From time to time we will tell you about a Birmingham employment law case we have recently dealt with. This is the story of Jason, a factory worker, and his settlement agreement that followed age discrimination.
Jason, 64 years old, was a production controller in a clothing factory.
Jason was in charge of cutting textiles which produced garments and managing the cutting room operations. Over the course of one year, his employer removed parts of his role, accusing him of not doing his job properly (which wasn’t the case). Jason was asked on several occasions whether he was planning to retire. He wasn’t. Instead of retiring, he had planned to reduce his hours to three days a week on reaching 65. the company have stated they were enquiring as they would need to have a sufficient amount of time to employee a replacement.
The employer had said that they were unsure whether this was going to be possible due to lack of work for Jason and they had asked whether he would reduce his hours to two days a week instead. It was implied that if he didn’t agree to working two days a week, an “alternative route” would be followed. He thought that this was an implicit threat to manage him out of the business.
The employer demoted him, told a client he was on his way out and this caused him a lot of anxiety.
Jason put in a flexible working request when he reached 65, declining the offer to work only two days a week. Out of the blue the employer held a ‘settlement meeting’ with him, asking him to leave and take a £3,000 pay-off.
He felt that this may be cause to resign and claim constructive dismissal, but our page on settlement agreements to see why this might not have been the case. But we advised him that because it was linked to his age, it might be an act of age discrimination.
On our advice, Jason raised a grievance complaining about how he had been treated, claiming he had been forced out of work due his employer’s assumptions about what should happen to employees over 65. This is age discrimination. There is no such thing as forced retirement any more. The grievance was heard and Jason was told that an investigation would be carried out. In the meantime, the employer denied his flexible working request.
Jason took legal action and we wrote to the business accusing them of discriminating. The grievance outcome denied all his complaints, which is usual.
Unfortunately, Jason fell at home whilst gardening due to lack of concentration as a result of being filled with worry over his work situation and was unable to work out his notice.
We helped Jason to bring a claim of unfair constructive dismissal, age-related harassment and age-related discrimination and victimisation. We took the claim to a hearing and the other side settled on the day of the trial for £25,000 to cover his loss of income, personal injury and injury to feelings for age discrimination. Ironically, the matter was tied up with a settlement agreement.
By Emma Bonehill
Image used under cc courtesy of Senorhorst JahnsenRead More
From time to time we tell you about a Birmingham employment law case we have recently dealt with. Our other stories are here. This is the story of Harry, his heart condition and his disciplinary.
We helped Harry to get his employer to remove a first written warning following a disciplinary meeting.
Harry works for a construction company and has over three years’ service. Harry also has a heart condition which he disclosed to his employer at the start of his employment. He is a forklift driver.
One day, Harry was having chest pains and suffering from a shortness of breath. He told his line manager, who just told him to get back to work. He did this but was suffering pain throughout his shift. At the end of his shift, Harry told his line manager that he felt he needed to go to hospital. At this point, the company started taking him seriously. Two colleagues from health & safety told Harry that he could either go to the hospital himself or someone from the company could take him.
Harry had lost confidence in his employer’s ability to deal with the situation, so said he would go on his own. Upon arriving at the hospital, the doctors were very concerned because they could not feel Harry’s heartbeat. Once Harry had informed them of his heart condition, the hospital did a series of tests the next day and concluded that he was fine but that the symptoms could be life-threatening in the future.
Despite knowing where Harry had been on the day of the incident and the next day, the employer took the absences into account in giving him a warning for taking too much time off sick. After an investigation and disciplinary hearing, Harry was given a first written warning which was to stay on his record for 12 months.
We assisted Harry in his appeal against the disciplinary sanction and helped him to lodge a grievance. This did the trick because the employer then removed the sanction completely, leaving Harry with a clean disciplinary record.
Employers should always be aware that a disciplinary process must be fair and impartial for employees with more than two years’ service. This is because an unreasonable decision can breach the implied term of ‘trust and confidence between an employer and employee’, which can allow eligible employees (with two years’ continuous service) to claim constructive unfair dismissal. Those with less than two years’ service may rely on their disability rights under the Equality Act, including the right to reasonable adjustments to the disciplinary process. An unreasonable decision can support a discrimination claim. Therefore, employers should always deliberate carefully as to what is a reasonable decision based on the information obtained throughout the disciplinary process.
