Images

Travelling light - How organisations can benefit from executive restraint and transparency

 

Alan Jones, director at Averta Employment Lawyers, discusses how organisations can benefit from restraint and transparency, when it comes to senior executive pay and benefits:

Executive pay and benefits continue to come under the spotlight, with business leaders, politicians, customers and even students calling for greater restraint and transparency on pay, benefits and bonuses.

Earlier this year the Institute of Directors (IoD), who represent business executives in the UK called for “greater transparency and accountability over executive pay” and ongoing outrage over University Vice Chancellors’ large salaries was amplified by reports that they were claiming on expenses items such as Easter eggs, scented candles, fresh flowers and even a “pornstar Martini”.

Whilst there is obvious public distaste for senior managers who abuse their expense accounts or receive large bonuses for poor performance, there can also be commercial damage.   The negative impact to the reputation of Bath University, after it was revealed that the Vice Chancellor of Bath University was paid nearly £470,000, resulted in 6% fewer students applying for places at Bath the following year.

In the midst of this, you have to admire Eddie Jones for his “common touch”. There he is in a position of national prominence, CEO of a multi-million-pound high profile (sporting) business, and he travels by standard class train from Edinburgh to Manchester the day after England have been thrashed by a resurgent Scottish rugby team. Not many senior executives would travel, alone, in the same carriage as many of his “customers” or “stakeholders” (some of whom were apparently hostile scots).  Most would choose to either travel in the refined and relative security of first class or, more likely, a chauffeur driven car from Murrayfield to home.

He may not be everybody’s favourite rugby character, but he sets an outstanding example for other leaders of industry. Sadly, as has been well publicised, the journey did not go well, as it appears that he was pilloried if not physically abused by a small number of so called “fans” and has pledged never to travel in that way again.

Nevertheless, other industry leaders could learn a lesson. Unless they have a similarly high profile to Eddie (and are therefore subject to public awareness), they could easily set a shining example to their colleagues by travelling in the same way that most people do.


Averta's Rachel goes Bargain Hunting

Rachel Broughton alongside her Bargain Hunt team’s antique expert, John Cameron.

Some non-employment news here -  Averta Employment Lawyer’s director Rachel Broughton has filmed an episode of BBC One’s Bargain Hunt with her mother who is a keen antique collector.

In Bargain Hunt, two teams have £300 and one hour to buy antiques which they then sell at auction.  The team that makes the most money from their purchases is the winner. Each team is accompanied by an expert who helps guide them round what might be the best buys. Contestants don’t have to be antique experts, but the BBC are interested in people who do love antiques and collectables.  Enthusiasm is as important to being selected as knowledge, but a combination of both is perfect for the programme.

Following a day of filming a few weeks ago, Rachel and her mother will be returning to Malvern today (8th March 2018) to auction what they bought in filming.  The episode is due to air in the Summer; the exact date is still to be confirmed.

Rachel had great fun filming with their team’s expert John Cameron, Anita Manning and the rest of the wonderful BBC crew.  She refuses to tell us what she and her mother bought but she has been heard mumbling something in the office about a golden gavel!

Here’s a sneak preview of Rachel taking part alongside her team’s antique expert, John Cameron. John has worked as an expert on two other BBC antiques shows, ‘Cash in the Attic’ and ‘Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is.’  He has also worked at an auction house to become a chartered surveyor of antiques and fine art and is accomplished at putting contestants at their east and making sure they have fun.

Bargain Hunt is on BBC One at lunchtimes during the week; it airs at 12.15 and as we appreciate that it is not a good time for most of us at to watch the programme.  However, you can catch up on the BBC iplayer by following this link - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006nb9z


2017 Legal 500 says Averta ‘the best niche firm for senior executive issues’

Legal 500’s 2017 rankings identify Averta Employment Lawyers as the ‘best niche firm for senior executive issues’ for employment in the West Midlands.  Averta ranked in Tier 2 alongside some of the Midlands biggest law firms

All Averta’s partners are singled out as leading individuals for employment law in the West Midlands.

Averta’s David Sykes and Alan Jones are also listed in the elite “Leading lawyers” list, Legal 500 guide to outstanding lawyers nationwide.

