Images
ACAS Early Conciliation: What a Difference a Day Makes
Anne Mannix of Averta Employment Lawyers discusses the importance of getting your timing right when contemplating early conciliation.
Since 6 May, new rules have made it obligatory for would be claimants to contact Acas to attempt early conciliation of most tribunal claims before such a claim (e.g. unfair dismissal, discrimination) can be made to an employment tribunal.
So now, if you want to issue proceedings in the employment tribunal, you must now contact Acas first, (whether by telephone or on a specific form) and provide some information. Once you have made contact, an Acas officer will be in touch and take down information, including whether you want to try to conciliate with the employer. Even if you don’t want to participate in conciliation through Acas, you still have to make contact with Acas, as they issue a certificate (EC Certificate); which contains a unique reference number that will need to include this on the application to the tribunal.
For senior executives, Tribunals may not be the obvious place to argue for compensation (as the limits are quite low) but the threat of a tribunal claim is a useful tactic in the lawyer’s armoury. With that in mind, Acas may need to be involved (after speaking to your lawyer first) in order to give any threats of litigation some credibility.
If you want to try early conciliation, your information will be sent to a conciliation officer who will be in contact. With your agreement, Acas will also be in contact with the employer and the Acas officer will attempt to get a settlement within a period of one calendar month.
This period runs from the date on which you first get in touch with Acas, but can be extended by up to two weeks. If conciliation fails then the EC Certificate is issued. So all this leaves us with some timing considerations such as:
How does this fit in with the long established time limit of 3 months (less one day) for bringing claims to the employment tribunal?
What if you don’t contact Acas until the day before a claims needs to be submitted? Will you run out of time?
The rules work so that there is never less than a month after receiving the EC Certificate to bring your tribunal claim. This should be enough time to get the claim drafted and submitted. But what does “month” mean in this context? Curiously, and owing to a difference in the wording, the approach to calculation is by reference to the corresponding date (i.e., not less one day). Or is it?
Our advice is until the lawyers have finished battling this one out, the safest approach is not to leave contacting Acas to the last minute, thereby avoiding disputes over whether a claim is in time or not. To be even safer, take good legal advice at the earliest opportunity.
For further guidance on early conciliation and employment tribunals please call Anne Mannix on 0870 421 1952
How to watch all of The Rugby World Cup – without getting fired….
Marianne Browne at Averta, has a few words of advice for anyone that doesn't want to miss watching a World Cup game:
The Rugby World Cup starts today, with England playing Fiji at Twickenham. Whilst many people will be content with catching the big games and highlight, there are many 'die-hard' rugby fans up and down the country will no doubt be making plans to watch it (or as much of it as they can).
A lot of matches are scheduled to take place at the weekend however, some will take place during the week and start at 2:30pm. What can you do if you’re at work and want to watch it all?
If you want to take time off work around the time of matches, you will need to book annual leave in the normal way, as set out in your employer’s holiday handbook or policy. If you do not want to or cannot take time off to watch the games, you might be permitted by your employer to watch some TV or internet coverage while at work or you might even be able to discuss some sort of temporary flexible working arrangement.
“Pulling a sicky” to watch a game is not a sensible idea. Your employer will no doubt be monitoring sickness absence during the World Cup period and any unauthorised absence or patterns in absence could result in formal proceedings.
It might be worth talking to your employer to see if you can agree a more flexible working day, when you can come in a little later or finish earlier, and when this time can be made up. It might also be possible to listen or watch some events by taking your lunch hour at a different time to normal or during an agreed scheduled break.
It is important that you check with your employer regarding the use of the internet to watch matches. They may well have an internet policy that makes it clear whether you are permitted to watch live coverage on your computer. If your employer is monitoring your internet usage, the data protection regulations require them to make it clear that it’s happening to all employees.