Harry was satisfied with the outcome and because the employer reversed its decision on appeal, he was willing to still work for them. His heart condition is not currently causing him any problems.
By Zahid Reza
Image used under CC courtesy of AJC
From time to time we tell you about a Birmingham employment law case we have recently dealt with. Our other stories are here. This is the story of Grace from Birmingham, her dismissal for gross misconduct and the lessons to be learned from it.
Grace worked for sixteen years as a PA at a well-known company. In January 2014 she was dismissed for gross misconduct after an investigation into the theft of £40,000. She was adamant that she was innocent and backed this by paying privately to challenge the employer’s decision to dismiss her. In terms of evidence the actual perpetrator had access to the petty cash tin and could make withdrawals using her name. All the withdrawals were logged in a petty cash book and nowhere else. We understand that the company has now tightened its petty cash procedures.
The firm found her guilty of 30 thefts adding up to £40,000 and she was made subject to a dismissal for gross misconduct. Two junior colleagues gave statements saying that she had asked for petty cash on numerous occasions between 2013 and 2014. Grace strenuously denied the allegations but in face of two witnesses saying she was responsible for all the withdrawals it was always going to be an uphill struggle to win the case. The company’s only record of the transactions was in a cash book. Unfortunately Grace lost it when she took it home to see who had been forging her signature when withdrawing the cash, having been told that an audit had uncovered the financial irregularities. This led to the investigation into her involvement.
Understandably, Grace felt under immense pressure and became emotional during the investigatory and disciplinary meetings. She did not manage to properly explain her case to the best of her ability and had lost the key piece of evidence. The chances improved when she realised she could show that on some of the days when money had been withdrawn she was on holiday. The company however showed that some of these were half days off.
If Grace had kept better records and had not lost the book she would have stood a better chance of successfully answering to the allegations and ultimately winning her tribunal claim.
Her case highlights the importance of evidence and why employees should take care with petty cash records, especially when working a finance department. If the employer’s record-keeping is poor, employees should keep their own records. Confirming things by email means that there will always be a paper-trail, which may exhonerate you down the track.
By Naomi Vlad
Image used under CC courtesy of SuperRabbit
From time to time we will tell you about a Birmingham employment law case we have recently dealt with. This is the story of Francis, a window cleaner, and the discplinary process that led to his dismissal.
Francis was an employee in a multinational business that provides, among other services, window-cleaning to commercial customers.
Francis was caught on CCTV standing on an office chair to clean a window in a client’s prestige car showroom. This was a clear breach of Health and Safety policy and common sense. In a disciplinary process he said he did it because the firm did not provide him with a safe step-ladder.
In reality, a step-ladder was available, but it had not been inspected in over a year, which according to the firm’s health and safety policy should not have been used as it was not proved safe.
Francis had actually asked his employer for new, safe equipment several times before the incident. He had evidence of this as his colleagues had seen him asking for it in meetings.
So why did Francis take the risk of being caught breaching the health and safety policy? He said he was under pressure, as his employer threatened his employees to reduce their pay if a customer complained about their work.
After a disciplinary process, Francis was dismissed for gross misconduct. An important aspect of employment law is reasonableness. Francis’s dismissal seemed excessive and unfair, especially when Francis had been working for the company for over 13 years and had a clean disciplinary record.
Francis claimed that the company was trying to reduce jobs and saw an opportunity to replace a redundancy process with a disciplinary process. The theory that the firm was in financial difficulties explained things like equipment not being replaced, management not giving holiday pay to staff and the weekend pay being lower than promised.
The company’s position was that Francis had (by his own admission) breached the Health and Safety policy and that this justified his disciplinary process and dismissal. After appealing and going down the tribunal route, the employer agreed to pay Francis £7k in compensation for lost earnings after his dismissal.
What swung it for Francis is that he had witness evidence from a colleague showing that the equipment was faulty and that the firm was putting him under financial pressure, which could partially justify breaching the firm’s policy. This case shows that a claimant in a similar situation needs evidence to support his claim.
By Lily Wilde
Image used under CC courtesy of VictorRead More
From time to time we tell you about a Birmingham employment law case we have recently dealt with. Our other stories are here. This is the story of Eva from Solihull. Settlement agreements are bread and butter to us and we deal with several every month.
Eva had a decent job working in middle management but fell out with her manager after a miscommunication by email that left egos bruised.