'proactive, experienced and streets ahead of their competition'

Legal 500 says; “According to one client, Averta Employment Lawyers LLP is ‘without doubt the best niche firm for senior executive issues’, while another comments that the firm’s lawyers are ‘proactive, experienced and streets ahead of their competition’.”

“Key figures include the ‘vastly experienced and invaluably calm’ Alan Jones and the ‘totally brilliant’ and ‘hugely practical’ David Sykes.” (Legal 500 2017)

Alan Jones comments: “We founded the firm over 10 years ago now and our aim was to provide a specialist service at the same level, in terms of experience, as the larger firms, but for private clients.  It’s great to see the positive commentary in Legal 500 as it shows that we are doing something right.”

Winner of the Birmingham Law Society ‘Law Firm of the Year’ award for 2015 and shortlisted in 2017, Averta advises on all employment law matters, with a focus on the issues affecting senior executives, managers, consultants and professionals.

Averta Employment Lawyers operated from offices in Meriden, near Solihull in the Midlands, with satellite offices in Oxford and London.

Contact - Averta on 0300 303 3570


BBC reveals salaries

Alan Jones, Averta Employment Lawyers, comments on BBC revealing senior staff salaries and gender pay gap:
“Why the Government imposed an obligation on the BBC to reveal salaries of staff earning over £150K isn’t entirely clear. What is clear is that publishing senior staff salaries has however caused a good deal of embarrassment both to the Corporation and to the individuals whose pay has been revealed.
It is clear from the figures, that there is a disparity in income between male and female employees earning over £150,000 a year.
There will be winners and losers in this exercise. The winners may well be the female “stars” who are able to argue for more money and, possibly, claim for backdated loss of earnings going into many hundreds of thousands of pounds. It is somewhat unlikely, but in some cases, there will be losers too, possibly the male “stars” who could find their contracts re-negotiated downwards.
Equal pay claims come in a variety of different forms, and there are a variety of defences available to the employer, from ‘differences’ in the roles, to ‘market forces’, to previous experience, and many others. Some apparently different jobs may be rated ‘equivalent’, as in cases where dinner ladies have been held ‘equivalent’ to the work done by refuse collectors, or ‘like work’. But male employees whose salaries are under threat of reduction would have breach of contract claims, also running into thousands’
The biggest loser will be the licence payer as there is little doubt that this disclosure will put upward pressure on the total wage bill for the BBC, and that this will inevitably work through to the cost of the TV licence. The alternative of course is that the BBC lets go its expensive stars, who move to other channels at possibly even greater salaries. The loser in that case might be the viewer as there is no doubt that the quality of the BBC productions may well be damaged by the exits.
As in many situations like this, the only winners will be the lawyers working for those who have been wronged and the legal advisers to the BBC that have to put together imaginative defences to claims.
All companies with over 250 employees will need to disclose gender pay gap from April 2018, so it will be interested to see what the consequences are in this case. As of today, it seems as if female employees are already preparing to take legal action.
Whilst the BBC will have to deal with the fall out in terms of unhappy staff; it is likely the Government will regret its decision to force salary disclosure. The large amounts of money paid to BBC stars once again focuses the public eye on the disparity and inequality in society. A lady rang the radio yesterday to make the very valid point that a senior nurse, saving lives and making people better, can expect to earn £43,000, so how can anyone justify a salary of 5 or 10 times that amount?”


Birmingham employment solicitor appointed as social mobility ambassador for the Law Society

Averta's Rachel Broughton new social mobility ambassador for Law Society

Averta Employment Lawyers’ Rachel Broughton has been appointed as a social mobility ambassador for the Law Society of England and Wales. Broughton, who is a director at Averta, will in her capacity as an ambassador be helping the Law Society to inspire people from less privileged backgrounds to consider a career in the law.

The Law Society Solicitors for Social Mobility campaign aims to highlight how the solicitors' profession is made up of accomplished and talented individuals from all walks of life, and how many will have experienced and overcome socio-economic hurdles in pursuit of their career ambitions and professional success.

