Russell HR Consulting

 

If you’re one of the many followers of The HR Headmistress’ Blog, you may have noticed a rather funny name signing off some of the posts since the beginning of December. You’d be forgiven for thinking that Kate’s alter-ego has suddenly emerged in the form of a 24-year-old, budding journalist who writes under the adopted pseudonym of ‘Darry Khajehpour’. I apologise for the anti-climax, but I’m afraid the truth is a little less theatrical(!)

 

I’ve recently joined the team here at Russell HR Consulting and have thoroughly enjoyed my time here so far. It has been a welcome challenge since day one and I am currently climbing a rather steep learning curve with boots and pickaxe at the ready! You may be wondering why a chap who wants to enter into the world of journalism has accepted a post at an HR law firm… Well, let me enlighten you by running through a few of the tasks and assignments I have been involved in so far:

 

On day one, I was asked to attend a meeting as Kate’s note-taker up in Sheffield; it gave me a chance to brush up on my note-taking skills, listen to some interesting aspects of employment law and, to top it off, add another name to the list of places I have now visited.

I have been working closely with a colleague of mine on the promotion and marketing of Kate’s two publications, 101 Tips for Employers and the highly successful Off The Sick List! This in itself is proving invaluable as, having worked as an editorial assistant and journalist in the past, I now can add to that a developing knowledge of literary marketing and promotion (stay tuned for information on future publications).

On top of all this, I have been given the opportunity to research and write a number of posts for The HR Headmistress’ Blog – hence my name cropping up from time-to-time.

 

So that’s me in a nutshell. Thank you from the team to all those followers of the HR Headmistress (and welcome to any new readers). To find out more about our publications or for any other information regarding Employment Law, please contact us by phone on 0845 644 8955 or e-mail pm@russellhrconsulting.co.uk

 

 

 

By Darry Khajehpour

 

 

Discrimination. A word we are all too familiar with in today’s society. A word which evokes images of victimisation, prejudice and the intolerance of difference. A recent article in The Observer highlighted the extent to which individuals can be discriminated against by others. Lou Jing, a 20 year old woman of Chinese and African-American decent, took part as a contestant on Go Oriental Angel, China’s equivalent to The X Factor. Her appearance on National Television sparked vicious abuse from the Chinese public and a mass media debate on racism in the media. After being denied by judges the chance to continue further than the top 30 in the competition, Lou was left in shock and utter disbelief at how her own people could “cause her great harm” and expressed the wish that people would one day “tolerate her particular parentage.

 

Discrimination in the workplace occurs when an employer – or indeed a colleague – treats an employee less favourably in comparison to others. This could be in relation to, for example, pay, promotion or dismissal. By law a person cannot be discriminated against because of their: gender; gender reassignment;  marriage or civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity leave; sexual orientation; disability; race; colour; ethnic background; nationality; religious belief; or age. Laws such as this are designed to protect both the employee from unwanted and often painful discriminatory acts, and the employer from claims of unlawful discrimination.

 

The case of Chagger v Abbey National (2008) gave important guidance regarding financial loss and discrimination cases. After being made redundant in 2006 by Abbey National, Mr Chagger, who is of Indian origin, submitted a claim on the basis that his termination of employment was race discrimination. The original employment tribunal agreed that Mr Chagger’s selection for redundancy was influenced by race and awarded him just under £2.8 million (plus interest). Following this, The Court of Appeal sent the case back to tribunal to reconsider the amount of conpensation. Nevertheless, if it is deemed that the employee was dismissed by discrimination, damages can be considerably high as there is no upper limit on compensation for unlawful discrimination!

 

To help prevent discrimination in your workplace or for advice on how to deal with a discrimination claim, contact a member of our team on 0845 644 8955 or e-mail us at pm@russellhrconsulting.co.uk

 

 

By Darry Khajehpour

You may have read my post from November the 26^th where, as well as grumbling about the start of my 2009 outbreak of ‘Bah Humbug’, I discussed in detail the importance of protecting yourself during this festive period with a well-constructed Party Pooper Letter or PPL (if not, click on this link http://www.russellhrconsulting.co.uk/blog/?p=379).