She was offered a settlement agreement under which she would leave quiety for her notice pay without having to work her notice, with the threat of “an HR process” if she didn’t accept it.
She looked for employment lawyers in Birmingham and found us.
We advised that, as she had more than two years’ service, she couldn’t be dismissed without a fair reason and there didn’t seem to be one here. She thought that she could find another job within three months but it wasn’t guaranteed. So she was looking for anything more than three months’ notice.
However, her employers weren’t actually threatening to dismiss her if she didn’t accept the deal.
We offered her a deal under which we would negotiate with the employer and seek six months pay instead of three months and charge a percentage (35%) of the extra portion that we managed to negotiate, if any.
The negotiations were protracted. The employer threatened to invite Eva to a disciplinary. We advised her to hold her ground. She had been intemperate in her email but in our view it wasn’t a sackable offence. The employer also alleged that her colleagues were refusing to work with her. Their witnesses didn’t really back that up but they did suggest that Eva had been abusive to them, albeit a long time ago.
An employer is entitled to raise historic disciplinary allegations, if it is only hearing about them for the first time. But the longer that there has been since the events that took place, the less fair it is to punish the employee for them. We advised her to stand firm and ignore the threat.
She attended the disciplinary and once the evidence was out in the open, we put to the employer that they didn’t have enough to dismiss, so she wouldn’t be leaving. Eventually they increased their offer to five months pay but coupled it with a threat to dismiss.
By that stage, we felt that we could advise a deal, because the threat to dismiss made sure there was a legal dispute between the parties. That means that the money on the table could be called compensation (which isn’t taxed) rather than notice pay (which, in certain cases, including Eva’s), is taxed. So, with the additional sum of money that would have gone to the taxman, Eva was able to leave with well over 6 months’ pay, which was enough for her to take the deal.
We finalised the negotiations and tied up the agreement for her, leaving another satisfied customer with a successful Solihull settlement agreement.
Our clients agree to the use of their stories in this Birmingham employment law series but names are changed for anonymity.
Image courtesy of Michael Coghlan used under CC
From time to time we tell you about a Birmingham employment law case we have recently dealt with. Our other stories are here. This is the story of Dav.
Dav drove HGVs for 15 years with the same company. A few years ago he started suffering health problems and his employer re-assigned him temporarily to a different role.
He was diagnosed with sleep apnoea, a condition that interrupts breathing during sleep. Left untreated, this can cause the patient to fall asleep during the day. Once the diagnosis was made, his doctors notified DVLA, who suspended his driving licence until it could be treated. He was treated with a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) machine, to be used whilst he was sleeping. After his doctors signed off that it was working, he was allowed to resume driving by the DVLA.
A couple of years later, at a routine hospital review, he learned that he had been using the machine slightly wrongly and again the doctors told the DVLA.
However, this time, his employer had had enough. He was sacked on the spot.
Dav searched for employment solicitors in Birmingham. Employment law was on his side. It is unfair dismissal to sack someone with more than two years’ service without following a procedure. Sacking someone on the spot is no procedure at all and in his case that would lead to £5k in compensation.
But he could also expect to receive a large award / settlement if he could show that dismissal was also unfair in practice. This would be the case if the decision to dismiss would have been the same, even after a proper procedure. In that case he could expect to obtain compensation for a reasonable period of lost income.
And because sleep apnoea is a medical condition that qualifies as a disability, the actions of the employer drove a coach and horses through the Equality Act’s employment law protections for the disabled, amounting to discrimination. The dismissal was discrimination for a reason relating to his disability, that reason being the suspension of his licence.
He came to us for employment law advice and we offered to take his case on a no-win, no-fee agreement, which would entitle him to legal advice all the way to trial at no cost if it was unsuccessful.
The employer’s only real argument was that without his licence, if Dav had no income if wasn’t because he was dismissed (the employer’s fault) but because couldn’t get a new job with his medical condition (not the employer’s fault). They would still have to pay compensation but not as much. So Dav worked very hard to chase the hospital and DVLA to get a clean bill of health and his licence back, which took away this argument.
We had to issue a claim to do it but we secured a settlement for just under £20k. The employer learned a valuable lesson that day.
Our clients agree to the use of their stories in this Birmingham employment law series but names are changed for anonymity.
