Congratulations are in order for Becky who passed her driving test today - first sitting!
You can expect to see Becky driving the Gravitate HR mini sometime over the New Year.
Congratulations from all the Gravitate HR team!
Following Sarah and Jennifer’s sunny days out with clients, we decided we should have an away day. Heather recommended Go Ape - so we made all the arrangements and headed off to Aberfoyle, on Friday 10th October. Even the rain and mist did not dampen our spirits and as the mini made it’s way north and west - the rain got heavier and the anticipation grew.
Now that we are back safely I can tell you that it was fantastic. It is very exhilarating and is a great team building event. We got very very wet as you can see from the photos!
This is Jennifer arriving on the zip wire!
The team before we got REALLY wet - arrived safely & looking forward to our adventure…………….
Becky sets off along the slippery path
Now we really are wet - but still smiling!
Sarah and Jennifer smiling in the pouring rain.
The way home is back across the zip wire over the trees, waterfall, landing on a big pile of wood chip ………
Jennifer looks happy!
Margery can’t believe she is in one piece
Sarah arrives elegantly……….
And a few action video clips!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JEGxnT11YfY
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi_NRFoz1p0
If you want to find out more about Go Ape visit Go Ape
Some recent employment case law …
Disability Discrimination - Discrimination by association
An employee (able bodied), who was the primary carer of her disabled son, believed she was being discriminated against when requested for flexible working because of her association with a disabled person and has claimed constructive dismissal and disability discrimination against her employers.
The case went to the European Court of Justice who ruled that it is direct discrimination under the Equal Treatment directive (2000/78/EC) if an employee who is not disable is treated less favourably because of her association with a disabled person.
Implications
It is likely that UK legislation may have to be amended to make it unlawful as direct discrimination and harassment against an employee on the ground of their association with a disabled person will constitute disability discrimination. This will extend to association in relation to age, religious and sexual orientation discrimination as well. Employers should be sensitive to employees who are carers of disabled relatives who could have grounds for claiming disability discrimination if they are refused time off to undertake their caring responsibilities.
Grievances - Following correct procedure - extension of time limits
An employee who was made redundant did not appeal against the redundancy, but later raised a grievance. According to legislation, the 3 month limit for presenting an unfair dismissal claim can be extended by a further three months if the employee reasonably believes that the dismissal or disciplinary procedure is still in progress when the limit ends. The employee did not receive a response to her grievance until a day after the three month limit expired. The Court of Appeal, decided that the employee was right to assume the dismissal procedure was ongoing as she was still waiting for a response to her grievance when the time limit was coming to an end. It . Therefore, as her grievance was related to her dismissal, the time limit could be extended.
Implications for employers:
Employers must continue to follow the statutory grievance, dismissal and disciplinary procedures in full for all situations. Although time limits are sometimes strictly enforced in the employment tribunal, employers can never guarantee that they are safe once the initial time limit has passed. Employers must always deal with grievances promptly and thoroughly even in a redundancy situation.
Age Discrimination - Capability v Age
After two months into her role, an 18-year office administrator was dismissed following a conversation with her line manager in which she was allegedly told that she was too young for the job as she had only been doing 90% of her role. An employment tribunal ruled that the employee had been dismissed not because of her capability, but because of her age. The employer had made the ‘stereotypical assumption’ that age and experience equalled capability.
Implications for employers:
Employers must train managers to follow equal opportunities policies which encompass avoidance of age discrimination for employees and prospective employees of all ages. Employers must take into account that some individuals are more capable than others. One candidate with initiative but with little experience may in fact be more capable than another, less inspired candidate with years of repetitive experience.
Part-Time Workers - Comparators
A number of part-time workers at a city council had their hours reduced due to a series of cost cutting measures. They claimed that the council had discriminated against them under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 on the ground that their treatment had been worse than full-time workers. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the claimants’ appeal. Once it is found that part-time workers are being treated less favourably than full-time comparators and being part-time is one of the reasons, that is enough to trigger the Regulations.
Implications for employers:
Employers must recognise that it is now harder for employers to defend some cases under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. Employers should always keep part-time workers’ terms and conditions under review to ensure they are equivalent pro rata to full-time workers’ terms and conditions.
Unfair Dismissal - Expired Warnings
Five employees were found guilty of misconduct for misusing company time (by watching television during working hours). Four employees were given final written warnings, but one employee was dismissed. This was because he had been given a final written warning for a similar act of misconduct thirteen months earlier. The warning had expired three weeks before the second act of misconduct. The employee brought an unfair dismissal claim which was upheld by an employment tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
The Court of Appeal (CA) over turned the decision of the EAT, and held that the employee was not unfairly dismissed because the employer had relied on an expired warning. In this case the employee was dismissed mainly because of his misconduct and not because of the expired warning.
Implications for employers:
This is an area that must be tread carefully. Employers who take expired warnings into account before implementing a dismissal will not necessarily have unfairly dismissed the employee. However, such a practice is still very risky. As a matter of best practice employers should not rely on expired warnings, especially not as the principal reason for dismissal. If an employer does rely on an expired warning and there is also underlying misconduct, it may be reasonable to take the warning into account as well -provided that the subsequent misconduct is sufficient to warrant dismissal in its own right.
All text above is for information only, and not to be interpreted as legal advice.