 

A client of ours recently sent the team here at Russell HR Consulting a rather amusing e-mail that made us all chuckle, which I thought I’d share with you all:

 

(Note to all employers: This is how NOT to compose your PPL)

 

——————————————————————————————

 

Company Memo

FROM:            Patty Lewis, Human Resources Director

TO:                  All Employees

DATE:             December 1, 2009

RE:                  Gala Christmas Party

 

I’m happy to inform you that the company Christmas Party will take place on December 23^rd, starting at noon in the private function room at the Grill House.  There will be a cash bar and plenty of drinks!  We’ll have a small band playing traditional carols… feel free to sing along. And don’t be surprised if our Chief Executive shows up dressed as Santa Claus!  A Christmas tree will be lit at 1:00 PM.  Exchanges of gifts among employees can be done at that time; however, no gift should be over £10.00 to make the giving of gifts easy for everyone’s pockets.  This gathering is only for employees!

 

Our Chief Executive will make a special announcement at that time!

 

Merry Christmas to you and your family.

 

Patty

 

 

 

 

Company Memo

FROM:            Patty Lewis, Human Resources Director

TO:                  All Employees

DATE:             December 2, 2009

RE:                  Holiday Party

 

In no way was yesterday’s memo intended to exclude our Jewish employees.  We recognize that Hanukkah is an important holiday, which often coincides with Christmas, though unfortunately not this year.  However, from now on, we’re calling it our “Holiday Party.”  The same policy applies to any other employees who are not Christians and to those still celebrating Reconciliation Day.  There will be no Christmas tree and no Christmas carols will be sung.  We will have other types of music for your enjoyment.

 

Happy now?

 

Happy holidays to you and your family.

 

Patty

 

 

 

 

Company Memo

FROM:            Patty Lewis, Human Resources Director

TO:                  All Employees

DATE:             December 3, 2009

RE:                  Holiday Party

Regarding the note I received from a member of Alcoholics Anonymous requesting a non-drinking table, you didn’t sign your name.  I’m happy to accommodate this request, but if I put a sign on a table that reads, “AA Only”, you wouldn’t be anonymous anymore.  How am I supposed to handle this?

 

Somebody?

 

And sorry, but forget about the gift exchange, no gifts are allowed since the union members feel that £10.00 is too much money and the executives believe £10.00 is a little chintzy.

 

REMEMBER: NO GIFT EXCHANGE WILL BE ALLOWED.

 

 

 

 

Company Memo

FROM:            Patty Lewis, Human Resources Director

TO:                  All Employees

DATE:             December 4, 2009

RE:                  Holiday Party

 

What a diverse group we are!  I had no idea that December 20^th begins the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which forbids eating and drinking during daylight hours.  There goes the party!  Seriously, we can appreciate how a luncheon at this time of year does not accommodate our Muslim employees’ beliefs.  Perhaps the Grill House can hold off on serving your meal until the end of the party or else package everything for you to take home in a little foil doggy bag.  Will that work?

 

Meanwhile, I’ve arranged for members of Weight Watchers to sit farthest from the dessert buffet, and pregnant women will get the table closest to the toilets.

 

Gays are allowed to sit with each other.  Lesbians do not have to sit with Gay men; each group will have their own table.  Yes, there will be a flower arrangement for the Gay men’s table.

 

To the person asking permission to cross dress, the Grill House asks that no cross-dressing be allowed, apparently because of concerns about confusion in the restrooms.  Sorry.

We will have booster seats for short people.

 

Low-fat food will be available for those on a diet.

 

I am sorry to report that we cannot control the amount of salt used in the food. The Grill House suggests that people with high blood pressure taste a bite first.

