start to run until 4 November 2008. It also held that notice can only have immediate effect if the employees contract of employment provides it should do so. Therefore, Dr Wangs notice did not expire until 3 February 2009 and so his claim had been submitted in time, and the employment tribunal had jurisdiction to hear it.Employees should, wherever possible, submit tribunal claims well within the applicable limitation periods to avoid any possible complications with claims being brought in time, not only because of possible confusion over when the limitation period ends, but also in case there is an error in the claim form or, depending on how the claim is sought to be delivered, a postal delay or glitch with an email or fax. Employers may wish to review the notice provisions in their contract of employments in light of this decision. They should also take note of this decision when deciding to dismiss with notice an employee who has less than a years continuous service (meaning they do not usually have unfair dismissal protection) to ensure that notice of dismissal is served early enough to prevent the effective date of termination being over 12 months from the date the employee commenced employment, leaving them at risk of a potential unfair dismissal claim. Employers should also note that, in the absence of a fundamental breach of contract, attempts to terminate a contract of employment on short notice will be unsuccessful, as the statutory minimum notice period will always be treated as added onto any continuous service. 
]]></description>
<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 10:21:14 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/employment-law-update-notice-periods-effective-date-of-termination-289/</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Time off Work During World Cup 2010]]></title>
<link>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/time-off-work-during-world-cup-2010-213/</link>
<description><![CDATA[One week into the World Cup and Englands right of passage to the next round hangs by a thread. With the teams all-deciding final group game to take place on Wednesday, there is a potential headache for employers in balancing the advantages a feel-good factor that progress in the competition could bring to the workforce against the disadvantages of trying to ensure that their business does not suffer during this time.The Chartered Management Institute recently published the results of a survey conducted in May 2010 on the impact the tournament will have on businesses. When managers were asked what impact major sporting events have on the workplace, the most popular responses were:44% - boost in morale39% - impact of distractions on productivity36% - improvement in relationships within the organisation.It is interesting therefore that, despite boost in morale being the most common response, the survey also found that only 14% of managers reported that their organisations are making provisions for staff to watch games at work, 13% are allowing staff to work flexibly around the games and 6% are planning a team event around important games. Perhaps the most worrying thing to come out of the survey was that managers expected an average of 2.35 hours of productivity to be lost, per employee, over the course of the tournament. Bearing all this in mind, employers need to make sure they have a plan in place to deal with requests for time off and how to minimise the risk of employees taking unauthorised time off to watch, or recover from imbibing during, the games.Employers may be well advised to agree a plan to enable staff, where possible, to watch matches, where employees do not wish to take annual leave. This should be expected not only to boost morale, but also reduce the likelihood of employees calling in sick or taking unauthorised absence. If arrangements are to be made, a policy should be circulated stipulating what these are. Suggested arrangements include allowing employees to work flexibly (for example allowing them to leave early provided they make the time up) or allowing staff to watch the television or listen to the radio at work during short regular breaks. Consideration should be given prior to the circulation of any policy that not all employees are football fans. It may be that staff members would prefer to have time off for sporting events such as Wimbledon, which starts this week, or that they would otherwise like to work flexibly for non-sports related reasons. The answer might be that the concessions are a gesture of goodwill to mark the World Cup, which is very popular, but comes around only every four years  but employers should be prepared to answer such questions if they are raised and it does not wish to extend its measures to other circumstances.If such a policy is adopted, it should make clear that any arrangements made are entirely at the organisations discretion and any abuse will result in the privilege being withdrawn. In addition the employer should always remind employees that the needs of the business do come first and that, while it will try and accommodate employees wishes, there may be times where this is not possible. Employers should also make sure they have a TV licence in place if employees will be watching the matches at work, as highlighted in a previous blog entry - World Cup TV Licensing Headache for Employers which was posted on 1 June 2010.It may also be sensible to make clear that, in the absence of an alcohol and drugs policy already being in place, employees are not to consume alcohol or drugs at work or return to work following such consumption, and breach of this will result in disciplinary action being taken. If an alcohol and drugs policy is in place, employees should be reminded of its existence and the consequences of any breach of it. Finally, it is important to remember that there may be employees of different nationalities who want to watch their own teams matches. Any policy must apply equally to those employees in respect of games involving their home nations if race discrimination claims are not to be risked. Regardless of whether any of the steps suggested above are implemented, if employees are taking unauthorised absence when games are on or the day after a game, or during or after games not stipulated in the policy if one is in place, the starting point for any employer is to conduct a reasonable investigation. As in any case where an employee is suspected of lying, unless the employer can show it had reasonable grounds to suspect that the employee was lying, an accusation by an employer that an employee is lying may amount to a fundamental breach of contract enabling an employee to resign and bring claims based on constructive dismissal. If an employer has reasonable grounds for suspicion then it should utilise the organisations disciplinary procedure and ensure it is followed fairly, particularly where an employee has over one years continuous service, and so has protection against unfair dismissal. This can often be a particularly difficult issue for employers and so they are advised to contact Lanyon Bowdlers Employment department for further advice should such a situation arise. ]]></description>