To plan the rest of this month and October, go to http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/
Photography - England vs. Scotland courtesy of Steve Nottingham
Attractive proposition
This week has seen a media storm as a female barrister, Charlotte Proudman, objected to remarks an older male solicitor made to her on the business networking social media site LinkedIn. Here one of Averta’s solicitors Marianne Browne, comments on the issue:
Mr Carter-Silk’s message to Charlotte Proudman is arguably cringe-worthy and ill-judged. Perhaps, given his obvious experience, he should have known better. I do not condone his comments or think that it was appropriate but I do find it difficult to believe that Charlotte Proudman should really be that outraged by his remarks. Her response in publicly naming and shaming him is over the top.
I note that it was Ms Proudman who reached out to Mr Carter-Silk, whom she did not know, on LinkedIn and therefore initiated the contact. It was not like Mr Carter-Silk asked to connect with her just because he liked the look of her. He replied to accept her connection request and included a message when he did so. As I said, his message is cringe-worthy which even he appears to accept as he says “I appreciate that this is probably horrendously politically incorrect” and describes her picture as “stunning” and the “best” he has seen on LinkedIn. Is that really so demeaning? Even if she finds it demeaning, I struggle to see how it constitutes “social policing, gender control and a hidden form of social violence”, some of which comments Ms Proudman repeated on Radio 5 live today. It was a compliment sent to her via social media commenting on the photograph she had chosen to use to represent herself. There’s no denying she is a very attractive woman (I assume I am allowed to say that because I am female and therefore have no hidden sexist agenda), and no doubt that the quality of the photography is rather better than the average Linkedin picture.
I disagree that his comments represent an eroticisation of women or that they silence the professional attributes of her or women at large. A woman can be professional and attractive. Indicating that you find someone attractive does not belittle or diminish their professional attributes. It certainly does not constitute sex discrimination or come close to any sort of sexual crime.
Ms Proudman would have been justified in deleting him from her LinkedIn network and letting him know, as she did, that she did not appreciate his message. However by making such a huge and very public fuss over what was quite obviously a well-meaning compliment comes across as a bit self-indulgent, does it not?
Jonathan Lewis considers whether proposals to limit strike action are detrimental to workers.
There have been more than a few newspaper articles about proposed changes to the rules on strike action. To be honest the most entertaining bits were the comments sections. Nothing against the authors of the articles, but the readers have not held back their views, grabbing the opportunity to enter into an ideological scrap with both hands. Politics aside though, what do the proposed changes really mean and how are they likely to affect “the people”?
The Trade Union Bill makes a number of proposals that are controversial, going by the number of online comments. The most publicised proposals relate to new thresholds that will have to be met for strike action to be lawful: The first is that 50% of those entitled to vote in any strike ballot must turn out. The second threshold, which only affects those in core public services such as education and health, requires 40% of those entitled to vote (not those who turn out) to vote in favour of industrial action.
The first threshold appears largely uncontroversial, especially given the current mood following the recent rail strikes. In truth, these strikes would probably have happened regardless of the 50% threshold. It is reported that the unions had turnout well above this limit. The more controversial of the two thresholds is undoubtedly the second. This is not necessarily because it is wrong to put an additional threshold on key public services. There should be a higher hurdle in place given the more significant consequences of a strike in those sectors. However, many commentators have simply taken the view that 40% is too high a threshold. I do not agree with this. Having spoken to a friend of mine, who is a teacher and would therefore be impacted by the proposals, he was of the view that these thresholds would positively encourage him to vote. After all, every vote would really matter. If every union member employed in core public services takes this view then there is very little for the unions to worry about. Their turnout would increase and the unions would only have to worry about convincing 40% of their members that a strike was necessary. If it truly was then this should not be a problem.
Some argue that the proposals act as a bar on striking, an attack on the unions. However they may actually provide a better opportunity for unions to engage with their members and encourage debate. It might mean that strikes become less frequent but again, this may be advantageous to those unions who have lacked public support in their most recent outings. The less frequent the strikes the more significant the impact. Only time will reveal the consequences of such proposed legislation however it may be that these proposals are not as detrimental to workers as some would have you believe.