Broughton comments:

"I feel very humbled to have been appointed to my role as a social mobility ambassador with the Law Society.  I came from a close-knit mining community in South Yorkshire and although I had an extremely happy childhood there were no role models and little guidance on how to pursue a professional career, let alone a career in law.  This project is about making those role models more visible and making the path to a career in law more understandable and accessible.”

“I believe that improving social mobility is not just a moral cause but is also important for the legal profession, to make sure we get the most able people who represent society as a whole.  I want to help show young people from less privileged backgrounds that it is possible to have a good career in law, if you work hard and are determined. I will say however that the drive and fight to get to where I am today forced me to develop tenacity and nurtured an empathy which has served me and my clients’ well.”

Law Society president Robert Bourns said: "I am proud and delighted to introduce the 2016 Solicitors for Social Mobility: the Ambassadors.

"With the Ambassadors, we want to provide examples and support for people aspiring to a career in law, to inspire the next generation of solicitors from all backgrounds."

Broughton joined Averta Employment Lawyers in 2007 becoming a partner in 2008 and is now a director. She had previously worked as a senior associate for eight years at DLA Piper in Birmingham, alongside Averta’s other directors, David Sykes and Alan Jones.

Averta’s Alan Jones says: “Rachel not only has a sharp intellect she is a tenacious lawyer and fights hard for her clients while displaying an unusual degree of empathy which means she regularly receives plaudits from clients facing challenging situations. ”

This is the second year the Law Society has run the Social Mobility: the Ambassadors campaign, which was launched in October 2015 with 10 ambassadors and are further 10 are being appointment this year.  To be appointed to the role, solicitors must have attended a non-fee paying school, been part of the first generation in their immediate family to attend higher education, be passionate about social mobility and fair access to the profession, and want to inspire others to follow their career ambitions.

Ends


Averta expands team

jonizzy

Midlands based, specialist employment law firm, Averta Employment Lawyers has expanded its team.

Jonathan Lewis and Izzy Canning complete Averta team

New paralegal, Izzy Canning, joins the team having completed a graduate diploma in Law at BPP University, Birmingham with a commendation.  In addition, solicitor Jonathan Lewis is  a fully-fledged member of the team, having joined in 2012 as a paralegal and now completed his training.

Izzy Canning has 2:1 degree in Medieval English and History from the University of Birmingham in 2007, plus experience in academic publishing.  She has also volunteered with the Samaritans and the Personal Support Unit.

Jonathon Lewis graduated with a 2:1 law degree from Swansea University in 2009 following which he spent time travelling through South East Asia, Australia and New Zealand. He then returned to undertake the Legal Practice Course at the Birmingham College of Law, finishing the course in 2012.  He completed his training contract in the Autumn of 2015.

Alan Jones, director at Averta said:

“We’re a niche firm and our reputation is based on excellent legal advice and client service which we can only provide with the right people.  I’m delighted we’ve been able to attract young ambitious people like Jon and Izzy.”

“Jon’s been with us for a few years as a paralegal and we’re delighted that he’s chosen to stay on with us as a qualified lawyer. .  Izzy is also a great addition to the team, offering both commercial acumen and excellent customer service skills.”

Ends

Picture caption – from left to right, David Sykes, Izzy Canning, Alan Jones, Jonathan Lewis, Rachel Broughton

Contacts:

Suzanne Orsler, SOPR, t 07813 131350, e Suzanne@sopr.co

Alan Jones, Averta Employment Lawyers, t 07970 495733, jonesa@averta.com

Note to editors:

Averta Employment Lawyers is a leading employment law firm. Averta’s solicitors are specialists in matters affecting directors, senior executives, senior employees, managers, consultants and professionals.


Chelsea in the news for the wrong reasons…

Marianne Browne from Averta Employment Lawyers has a look at Eva Carneiro’s constructive dismissal claim.

Football doesn’t normally interest me, but I am waiting with anticipation to hear the outcome of Eva Carneiro’s claims of constructive dismissal and breach of contract against Chelsea Football Club as well as her claim of discrimination against Jose Mourinho.