 

There will be fresh “low sugar” fruits as dessert for diabetics, but the restaurant cannot supply “no sugar” desserts. Sorry!

 

Did I miss anything?!?!?

 

Patty

 

 

 

 

Company Memo

FROM:            Patty Lewis, Human Resources Director

TO:                  All F*%^ing Employees

DATE:                         December 5, 2009

RE:                  The F*%^ing Holiday Party

 

I’ve had it with you vegetarian pr*^&s!!!

 

We’re going to keep this party at the Grill House whether you like it or not, so you can sit quietly at the table furthest from the “grill of death,” as you so quaintly put it, and you’ll get your f*%^ing salad bar, including organic tomatoes.  But you know, tomatoes have feelings too.  They scream when you slice them…  I’ve heard them scream…  I’m hearing them scream right NOW!

 

The rest of you f*%^ing weirdo’s can kiss my *ss.  I hope you all have a rotten holiday!

 

Drive drunk and die.

 

The B*tch from H*ll!!!

 

 

 

 

Company Memo

 

FROM:            Joan Bishop, Acting Human Resources Director

DATE:             December 6, 2009

RE:                  Patty Lewis and Holiday Party

 

I’m sure I speak for all of us in wishing Patty Lewis a speedy recovery and I’ll continue to forward your cards to her.

 

In the meantime, management has decided to cancel our Holiday Party and give everyone the afternoon of the 23^rd off with full pay.

 

Happy Holidays!

 

Joan

 

 

For advice on how to construct a Party Pooper Letter, contact a member of our team on 0845 644 8955 or e-mail us at pm@russellhrconsulting.co.uk

 

 

Pete Doherty, Eminem, 50 Cent and Britney Spears…all names we are familiar with and not necessarily for their music.  Like many “musicians” (and I use that term loosely), they insist on getting themselves into all sorts of trouble!  But it is not just the stars of the music industry that have been all over the news these past few weeks.  An unusual case involving MSHK Limited (associated with Ministry of Sound) and an employee’s breach of contract on resignation, has recently brought to light the importance of making decisive action prior to bringing any allegations of gross misconduct against him.

 

These were the facts:

 

·        May 2007 – Ben Cook accepts a position with a rival music company, Warner Music UK Ltd. and gives six months notice of resignation, a pre-requisite outlined in his employment contract.  Although the contract prohibited Mr Cook from soliciting artists, clients etc. from the company on termination of his post, it did not contain a blanket non-competition clause.

·        During the notice period, there is a heated debate between the company and Mr Cook.  As a result Mr Cook is signed off with stress-related illness.  During his time of absence, MSHK treats him with “sympathy and thoughtfulness” in order to prevent possible claims of constructive dismissal being brought against them.

·        July 2007 – Mr Cook returns to work and is subsequently dismissed for gross misconduct in August 2007; MSHK claims that Mr Cook’s conduct had breached the duty of trust and confidence between the company and the employee, in two respects:

 

1.      Mr Cook had attempted to deliberately mislead MSHK, maintaining that his new employment was not competitive.

2.      Mr Cook had attempted to secure a substantial company loan after giving his notice, putting his personal interests ahead of those of MSHK.

 

In this case it was MSHK who issued court proceedings and took legal action, seeking a declaration that Mr Cook’s dismissal was lawful.  The Court of Appeal’s main concern was in identifying whether or not MSHK had affirmed the contract of employment following the alleged breaches of Mr Cook, on their attempt to “smooth things over” during his period of sickness.

 

The Court ruled in favour of Mr Cook in relation to the first ground of dismissal, stating that MSHK had given no indication, for a significant period of time, of their intention to bring disciplinary proceedings against Mr Cook.  However, in relation to the second ground for dismissal, the Court ruled that MSHK were entitled to pursue this allegation through the disciplinary process; MSHK had reserved its position and had documented evidence that it had written to Mr Cook, expressing its concern over the loan.

