A husband scorned.........   fired his wife

80% of people leave the manager, not the job (source: Gallup omnibus)   Do your managers have the right people skills?

Changes to sex discrimination law   How will the Sex Discrimination Act 1995 (amendment) Regulations 2008 affect your business?

Tribunal Orders Sacked Director to pay £18,000.   It's unusual for a tribunal to order an ex-employee to make a big payment to the company. As this former MD found to his cost.

A husband scorned.........

This is a lesson for husband and wife run businesses where normally there are no formal contracts of employment in place and often not even a director’s or partnership agreement. So when things don’t work out between them it makes the working environment very difficult and also to settle disputes.

Mr Berin Riley, having got caught out by his wife for having an affair, threw him out of the family home. His wife Trudy had helped him build up their business channelmoving.com, decided to carry on working in the job she loved. This was too much for Berin and he sent her an email saying that there was no longer a role for her in the business and that she should seek employment elsewhere.

Of course she left and the next thing he got was a tribunal claim for unfair dismissal from her. There was no written contract of employment in place and she earned £18,000 a year. The tribunal recognised her claim and awarded her about £3000 in loss of earning from October 07 to March 08.

It is claimed by her that after the hearing her husband demanded that she returns the company car, a Ford Mondeo.

No doubt the divorce lawyers will have a field day trying to sort this one out assuming they will divorce!

The moral is never act in haste no matter how angry or disappointed you are or assume a relative or close friend wouldn’t sue.

80% of people leave the manager, not the job (source: Gallup omnibus)

It's a frightening statistic, isn't it? But how confident are you that your managers have the people skills they need? It's a common practice to promote the best technical expert into a management position, but how often do you make any sort of formal assessment of a person's people management skills when you're thinking about promoting them?

Here at Picasso HR we have a range of tools and training available to help you to develop your managers with the skills they need, whatever their experience of people management.

For those you are about to recruit or promote into their first management role, we have a range of psychometric assessment tools which will help you to be sure you're picking the right people.

Once you've appointed them, talk to us about developing a tailored induction scheme and on-going training and coaching support.

For groups of experienced managers, talk to us about management skills refresher training. We can develop tailored programmes specifically for your organisation. Contact us for more details or to discuss your specific needs.

Changes to sex discrimination law

Changes to the Sex Discrimination Act which have been introduced this year come under the following headings:

1. Harassment on the grounds of someone's sex

The definition of harassment in the original Sex Discrimination Act 1995  covered acts of harassment committed "on the grounds" of someone's sex, that is, directly because of the person's sex. So, a victim complaining of harassment had to show that they were being harassed specifically because they were female / male. Under the amended regulations, someone making a complaint need only show that the offensive act "relates" to the complainant's sex or that of another person. So someone could make a complaint under the revised legislation if they were offended by witnessing harassment of another person.

2. Employer liability

Under the amended Regulations, the employer can be held liable for acts of harassment committed against an employee by a third party such as a customer or supplier. However, you have a couple of opportunities to act in time: the liability on you as employer only arises if you fail to act on a third occasion when you have been made aware that the employee has been harassed in the course of their employment on two previous occasions. You will also need to demonstrate that you took all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment occuring.

3. Definition of discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy

No longer does a pregnant woman have to provide a comparator in order to claim discrimination. The previous wording required her to compare her treatment with how a sick male employee would have been treated in the same circumstances - always a tricky comparison.

4. Contractual benefits to continue to apply during both Ordinary and Additional Maternity leave.

Before the introduction of the amended Regulations, a pregnant employee only retained the right to contractual benefits such as company car and additional holiday during the six months of Ordinary Maternity Leave. As a result of the Regulations, employees will retain their contractual benefits, except pay, for both Ordinary and Additional Maternity leave. This change will take effect for women whose babies are due on or after week commencing 5th October 2008.

Recommended Actions:

1. Ensure that your managers are trained in Equal Opportunities and have the appropriate people skills to prevent a culture of harassment developing.

2 . Check that your policies on Equal Opportunities, harassment, maternity and family friendly issues are up-to-date, and that employees know how to access the information and raise any concerns that they may have.

3. Ensure your managers are trained in the policies covered above, and that they know how to deal with issues arising under them.

4. From now on, a female employee who tells you that she is pregnant is likely to be covered by the amended Regulations and will be entitled to retain her contractual benefits, except pay, during both Ordinary and Additional Maternity leave. Check that you have budgeted for any additional holiday entitlement, car allowance, enhanced pension  etc and that this is sufficient for the employee herself and to allow similar benefits for her temporary replacement, if appropriate. 

For advice on any of the areas covered above, or to enquire about management training in HR policies, please contact us.

Tribunal Orders Sacked Director to pay £18,000.

 For two years Mr Wright was the Managing Director of a company called Weed Control Ltd.

Until the company realised that Mr Wright wasn’t right for the job.

They had their suspicions aroused when the VAT authorities complained about being paid with bounced cheques. VAT officials really don’t like that kind of thing and the Company ended up with a fine of £18,000.

So Mr Wright was suspended. An investigation revealed more problems.

One of his big contracts was losing money and he hadn’t told the board. He threatened to discipline managers when they drew attention to problems with staff not working the correct hours. And he failed to report two industrial accidents to the health and safety authorities.

As Stan Laurel said “what a fine mess you’ve got us into”.

So the company dismissed Mr Wright.

And Mr Wright, being the kind of person he is, took them to a tribunal. He probably thought he had nothing to lose.

How wrong he was.

Not only did the tribunal reject his claim of unfair dismissal, but they ordered him to pay the company £18,000 in compensation for the VAT fine.

What happened was that when the company received Mr Wright’s claim from the tribunal, they put in a counter-claim for their losses.

Employment tribunals can award damages of up to £25,000 for breach of contract. Usually it’s the employee who makes the claim and it’s normally for unpaid wages or notice-pay. But employers can claim too, as we saw here.

To make a successful case the company had to show that their losses arose because Mr Wright breached his contract. Specifically they argued that he had breached the term of mutual trust and confidence.

This is what the tribunal said about it:

“We find the claimant was obligated by duty of good faith to his employers. Part of that duty was to ensure that he worked diligently and properly…… and that major issues such as bouncing VAT cheques were brought to the board’s attention and that chances were not taken with the respondent’s money save with their authority. All of this the claimant failed to do”.

Well the story didn’t end there. Mr Wright decided to spend more money with his lawyers and appealed. The case went to the EAT and they threw out his appeal.

Some employers will be quietly smiling at this outcome. So often the legal system seems to favour the employee but this one shows that employers have rights too.

The information in this newsletter is of a general nature and is not a substitute for professional advice. You are recommended to obtain specific professional advice before you take any action.

For further information, advice or assistance on any of the matters raised in this newsletter please contact Picasso HR on 01473 890037.

Copyright Picasso HR Ltd 2002-2010. Registered in England No 4173777

Email Martin to unsubscribe from this newsletter      Privacy policy.