On 8 August, Carneiro and head physio, Jon Fearn, received public criticism from Mourinho for entering the pitch to treat a Chelsea football player during a game against West Bromwich Albion. Mourinho described the pair as “impulsive” and “naïve”. Carneiro then lost her place on the bench and was not allowed to attend matches or training sessions, so was effectively demoted.

We do not know all the facts relating to the termination of Carneiro’s employment but it is understood that she resigned from the Club and is now claiming constructive dismissal, breach of contract and discrimination.

With regard to a claim for constructive dismissal, Carneiro will need to establish that her employer’s conduct represented a fundamental breach of contract and that because of that breach, she was entitled to resign. In this case a demotion or suspension without justification would be considered a fundamental breach of contract. Carneiro might also point to the fact that there is no longer any trust and confidence between the parties. There is an implied term of trust and confidence in every contract of employment and, if this is breached, there may be grounds to claim constructive dismissal.


As a doctor, if Carneiro had not treated the football player she would have been in breach of the General Medical Counsel’s guidelines on the treatment of patients.

So it follows, that she was simply fulfilling her ethical and professional obligations, as well as, presumably, her contractual obligations. From the standpoint that Carneiro did nothing wrong, then in publicly criticising and demoting her, I would have thought an employment tribunal will find that she was constructively dismissed.

However, as I said in the previous paragraph, we do not have all the facts relating to her resignation or what happened on and after 8 August. We do not know what her contractual obligations are to the Club. So we don’t know all the facts that an employment tribunal will need to consider when determining whether or not she was constructively dismissed or the Club breached her contract.

The hearing yesterday was a preliminary hearing heard in private at London South Employment Tribunal. Preliminary hearings will typically be used to clarify the issues that the tribunal will need to determine at the final hearing; determine the steps the parties will need to take to prepare the claim for the final hearing; issue case management orders requiring certain steps to be undertaken and explore the possibility of settlement or alternative dispute resolution between the parties. It is normal that preliminary hearings are held in private, unless the hearing involves the judge determining any preliminary issues or considering whether the claim should be struck out.

Although we only have media speculation to rely on at the moment, it will be interesting to see how the case develops.


Some thoughts about the NHS Seven day service debate….

In a speech about the future of the NHS earlier this year, Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt claimed that a ‘Monday to Friday’ culture existed within the NHS and warned that flatline contracts would be altered to allow seven-day services. To say the least, this provoked a strong reaction from NHS staff, particularly doctors and consultants who resented that implication that weekend care was substandard. Rather than explore the implications of the potential contract changes from an employment point of view here, we’d just like to air the views of a junior doctor who is married to one of our members of staff. As with all media panics, there is more than one point of view, but we thought this explained some of the complexity of what goes on, ‘at the coalface’ and brings some insight to the debate:


Dear Jeremy,

I am a junior doctor at one of the “Keogh” hospitals you have discussed in your most recent speech and, despite spending eight of my first 12 months as a doctor at one of these ‘failing’ hospitals, I have found it to be an incredible experience. Working here has actually inspired me to commit myself to hospital medicine for the foreseeable future. I love hospital medicine but, like every other doctor from first year to consultant; I hate it when I cannot do my best for my patients.

It goes without saying that I understand the need to reduce the 6,000 unnecessary deaths a year that occur within the NHS and I want to be a part of the solution. What I don’t need, and what the NHS doesn’t need, is a ‘quick fix’ of more consultants in hospital on a weekend. What we need instead is more of every member of the hospital team, because as clichéd as it sounds everyone within the health care profession has a role to play in the patients’ journey.

The “help” these patients need is from every single member of the inspiring and powerful team that I am so proud to be one very small part of. Every day of the week we need doctors, physician associates, nurses, nursing assistants, physios, occupational therapists, pharmacists, radiographers, and lab technicians. The list goes on. Just as important, but often unfairly overlooked, are the support staff that allow us the medical professionals to work; porters, cleaners, and catering staff, to name a few, are equally vital. Patients, families, and staff all need somewhere to get a cup of tea and a sandwich – do you know how many hospital canteens open at weekends Jeremy? Not enough.