 

The case of Cook v MSHK (2009) serves as a warning to all employers.  In making allegations of gross misconduct – or otherwise – act promptly, take decisive action and do not operate in a manner whereby you are being clearly inconsistent with an employee who has (allegedly) committed a breach of the employment contract.  In situations where an employee’s absence may obstruct a prompt pursuit of an allegation, clearly state that you, as a company, are reserving your position to proceed when the employee returns.

 

For more information on how to deal with allegations of gross misconduct, contact a member of our team on 0845 644 8955 or e-mail us at pm@russellhrconsulting.co.uk

 

Please note our Christmas opening hours. We will be closed from 1pm on Christmas Eve and open again for business at 9am on Monday 4th January 2010.

 

By Darry Khajehpour

 

With our very best wishes for the season of goodwill

CSI and Dexter may be concerned with homicides and serial-killers, but here at Russell HR Consulting, we are concerned with something much more serious… serial-litigation.

 

A new website and service – Serial Litigants – has recently been launched to try to provide some assistance to those dealing with tribunal litigation (see www.serial-litigants.com). It enables clients to perform a national search on a Claimant to discover whether he or she has had any previous tribunal claims and, if so, whether these cases have been won or lost. The site provides advice for dealing with serial-litigants ranging from how to communicate with said litigant, to what training should be given to your staff in proceeding with such a case.

 

The recent development of Serial Litigants highlights the importance of really knowing your opposition and gaining a thorough knowledge of both your claimant and their claim when dealing with tribunal litigation. This also goes for all forms of discipline and grievance, where strict procedures should be followed and advice sought in dealing with cases that involve issues such as misconduct, claims of unfair dismissal and compensation claims, to name but a few.

 

As well as publishing material such as 101 Tips for Employers – a practical guide to managing employees effectively – Russell HR Consulting provides an extensive range of training courses, workshops and over-the-phone advice to assist if and when such situations should arise.

 

Don’t be another hit on the serial-litigants list, contact us at pm@russellhrconsulting.co.uk.

 

 

By Darry Khajehpour

 

 

 

Rights, entitlements, liberties and equalities; all terms we are familiar with in Western society. Legislation and legal charters dating as far back as the Magna Carter, have ensured that all members of society – from ordinary labourers to kings and queens – are bound by the law of the land. But with our modern-day, hectic lifestyles, we are less concerned with how much it costs taxpayers to feed the Queen’s corgis, and more concerned with our personal welfare.

 

A recent hot potato in the media has been the issue of equality in the workplace; in particular, whether society has become too “generous” in respect to the maternity rights of female employees. ‘Ahh, a Battle of the Sexes!’ I hear you cry… surprisingly not! As Jill Berry, president of the Girls Schools Association, aptly stated in an article in the Telegraph last week, ‘…women can be hard judges of each other… Some women have criticised me in a way that men wouldn’t dare.’

 

Both men and women alike have expressed their support, and indeed opposition, to the increasing rights for the new mums of Britain. On one side of the firing line are those who feel that expecting and new mothers are still discriminated against because of their “choice” to start a family; the amount of time provided by the employer for antenatal care; a woman’s Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) etc. etc.

 

On the other side, you have those who feel that both the current rights, and the recently proposed legislation aimed at giving women more maternity leave, are having a detrimental impact and actually encouraging discrimination. Although unlawful, some employers may decide that it is more appealing to go for the guy over the gal, which  somehow doesn’t seem to equate to equality in the work place, does it?

 

Whether you’re in favour or against the new developments in maternity rights, it’s always good to know where you and / or your company stands in terms of the rights of both men and women in the workplace. To find out more or for any other information regarding Employment Law, please don’t hesitate to contact a member of our team on 0845 644 8955 or e-mail pm@russellhrconsulting.co.uk 

 

By Darry Khajehpour