Lionesses' pride unrewarded!
We should really be used to it by now; the hype, the adulation, the inevitable disappointment. Baddiel and Skinner remain proven wrong; football is not coming home. That being said the Lionesses did the country proud in Canada and have hopefully inspired a number of youngsters to take up football in the hope of replicating their new found idols and making it to the international scene. As the media quickly pointed out, no England team had made it as far in a football world cup since the team of 1990 (yes, the one where Gazza cried) and against countries where women’s football has enjoyed enormous popularity (such as Japan, U.S.A, and Germany) that is no mean feat.
Although comparisons between the Lionesses and the 1990 Lions have been drawn, there remains one huge difference between the two teams; the salaries. However, not to single out football for criticism, many other sports pay men and women vastly different sums. For example, a female winning the LPGA US Open would be rewarded with the sum of around £500,000 whilst their male counterpart winning the PGA equivalent would receive double that. Some sports are leading the way, with tennis being a prime example; from 2007 men and women have received equal prize money at Wimbledon.
Of course, the reason for such a pay gap in sport is primarily commercial. You only have to look at how much BT was willing to pay to show the champion’s league as an illustrator of how much value the broadcasters put on male sports. As interest in female sports grows this should change and in turn salaries/prize money increase (although it is doubtful that they will increase at such a pace as to ever match men’s salaries, certainly in football anyway). However, outside of sport there remains a gender pay gap in various industries and at various levels. At boardroom level in particular there is often (albeit less than in the past) a disparity between male and female directors’ remuneration packages. The Government has sought to address equal pay by activating Section 78 of the Equality Act 2010, with regulations regarding the reporting of gender pay statistics to be produced by early 2016. Such reporting will be limited to employers with over 250 employees however it is yet to be seen how the figures would be produced or on what information they would rely (i.e. what level of employee would be included in any one grouping? Would the statistics just take the mean of the whole workforce?).
Outside of sport the gender pay gap does appear to be decreasing. In sport there remains a huge divide and it may be that Laura Bassett now has to appear in a commercial, à la Gareth Southgate, in order to receive a financial gain in any way similar to her male counterparts.
Averta wins 'Law firm of the year'!
Last Thursday 19 May 2015 at the Birmingham Law Society annual awards dinner the team from Averta were awarded 'Law firm of the year' for up to 4 partners. The award was presented by Brian Moore, BBC sports commentator and former England rugby international. A great time was had by all.
Averta Employment Lawyers appoints new Associate Solicitor, Marianne Browne
Midlands based employment law firm, Averta Employment Lawyers has appointed Marianne Browne as Associate Solicitor.
Before joining Averta which specialises in giving senior executives employment advice, Browne had some time out from the law, running a successful sales agency business which operated in the composites and engineering industry. Prior to that, she had qualified as a solicitor and worked in the Employment and Benefits department of Dentons where she also advised on business immigration matters.
At Dentons, Browne gained experience of advising corporate and individual clients. She has also negotiated complex settlement agreements for senior executives and dealt with a broad range of employment tribunal claims.
Her experience in business immigration includes applications to join the Register of Sponsors and advice on complying with the obligations of a sponsor licence, Grant of Leave to Remain or Leave to Enter applications and various settlement applications.
Averta recommended employment law firm in Chambers and Partners 2013
Chambers & Partners UK directory for 2013, one of the most respected guided to law firms and published each autumn, has recommended Averta Employment Lawyers and one of its directors Alan Jones in the Birmingham employment category.
The guide says:
“This Solihull-based operation has geared its practice towards advising company directors, managers and senior executives.”
As in previous years Averta is ranked alongside much larger firms and for its work for directors and senior individuals. David Sykes, director at Averta comments:
“We are always pleased that although we are a small operation, our performance means that we are recognised alongside well known corporate firms in the region. It shows that individuals coming to us can be confident that we can more than hold our own when advising on settlement agreements, termination packages, bonuses or other employment issues.”