You will struggle to find a doctor that does not agree with you when you say patients do not choose when they get sick, or sad, or scared, but the “help” they need rarely comes in the form of the hospital consultant; the group you want to force in to signing a seven day working week contract and by taking on the BMA “road block”.

At the weekend it is not the lack of consultant that makes a difference to these patients’ outcomes. At the hospital I work, the way you are admitted is the same seven days a week; three junior doctors admit patients who are then seen by a consultant within the national target of 12 hours. It is what happens after this admission process where the problems lie.

Take for example a patient who has had heart trouble in the past and has presented with a similar picture this time. We have assessed him and done our blood tests. Then:

Test results take longer to return because the lab runs on a skeleton staff over the weekend.

He needs a cardiac monitor but less porters and stores support staff mean it takes longer to find so we don’t see when his heart goes into an abnormal rhythm.

He has specialist medication that he didn’t bring in from home in the rush but because the pharmacy shuts at lunchtime, that will have to wait until the morning.

Fewer radiographers mean the chest x-ray we asked for takes hours so we don’t know for longer that his lungs are also sick.

He is a bit unsteady on his feet now and ideally needs a physiotherapy assessment before the nurses get him out and about on the ward but because they are busy doing a discharge assessment he doesn’t get one so adds a fall to his problem list.

His elderly wife came with him in the ambulance and missed dinner, but the canteen is closed so she is on a bench in the corridor with tea and biscuits provided by the nursing team.

These are the causes of the unnecessary deaths and discontent in the NHS, not the lack of consultants in the hospital. These are the unnecessary and avoidable deaths that the NHS team can see happening but are powerless to stop.

I hope you realize Jeremy that even if you manage to navigate the “roadblock to reform” that you suggest the doctors’ union, the British Medical Association (“BMA”), has thrown up, then you will still need to go to battle with the unions of each and every one of the other varied and wonderful professions that make up hospital medicine before we can truly have a seven day NHS.

The NHS is often criticised for protecting its own, but if you work as closely together and see some of the things that we see on a daily basis you would understand why. Without that full team we cannot and will not function. So instead of criticizing our lack of dedication and pride in our vocation, which is still strong, instead help us celebrate it. Work together with us to recruit more caring and inspirational people. Support us as we dedicate our lives to the profession, changing our personal plans and goals to fit around making other peoples lives better. Promote us so that people want to be part of our team, rather than break our already crumbling morale and lose even more of our NHS family.

Yours sincerely

A Junior Doctor


Chimps in the Employment Tribunal?

Chimps in the Employment Tribunal? Orang-utans in the Board room? A case for Employment Tribunal reform? Rachel Broughton, discusses rights for primates:

Chimpanzees in laboratories and zoos may have the right to claim a breach of the minimum wage and working time regulations; they receive no pay, do not have regular rest breaks and are not given the statutory minimum holidays. It’s a disgrace and employment law is not working for them.

If the chimps are mistreated they may have the right (through a representative of course) to issue a claim in the employment tribunal but how would they afford the issue fee, the remission system is not yet set up for claims from primates?


Well, perhaps we are not quite there yet; however looking at way the law is developing in terms of grappling with the rights of “non-human persons” it’s perhaps this is not such a crazy idea?

An Argentinian court decided that a Sumatran orang-utan called Sandra, should have the legal status of a “non-human person” and thus have comparable rights – BBC news Dec 2014. It was argued by the Association of Professional Lawyers for Animal Rights that Sandra was intelligent and self-aware enough to understand

and be affected by the conditions at the zoo where she was being held captive. Sandra had been born at the zoo in Berlin 30 years ago and for 20 years has lived at a zoo in Buenos Aires. The court granted a writ of habeas corpus to Sandra and it held it was necessary to decide whether Sandra was being detained unlawfully.


Is man unique?

Sounds crazy? Well, when we ask ourselves what makes man so unique that he or she should have rights and protections but a fellow mammal who is also aware, emotionally complex and intelligent does not, the debate is not as straight forward as you may at first think.

