an employee may well be reasonable in resisting pay cuts, but that does not automatically make it unreasonable to dismiss and re-engage them

Posted on October 26, 2011 by Martin Malone

In these continuing hard times, with profits squeezed and businesses facing collapse, it is becoming increasingly common to consider salary reductions as a cost saving exercise. Although some consider it a risky option, given the prospect of employment tribunal claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract, it is well established that dismissal for refusal to accept a change of contract terms is potentially fair (as "some other substantial reason" for dismissal), and will actually be fair if the employer acts reasonably in deciding to dismiss. Such fairness, of course, calls for genuine efforts to negotiate the changes before resorting to giving notice of dismissal and offering re-engagement on new terms.

Two recent cases have reiterated this general principle and made certain aspects of it very it clear Continue reading →

Dismissal for religious belief or how that belief is manifested?

Posted on January 26, 2011 by Martin Malone

The Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 (now part of the Equality Act 2010) were introduced, as the name suggests, to protect against discrimination on the grounds of religion or a belief system.

In Power -v- Greater Manchester Police Authority the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered the dismissal of Mr Power, a committed spiritualist, who worked as a Special Constabulary Trainer. Shortly after he started his job his employers discovered that police officers had complained that, in his previous work, he had been disruptive and unhelpful on training courses and that he had been distributing CDs and posters about spiritualism.

He was called to a meeting with an HR manager following which he received a letter notifying him that his employment was terminated with immediate effect. The letter included the following:

Information has come to light regarding previous work with Neighbouring Forces and your current work in the psychic field which is not compatible with employment in Greater Manchester Police. I can confirm that if this information had been made available to us prior to you joining the force as a member of police staff, we would not have offered you employment.”

Mr Power presented a complaint of discrimination to an employment tribunal and lost. The tribunal found that he was dismissed not because of the beliefs he held but because his previous conduct showed that he was unsuitable to train police officers and the distribution of the CDs and posters, although related to his beliefs, was an unacceptable way of expressing those beliefs. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that this is not quite what the letter of dismissal says as shown above. However, when he appealed against his dismissal he was told that the phrase “work in the psychic field” referred not to the belief held by him “but on the basis that the material [distributed] was inappropriate”. The distinction is critical because, on appeal, the EAT agreed with the employment tribunal and confirmed that Mr Power was dismissed, not because he was a spiritualist and did work in the psychic field, but because of how he manifested his beliefs by distributing the material.

Did it make any difference that the belief in question was spiritualism? That issue is not addressed in the decision but it would be interesting to see how the activities of an evangelical Christian might be regarded in similar circumstances. Such an individual would be expected, as part of his or her belief, to “spread the word” with a view to encouraging people, presumably including those encountered in the workplace, to become fellow evangelical Christians. The word evangelism is derived from the Greek words to announce good news, bring a good message or preach the Gospel.

Yet again the application of the Regulations (now within the Act) brings with it the uncomfortable overlap between moral questions, including those concerning freedom of expression of faith, and application of the law in a largely secular society.

sacked for stopping shoplifter

Posted on May 26, 2010 by Martin Malone

[picappgallerysingle id="4773122" align="left"]This article in the US Columbus Dispatch reminded me of many a lively day when I managed the Virgin Megastore in York in the mid 80s. Walmart employee Heather Ravenstein has been sacked after challenging a man who walked out of the store with a $600 computer without paying for it. Although she was thanked at the time, she was called in the following day and given her cards because she violated company policy about how to treat people in stores.

[picappgallerysingle id="289790" align="left"]When I was working for Virgin in York (and this ages me!) our main sales were 33rpm albums which were shrink-wrapped with a big machine on the top floor. In those days there were not the scanner checks which you find at store entrances so it was down to us to spot them. I remember two occasions (both on Saturdays) when we lost the entire Who collection and another when we lost half the Reggae selection (approximately 50 albums). The instruction in those days was to pursue the felon and do what you could to retrieve both him/her and the albums. This often led to chases through the city centre and I remember one occasion when the woman who took the albums ran to the Lendal Bridge, threw all the albums into the river and then jumped in herself!

In our current health and safety aware society this type of escapade is clearly no longer acceptable but I do have sympathy for Ms Ravenstein who was doing what she (reasonably) thought was the right thing. It is essential for employers to provide guidance for employees about how to deal with the situations they may encounter in the course of their duties. This is why a staff handbook is essential. As part of our subscription package we provide a customised staff handbook which is tailored to suit your specific business and corresponding requirements. If you are a subscriber, you have probably already seen the benefit of this in practice. If not, please call 08000 320 974 and we will let you know how you can deal with this type of situation (and many others).