Sign in

Courtesy navigation

Blog posts tagged employment tribunal

Difficult conversations with employees

November 18, 2010 by Georgina Harris

ChestnutsWe wince at the thought, but if you’re a manager you have to tackle tricky staff problems head on. This, inevitably, means the dreaded “little chat”. Simple conflict-management techniques really help - Georgina Harris explains how to reduce the pain but get results

Whether it’s a worker who is endlessly late, an employee with a flamboyant range of minor ailments or the classic idler, you’ll know that some people’s contribution to your team seems to add up to an empty chair, tight-lipped resentment from the others and low-level morale drain. If the problem’s recent, and not serious enough to warrant a disciplinary, you might be tempted to avoid spending precious managerial time sorting it out. But slackers and whingers tend not to fix themselves, and if their behaviour gets worse, you don't have an HR problem, you have a profit problem.

Or legal trouble. In 2007–08, the number of individual employment tribunal claims rose to over 190,000. Acas points out that people are also now more aware of their rights at work, which means if employers do not manage conflict effectively, they could face a court case or, more likely, an expensive settlement. So it’s worth nipping “issues” in the bud.

Start by taking control of what you can: set a time, place and date for a discussion with the employee. Most importantly, set a goal. What result do you need out of this meeting? Keep sight of your aim, before, during and after the meeting.

Plan ahead for the chat by gathering the evidence you need. Jot down examples of the problem behaviour and why it’s causing difficulties. Keeping your aim in sight, make a list of how you and the employee work together to fix the problem.

Once you’re in the meeting, explain to the employee that you are both there to restore harmony. Then ask the employee to put their side of the story. Don’t interrupt.

As they’re talking, practice active listening. Encourage your employee to be open so you can both root out the key issues. Show you understand your employee’s point of view and you are taking in the detail of what they are saying by restating what they said in your own words. That shows your responses are more than lip service, and you should be appreciated for listening.

Don’t assume your staff member can see things from your point of view. Your job might be to check the balance sheets against staff productivity; theirs may not. So, even if it seems (or is) blindingly obvious, make it clear exactly why their behaviour is a problem. Appeal to their self-interest by asking them how they think their behaviour looks to others at work.

If they get emotional, don’t respond in kind or you’ll give your power away. But don’t dismiss the role of feelings entirely; your employee needs to see you respecting and acknowledging how they feel. Getting fiery = bad news; acknowledging feelings = good news.

Avoid getting personal at all costs. While tempting, it won’t help reach your goal any faster and will make you, not your staff member, look like the team’s liability. Focus on the behaviour, not the person.

No matter how exasperating it is, refuse to engage in arguments – keep your mind trained on getting the result you want. If you need more incentive to stay calm, bear in mind it takes two to argue. And whatever comes out of you in anger could end up a bigger problem for you than a slacker team member.

Move on to a range of solutions you can finalise. Use neutral phrases to suggest behaviour changes, such as “Let’s talk about how you might do that”. Don’t say “You can’t keep doing this”, just repeat “You must arrive by 9am”. If the problems are pretty basic – repeated lateness – take them step-by-step through how they will make it in by 9am. Stay non-confrontational; arguing will not get an employee out of bed earlier. Although it’s tiring, keep relentlessly positive – if you’re faced with an endless array of obstacles to improving the performance, work together to solve them. Be patient, but be wary of making concessions you can’t offer everyone.

Once you’ve reached a solution, repeat it clearly so you both understand it. Then arrange a follow-up chat, and leave it at that. Exit the room and breathe – job well done.

Sack ’em

November 08, 2010 by Michael Scutt

OnewayNew research shows six out of ten of us think it’s too hard to sack a rubbish worker. And with tribunal cases up two-thirds since the recession, do employees now hold the whip hand? Michael Scutt asks… is it too hard to sack employees?

Do you think the law is too difficult for employers? Unfair dismissal, redundancy and employment rights are in the news at the moment. Lord Young has already confirmed that the government is considering doubling the qualification period for unfair dismissal to two years’ continuous employment.

Winifred Robinson tackled the issue on Radio 4 recently, in “Sack ’em”, a documentary about current employment law. It was a very even-handed affair and looked at the eternal question of whether the pendulum of fairness has swung too far towards the employee. It’s well worth listening to on iPlayer.

Experts on the show made great play of the issue that justice is denied to many employers because it is cheaper to settle than fight a claim. I think they made too much of that: all litigation functions on the same basis, even where there is costs shifting from loser to winner. However, that doesn’t generally happen in the employment tribunal (ET) and because each party bears their own costs - win or lose - it does encourage more brinkmanship and spurious claims.

If you want to redress that balance, get ETs to start imposing costs orders more readily, as I have written previously. ETs have the power to award costs where one party has acted unreasonably but are reluctant to do so. If you want to discourage serial or spurious claims, introduce issue fees.