Image courtesy of Sally Butcher, used under CC
From time to time we tell you about a Birmingham employment law case we have recently dealt with. Our other stories are here. This is the story of Charlie, a hotel worker and his disciplinary for gross misconduct for vaping.
Almost all employers ban smoking in their buildings, though some provide a place outside where smokers can gather. The law prohibits smoking in buildings accessible to the public but vaping is down to the individual employer.
We are finding that employers generally don’t allow vaping, either for image reasons – it looks like smoking from a distance – or because some people may not like the smell.
It is sensible for an employer to have a handbook that sets out the position but this is not strictly necessary as long as staff know that it is considered a disciplinary offence.
Charlie works in a hotel chain and had been given a written warning for vaping at work, though this wasn’t prohibited by the handbook. This week he came to us complaining that he had been invited to a disciplinary misconduct meeting for setting off a smoke alarm in one of the rooms and managers believe that his vaping was to blame.
When the alarm sounded, his manager asked him where his vaping ‘mech’ was and Charlie answered that it was in his locker. His manager didn’t follow that up at the time, for example by checking his pockets or his locker.
So now, it is hard to get to the truth of what set off the alarm, which can be triggered by deodorant and opening a can of carbonated drink.
We are advising Charlie and if his disciplinary goes against him we will help him with a claim for unfair dismissal – he has 15 years’ service with the hotel chain and a lot to lose from this disciplinary process.
He can’t claim that he didn’t know vaping was against the rules – although the handbook is silent on the matter, he knew from his previous disciplinary. But his defence is that he wasn’t vaping, there is no evidence that he was vaping and the employer must not dismiss if no reasonable employer would dismiss where there is no evidence.
Sadly for Charlie, he expects to be dismissed – he thinks his employer is gunning for him. We’ll keep you updated by updating this blog post.
Our clients agree to the use of their stories but names are changed for anonymity
By Jason Harbourne
Images courtesy of Jonn Williams, used under CC
**Update November 2016: The result of the disciplinary was that Charlie was cleared and so not given any warning**Read More
From time to time we tell you about a Birmingham employment law case we have recently dealt with. Our other stories are here. This is the story of Baljinder, a bus driver, and his disciplinary.
Baljinder has over 15 years of unblemished service.
Whilst working he was abused and physically attacked by a passenger, who reached through the hole in the perspex divide and pushed her ticket roughly into his left hand. This left him shocked and he described the assault happening so quickly that he couldn’t explain how his right hand got hurt.
This assault was witnessed by another passenger and she gave him her contact details.
On the advice of his manager he sought medical treatment and whilst recovering from the ordeal, he called in sick. On returning to work our client was called to an investigatory meeting and they watched the CCTV footage together. His manager then made the claim that Baljinder was not attacked in the way he said he was and that he had made a fraudulent claim for sick pay. The CCTV evidence didn’t really show what had taken place.
The investigator at no stage contacted the witness and the matter was escalated to gross misconduct disciplinary, as a result of which he was ultimately dismissed. Although Baljinder told his employer about the independent witness, she was never contacted.
Baljinder unsuccessfully appealed and looked for employment law solicitors. We immediately wrote to the employer letting them know there would be a Birmingham employment law tribunal claim and requiring them to secure the CCTV evidence.
Baljinder ought to win his claim. It may be that the witness didn’t see how his right hand was injured, but the point is that there was no real evidence that he had lied about how his injury had been caused. It is a serious claim to accuse someone of lying for money and serious claims require serious evidence.
What matters in an unfair dismissal case like this is whether the employer reasonably believed that the employee was lying. The actual truth of how he got hurt is not important to the question of whether he wins his case. But it is important to the question of how much compensation he is awarded. If the passenger shows he lied, then he won’t receive much compensation. If she backs him up, then he may be awarded up to a year’s salary. If she didn’t see what was going on, then it is an open field – the judge will have to decide on the evidence what happened and we believe that an employment tribunal would side with someone with over 15 years’ service and no history of lying.
The employer in this case messed up. Managers who conduct disciplinaries need to follow the ACAS code of practice on Disciplinary and Grievance. We will now have to take this matter to the Employment Tribunal as the Employer will clearly not do the right thing and admit that they have not followed the correct procedure and due care and have dismissed this employee unfairly.