<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:34:26 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/time-off-work-during-world-cup-2010-213/</guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Workplace Bullying]]></title>
<link>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/workplace-bullying-178/</link>
<description><![CDATA[The allegations that have emerged in the past week regarding treatment of staff at No 10 Downing Street have brought workplace bullying and harassment into the spotlight. These allegations have been strenuously denied by the Prime Minister and his aides, who say that Mr Brown is not a bully but a hard task-master who sometimes gets angry and impatient. The accusations raise the questions of what constitutes bullying in the workplace and what employers and employees should do if such complaints are made and to avoid it happening in the future.Bullying is offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour which, through the abuse or misuse of power, makes the recipient feel vulnerable, upset, humiliated and/or threatened. It can be physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct and can undermine an individuals self-confidence, competence and self-esteem. Harassment is any unwanted physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct which has the purpose or effect of violating the recipients dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them. Bullying and harassment can cause huge problems in the workplace. For employees, it can affect their ability to do their job properly. It may lead to feelings of job insecurity, illness, absence from work and even resignation. For employers, in addition to the effects on workforce morale and productivity, such conduct may result in a claim for discrimination if the subject of the treatment alleges that a reason for it relates to gender, sexual orientation, marital or civil partner status, gender reassignment, race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin, religion or belief, disability or age. In addition, a failure to deal with a complaint of bullying or harassment may lead to an employee resigning and bringing a claim for constructive unfair dismissal on the basis that the employer has breached the implied contractual duty of mutual trust and confidence. Employers may also be liable for workplace personal injuries or, if there is a course of conduct amounting to harassment, under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (although such claims are very difficult to bring in practice). ACAS have recommended the following five steps for employers to take to minimise and control bullying and harassment at work:-(1)    Implement a formal bullying and harassment policy (if one is not already in place) and review it periodically. This does not need to be lengthy or elaborate but should include matters such as a statement of commitment that bullying and harassment is unlawful and will not be tolerated; and reference to the employers grievance procedure, investigation procedures and timescales for action. It may also be useful to include examples of bullying (such as ridiculing, shouting, physical threats, inappropriate remarks) and harassment (such as unwanted physical conduct, unwelcome sexual behaviour or suggestions, or offensive or intimidating comments). The policy should also make it clear that bullying and harassment of staff by visitors to the organisation will also not be tolerated, as well as by staff both in the workplace and at social events or functions organised by the employer.(2)    Set a good example. Encourage employees to discuss any problems they have and ensure senior staff members behave appropriately.(3)    Maintain fair procedures for dealing promptly with complaints from employees. Complaints will usually be dealt with using the employers grievance procedure and, as regards action against those who have behaved inappropriately, disciplinary procedures. (4)    Set standards of behaviour. For example, publish an organisational statement about the standards of behaviour that are expected so that staff are fully aware of their responsibilities to others and what behaviour is unacceptable.(5)    Let employees know that complaints of bullying and/or harassment or information from staff relating to such complaints will be dealt with fairly, confidentially and sensitively.If a complaint is made, it should be investigated fully and objectively, and as soon as is reasonably practicable. Until the matter has been resolved, it may be appropriate to suspend the employee who is the subject of the allegations on full pay. However, such a course of action should not be taken lightly as it can, in certain circumstances, breach the contract of employment with that employee in terms of the implied duty of trust and confidence, which may lead to a possible claim for constructive unfair dismissal. It may be more appropriate to deal with the matter informally at first. However, if the complaint is too serious to be dealt with informally, or has not been resolved, then a formal grievance process should be implemented. The appropriate course of action against somebody responsible for bullying or harassment will vary depending on the circumstances but may involve training or counselling or, after an appropriate disciplinary procedure, written warnings, suspension or a transfer of the offending person to a different site or office, or dismissal. It should be a disciplinary issue if an employee makes an unfounded complaint for malicious reasons.Employers should take advice in connection with dealing with complaints in order to ensure that they discharge their obligations to complainants whilst, at the same time, acting in accordance with the employment rights of those subject to allegations. Employees who feel they are being bullied or harassed should consult their employers anti-bullying policies and/or grievance procedures and try to collate evidence to support their complaint. Employees who believe their complaints are not being investigated properly or resolved adequately, or who otherwise seek compensation for the way they have been treated, should consider taking advice on their legal rights themselves. For more information contact Bethan on 01952 211028 or email her at bethan.jones@lblaw.co.uk]]></description>
<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:46:57 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://blog.lblaw.co.uk/workplace-bullying-178/</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- Page generated in 0.102765 seconds peaking at 4,137,032B of memory -->