But is it too difficult to sack employees? Does the law favour employees too much? Should employers be “running scared”? In my view, no. The key is to be prepared. Problems arise where employers haven’t set up the paperwork properly. Typical issues are inadequate or non-existent contracts of employment; poorly drafted or non-existent employee handbooks; a lack of consistency in how what policies and procedures that do exist are imposed. Entrepreneurs thinking of expanding and taking on staff for the first time should get advice from an employment lawyer or an HR consultant. Do your homework and be prepared.

The Government is planning a full review of employment law which may be completed by the end of the year; we may see significant changes on the cards. My money is on the introduction of issue fees in the ET when commencing a claim: a dead cert, surely, given the age of austerity in which we live. The Court Service has been required to raise funds towards its running costs for several years now – and look at the size of some court fees you have to pay if you want to bring a claim in the County Court or the High Court.

Similarly, the rules of procedure in the ET have become more complicated over the years and have moved ever further towards the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) that govern civil claims. This isn’t surprising given the increasing complexity of ET claims.

I think the time has come now to completely reform the system for litigating employment disputes: I would abolish the ET altogether and hand over its entire jurisdiction to the County Court. This ought to save costs but, more pertinently for lawyers, end the ongoing jurisdictional difficulties over where claims can be brought, especially in breach of contract cases.

What do you think? A step too far or a dose of common sense?

Gossip Girl gets rights

October 05, 2010 by Georgina Harris

One of the lesser-known changes to the law in the Equality Act is that businesses must stop using pay “gagging” clauses to keep their affairs discreet. The new law is pretty straightforward - employees who suspect a gender pay gap is afoot can no longer be disciplined for revealing, or discussing, pay with each other.

If you grumble at or discipline your staff for talking about their wages and benefits, you could be liable to claims for victimisation – possibly resulting in an employment tribunal, no joke for you or the firm. But is the threat of a court case OTT for a boss trying to ban staff gossip?

Many people think so. Writing in the Daily Mail, Duncan Bannatyne points out the original Equal Pay Act of 1970 improved lives, but chunters: “This 2010 update will not”. He maintains that this particular tweak to equality law will “damage the morale of a workplace” and suggests that: “Any difference [in pay] is immediately cast as ‘unfairness’, with the employer as the abuser and the employee the victim.”

It’s easy to understand, and sympathise with, employers’ concern for Political Correctness Gone Mad. Especially when, like Bannatyne, you believe in automatic equal rights and have been a highly successful employer for years. As staff numbers trooping to tribunals increase yearly, the creeping fear of an employee springing a trumped-up case will hardly be soothed by the news that in, another legal add-on, staff can now claim discrimination even though there may be no one to compare them against.

Yet maybe what Bannatyne calls “lunatic legislation” is not so unreasonable. These days over half the UK’s workforce are women. For full-timers, the equal pay gap is currently over 16 per cent. Women get paid 35 per cent less for part-time work.

Forty years on from the Equal Pay Act, that’s something of a surprise, and not in a good way. Yet Bannatyne hints that the new law “could be enough for some business owners to take a look at this brave new working environment and say: ‘I’m out.’”

In the UK, the most notable career legacy most women leave from their working lives is the six figures in cash they never get paid. Despite the risky life of an entrepreneur, that’s not a problem Bannatyne or his fellow business owners are liable to face.

Can’t afford to sue your boss? Here’s how

October 05, 2010 by Georgina Harris

LifesaverAccording to The Guardian this week, one in three of us is estimated to face a problem that involves the law every year – and less than a third of us will get legal aid.

Legal aid is about to be ‘reformed’ – most likely shrunk – again, so for many people access to legal advice looks to get even more difficult and expensive through 2011. But if you need an employment lawyer, don’t be put off: there are several ways you can get legal advice and representation that won’t cost precious savings or, worse, a non-existent salary.

For a start, Legal Aid only pays up if your household disposable income is a scanty £733 a month. If you’re recently unemployed, being this poor may not exactly be a problem, but savings and home equity could disqualify you too unless you’re on benefits. Even if you do get it, Legal Aid only funds advice, not a lawyer to represent you at the tribunal.

Free sources of employment law know-how are, however, surprisingly easy to find in person and online. Run by the TUC, the Worksmart website offers employees advice on their rights. If you have checked out the factsheets and still think you have a case, try the Citizens’ Advice Bureau, or a local law centre run by the Legal Services Commission, who will provide you with a face to face meeting with an employment lawyer free.

If you do need to take things further, you could get free representation in an employment tribunal from the Free Representation Unit (FRU). Varying from newbie barristers to heavyweight QCs, their volunteers take up your cause and fight for you in court. You need to be referred by a law centre, but at the moment they have many representatives available for one-day tribunal cases, among others.

Last – and definitely not least - several highly reputable law firms offer a fixed-fee – or free – first meeting too, where you can explore your options with a specialist. While a good lawyer would be the first to urge you not to be hasty in leaping into court, you can feel more reassured that you may not lose financially if you do end up there.