There are fascinating philosophical and scientific debates over how we define our humanity and it is not only in Argentina that the courts are entertaining legal arguments over the definition of “non-human persons”. Just over the pond, a Judge in the USA, in April of this year, granted two chimpanzees a petition to argue for a writ of habeas corpus. Although the writ was not granted, the attorneys for the chimps were given the chance to at least argue the case, which they maintain implies that the chimps were “persons” in a legal context, or, at least it was acknowledged by the court, could be.

A set of rights

The European Convention on Human Rights is an international human treaty giving all “people”, a set of rights. The ECHR is divided into articles such as Article 4 which includes the right that no one shall be held in slavery or servitude, Article 3 deals with the Prohibition on torture. The Human Rights Act 1998 made the ECHR part of our UK domestic law and our laws, including employment laws should be read in a way to ensure there are compatible with it.

Children can take cases to a court in England if their rights have been infringed, however, on the questions of morality and ethics, Peter Singer a renown “thinker” for example argues that the normal reasons against killing persons (painlessly) do not apply to infants because a human infant has no inherent value. What makes killing morally wrong (he argues) is not that the entity that is killed is a human being but that such an entity is a person, human or otherwise.

How to be a person…

To be a person an entity must be rational, self- conscious, aware of its own existence over time, able to communicate and so on. Infants, like foetuses do not have such capabilities (until they reach a certain age) and so are not “persons”, he argues, although they are human. If we scoff at this, then consider what is the difference between an early foetus and a baby unaware of its own existence- why is it morally permissible to terminate one but not the other if it involves no distress or pain?

Are we not trying to find a point at which a human being becomes a person? I make no moral argument either way, I only seek to point out the difficulties in the moral distinctions which provide the architecture for our laws.

Peter Singer’s arguments may seem unpalatable but it does give rise to fascinating debates over the rights we afford to what may be human “non-persons” who cannot communicate and are not even aware of their own existence, over the rights we are willing to give to mammals who are self-aware, intelligent and able to communicate, but are not human.


Taking chimps into employment tribunal

Perhaps seeing chimps in the employment tribunal may be a step too far, although it would perhaps provide another interesting argument for reforming the tribunal fee system ; you can’t expect a chimp to pay to issue a claim when he doesn’t have the right to the minimum wage (let alone a living wage).


How much do you earn? Not as much as some!

What do Floyd Mayweather, Cristiano Ronaldo and LeBron James have in common?

Apart from being the three highest paid sportsmen on the planet, their mammoth salary seem like peanuts compared to Gaius Appuleius Diocles, the slave-turned-chariot racer whose lifetimes earning were the equivalent of a staggering £9.42 billion, according to researchers.

This seems even more incredible when you consider that the illiterate Diocles earned roughly two and a half times per year more than than Mayweather, Ronaldo and James’ have earned in 2014 combined. Mayweather, the highest earning sportman today, earned a measly £65 million in 2014, in comparison to Diocles’ £396 million each year.

Not even Ronaldo’s £49.6 million in 2014 compares to Diocles.


During his career, the Ancient Roman charioteer earned the vast majority of his wealth through prize money, contrasting with most modern sportsmen who earn their mega-bucks through endorsement deals and sponsorship in addition to their direct earnings from sport. Tiger Woods, for example, earns £3.8 million from golf, but £34 million from all of his endorsements combined. A similar story is also true of Roger Federer, with the Swiss only earning £2.6 million through tennis, compared to his £32 million he earns from his various endorsements.

Professor Peter Stuck, the Associate Professor of Classical Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, said:

“The modern sporting spectacles we manage to stage—and on occasion be appalled by—pale by comparison to the common entertainments of Rome.”


The 24 years of winning earned Diocles the handsome sum of 35,863,120 sesterces in prize money – nearly £10 billion by today’s standards. For each race, his total take home pay was the equivalent of five times the highest earning provincial governors, enough to provide grain for the entire city of Rome for a year, or to pay for all of the ordinary soldiers of the Roman army at the height of its powers for two and a half months.

Despite the staggering amount earned by Diocles, this might be a fair reward when you consider the high risks of a grizzly death and a violent bloodbath as the competitors turn on each other in the aggressive seven-lap races. Those that managed to finish in the top three, despite the treacherous conditions, took home the prizes.

Sandeep Cheryian