Chambers also singles out Alan Jones at Averta as a key individual, reporting:
“One client says: “I was confident in his tactics and his understanding of our legal position, its merits and the likely outcome.”
Averta Employment Lawyers was set up nearly 10 years ago to bring commercial experience to advise senior executives. Both Jones and Sykes were partners at DLP Piper, with Jones heading up the DLA employment team for many years. In 2008, Rachel Broughton joined the team from DLA Piper and is now a director at Averta. Senior associate Kate Caudwell-Hunt , a trainee solicitor and a paralegal complete the team in the Midlands. The firm also opened an office in London this year, which is headed up by London director, Anne Mannix.
For more information on employment law for employers and senior executives please call us 0870 421 1952.
Averta tops tier in Legal 500 2013
This year, as in previous years, Averta tops tier three of human resources firms in the West Midlands, an impressive performance for a niche firm against much larger players. This year Legal 500 comments that: “Niche practice Averta Employment Lawyers specialises in high-value work for senior individuals and some businesses, and has the ‘very experienced’ Alan Jones and David Sykes. Highlights included achieving a settlement of £750,000 for the CEO of a large multinational business.” Managing partner, David Sykes, said: “We are delighted to be recognised for the quality of our advice by our clients and by other law firms. It’s a real vote of confidence in us and it lets our clients know that even though we are a small firm, the advice they get is second to none.” Alan Jones is also listed as one of the West Midlands’ leading individuals. Legal 500 classifies the West Midlands as comprising Birmingham and the surrounding counties of Herefordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire. Legal 500 is a full in-depth, comprehensive analysis of law firms across the United Kingdom. Its material comes from clients and the legal community. Published for over twenty years, the Legal 500 provides the most comprehensive worldwide coverage currently available on legal services providers. It is used by commercial and private clients, corporate counsel, CEOs, CFOs and professional advisers – as well as by other referrers of work both nationally and internationally.
For more information on employment law for employers and senior executives please call us on 0870 421 1952.
London Employment Lawyer Anne Mannix joins Averta
Former DLA Piper employment partner, Anne Mannix, has joined Averta Employment Lawyers as the director of its new London office in Devonshire Street, which will offer employment law advice to directors, senior executives and professionals.
On leaving DLA Piper in 2003 Mannix went on to become head of employment at BGC Partners/Cantor Fitzgerald. Latterly she has been an employment partner at a niche practice in London, having previously worked at the Practical Law Company as employment law editor.
David Sykes, partner at Averta Employment Lawyers says:
“Anne’s extensive experience fits perfectly with Averta. We have always represented clients from London, but having a senior lawyer of Anne’s calibre on the spot will mean we can provide an even more responsive service.”
From Averta’s London office, Mannix will use her experience working in the city to help senior employees and LLP members with complex work issues. She will also advise small to medium sized companies who need her particular expertise and smaller law firms who do not have the ability to advise on some employment law issues.
Mannix has considerable experience gained in the financial services sector, advising companies, LLPs and senior individuals. She has handled a variety of high value termination claims, including bonus and discrimination issues, and is particularly sensitive to the financial regulatory considerations of a termination.
Mannix commented:
“I think my expertise in employment law issues affecting senior individuals will be a big asset to Averta’s London clients. I am looking forward to working with partners, Alan Jones and David Sykes to further develop the business by offering clients a ‘second to none’ service.”
For some years Mannix has also assisted as legal adviser at her local Citizen’s Advice Bureau, and has worked on a pro-bono basis on a number of tribunal cases. Additionally she is a trustee of two local charities in West London.
Mannix has used her expertise to present seminars and webinars, and provide practical training sessions on a number of employment law topics. She is also a member of the Employment Law Association and the Discrimination Law Association.
To speak to Annie about an employment law issue please call our London office on 0870 421 1952.