My worst boss… not even human

August 03, 2010 by Michael Scutt

Cat that got the cream
My first job was dogsbody to a chick-lit author – a glossy ex-glamour girl who turned her eye-watering love life into beach bliss reading for millions – a great business model that meant she got paid for living her life (twice, I suspect). I would be bound to learn loads about publishing – hot break, huh. The other staff were minimal – it was only me.
 
Oh, there was an office cat. Simpkin, “the tiny angel” had been with Ms Shiny, aged 13, since she rescued him as a stray kitten on the way home from a seedy shoot in Dagenham. Now a vast tabby of easily 25, Simpkin weighed 30 lbs and had issues with anger management. Ms Shiny, who had never really made it work with any of the millionaires, adored him.
 
I was meant to run the office and do a bit of basic accounting. The previous occupant had enquired whether Simpkin counted as “equipment” or “personnel” in tax terms – he lasted four hours.
 
In the morning, Simpkin’s routine was unvarying. He received several breakfasts (my job) which were rejected (his job). After thieving my sandwiches, he performed his toilette, usually in my handbag, then staggered off to sleep on the printer– woe betide you if it wasn’t on and warmed up. Or you wanted a copy of a contract or the million-dollar MS. I was grateful for email.
 
Lunch is big in publishing and Simpkin knew how to behave. Around 12:30, as hapless agents and editors swung by to take the glamour girl out somewhere pap-worthy, Simpkin fell out the printer tray and weaved his way to the front door, where he lay in wait. The shriek acted as a doorbell.
 
Feeling his age rather, once Simpkin had attacked he fell asleep on the job, leaving incisors stuck in the victim. Whose job was it to ease the fangs out of a well-known publisher without risking the million-pound advance? Who apologised for “the little tinker” as “playful” or “free spirited”? Who paid for the tweezers?
 
No one came back for after-lunch coffee. Simpkin received a choice of four human-food lunches (inc. parsley trim), one of which he threw up for my attention around 3. At 4, he demanded a “cuddle”. I scrabbled frantically to cover the vast acreage of furry tum as fast as possible before both arms were disembowelled. 5 o’ clock saw a final, complementary paw massage for him and a wet wipe to get the blood off for me, and I was free.
 
Did the job do anything for me? Yup – I learned how to be a Minor Injuries Operative, run an office, and negotiate foreign rights, all while suffering an arterial bleed. Oh, and how to keep the boss happy – Simpkin was a director and shareholder in Chick Lit Ltd.
 
My question is: do you have to be human to end up in a tribunal?
 
Michael Scutt writes:
 
“Animals were regularly put on trial in the Middle Ages and even into the eighteenth century. American historian Robert Darnton’s book, The Great Cat Massacre, recounts the story of Parisan printers in the late 1730s who became so angry at the lavish treatment accorded to pampered pets by their masters that they put the moggies on trial and hanged them. Darnton interprets the episode as an early example of industrial action.
 
Simpkin, had he been around then, wouldn’t, presumably, have put up with any such nonsense and would have known how to deal with stroppy Frenchmen. These days he is aided by anti-cruelty legislation meaning that applying a crafty boot to his furry rear end would probably lead to prosecution.
 
All is not lost, though, for Simpkin’s “friend”. The employee should remember that an employer has a duty, implied into every contract of employment, to provide a safe working environment. The Health & Safety Act 1974 and subsequent regulations also require the employer to provide a safe working environment. That usually means a safe system of work, safe premises and safe fellow employees. Simpkin doesn’t count as an employee anymore than he does as a director, but I think the employee could have walked out claiming constructive dismissal, thus bringing her employment to an end.” 
 
 
David Impey, company lawyer, writes:

"Under UK company law, a cat can't be either a director of a company, or a shareholder, of a UK limited company. Even a cat showing the remarkable self-interest, greed and tenacity shown by Simpkin, and even if the company is a bank. In fact, the law on directors was tightened up fairly recently (1 October 2008). Now, even humans cannot be directors if they are under 16 years old. (In a stroke of terminological genius, the new law provided that any existing under-age directors were automatically 'dis-appointed' as directors from that date.)
 
Otherwise, there are remarkably few barriers to becoming a director of a UK company. For example, you mustn't be an undischarged bankrupt, have been disqualified from being a director by the courts (which takes some pretty dire behaviour and, usually, the insolvency of your previous company), or started up using a new company name that's too like the name of a previous company of yours that has gone bust in the last five years. And you can't be a director if you are the company's auditor, or if the company's constitution stops you.
 
But if you can avoid those hurdles, and almost everybody can, you don't have to pass any exams, or have any particular qualifications (although the Institute of Directors does run a Chartered Directors' Course), or even have an IQ. Just a pulse will do.
 
Nor do you have to be British (though you can't be a director if you are officially classified as an enemy alien). Finally (and I am at an age where I find this encouraging) there is no maximum age beyond which you cannot be a director. Directors can be as old as you like.”

Syndicate content