*Our clients agree to the use of their stories but all names have been changed for anonymity
Images courtesy of Elliot Brown, used under CCRead More
From time to time we tell you about a Birmingham employment law case we have recently dealt with. Our other stories are here. This is the story of Albert, a mechanic and his disciplinary.
Albert had had a stand-up shouting match with his manager within earshot of customers waiting for their MOTs. It turned out that a month ago, he had forgotten to tighten the nuts on a customer’s car before it left the workshop, though fortunately no accident had taken place as the garage had rung the customer on his mobile and told him to stop driving immediately. They hadn’t told Albert about this or disciplined him at the time.
The manager was adamant that Albert had to go. They came to us for help on 14 October. We asked how much service Albert had. The garage wasn’t sure but gave a list of dates from their records, which included 19 October two years ago (when the employment contract was signed by the employee), 22 October (when he started work), 21 October (date he was set up on the payroll), 20 October (date written in the contract). We were instructed that the date in the contract was probably wrong. It was a mess.
The exact date mattered because an employee gains rights to sue for unfair dismissal after two years. Or at least that’s what people – even employment solicitors – often think, but in reality it’s two years less the statutory notice period of one week, which means 103 weeks. The date mattered. If Albert had less than 103 weeks’ service we could safely dismiss; if 103 weeks and one day, we might be in trouble.
We thought we would probably win a case for unfair dismissal, though we couldn’t be certain whether a single incident of gross misconduct – shouting in front of customers in an industrial environment – would fairly be seen to be a sacking offence. And even if they eventually won the case it would be a costly victory in legal fees.
The company had shot itself in the foot by ignoring the far more serious health and safety related misconduct. It would be unfair to rake that up after the event.
One thing was clear: we didn’t want to start a fair disciplinary investigation and a dismissal process, because that would definitely take Albert past his two-year point.
Happily, it turned out that the date he actually started work was 103 weeks to the day…tomorrow. He was one day shy of reaching the critical date.
We did our calculations several times. On paper, with a calendar, with a calculator. We worked out that the garage had to end the suspension and dismiss that same day if they wanted to guarantee that Albert would have no comeback.
But we said it was crucial that they make contact with Albert that day. A dismissal doesn’t take effect until the employee knows about it. If Albert didn’t know he was sacked until after midnight, he would accrue his employment rights. We considered sending a text, dropping a letter round in person and various other means of communicating the dismissal in a way that Albert couldn’t dispute.
In the end we invited Albert in that evening and he turned up to a meeting, at which he was sacked on the spot. If only Albert had lain low for a few hours, he would have had some kind of case. Now, if he brings an employment tribunal claim, it can be struck out quickly and cheaply.
The company now keeps better employment records.
*Our clients agree to the use of their stories but all names have been changed for anonymity
Images courtesy of Dave Parker, used under CCRead More
Birmingham employment lawyers Hatton James legal have issued a record number of tribunal claims in September 2016.
We issued five claims in September 2016, an average of more than one per week.
Managing partner Jaspal Singh said “it’s been a really busy period for us, when the sector as a whole is struggling, because of various government initiatives to reduce the number of claims going through the employment tribunal“.
Hatton James is among the foremost among Solihull and even among Birmingham employment lawyers. Jaspal said “most of our clients come through referrals or having searched online and seen that we are well-reviewed on the internet“.
The claims issued this month include:
- A new trainee dental nurse who resigned because of her manager’s nastiness after she pointed out problems with infection control
- An HGV driver sacked after 12 years when his licence was suspended for two weeks on medical grounds
- Two jewellers, one who was dismissed because she needed time off to recover from an old shoulder injury …
- and the other, who resigned because of rudeness when a new manager took over
- A factory manager whose employer wanted him to slow down more than he did, as he reached retirement and ranted at him in frustration
These are a typical mix of the claims that Birmingham employment lawyers see; unfair dismissal, age and disability discrimination and whistleblowing. A couple are what we consider to be open-and-shut cases; others are more risky, perhaps because the depend on what the witnesses or the paperwork will say. One of these tribunal claims is funded by a no-win, no-fee agreement, one is paid for privately and in the other cases the client has legal expenses insurance. In each case we feel that the employee really needs to issue a claim in order to protect their legal rights and obtain a settlement or compensation.
In a future blog post, we’ll take one of these cases as a worked example and explain what happens from when the client walks in through the door.
By Jason HarbourneRead More