The results of our poll - so far - show that anti-bullying policies are not at all effective or non-existent. Of course the results can only be indicative. However, it is worth noting that from the 70 votes cast only 2 describe them as 'very effective'. Considering how diverse the voters are, this is worrying.
One of the key methods of starting to tackle the issues could be the introduction of a dignity at work or bullying/harassment policy. When doing so, it is important to be clear about your objectives. A policy fulfils a number of important functions within an organisation, such as ensuring equity and fair treatment and indicating a recognition of the seriousness of the issue being addressed.
Tony Killeen, Minister for Labour Affairs today published the results of two national surveys relating to workplace bullying, one of workers, ie, individuals at work including employees and self employed who have experienced workplace bullying, and, the other of employers in both the public and private sectors.
The way in which any investigation is conducted will be a key element in the success of your dignity at work strategy – there is no point in introducing a comprehensive policy, training a network of harassment advisers and communicating widely and successfully if you do not have good, fair and transparent procedures for conducting investigations into complaints.
• Dealing with complaints in a sensitive, objective manner, respecting the rights of all parties involved;
A teaching assistant is claiming that she was unfairly dismissed because of the fact that she is a witch. Sommer De La Rosa told an Employment Tribunal that her employers feared that she would “brainwash” students with her pagan beliefs. She also claims that other teachers shunned her because of her faith. De La Rosa, who practises pagan religion Wicca, claims one teacher told her to stop wearing her pentagram necklace, a traditional pagan symbol.
She was sacked last May after nine months at Dorothy Stringer Secondary School in Brighton. While she is claiming that she was unfairly dismissed the school and Brighton and Hove Council say she was sacked because of poor attendance record and “inappropriate disclosures” to students.
The tribunal continues.
The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 are designed to prevent discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. The Regulations define religion or belief as any “religion, religious belief, or similar philosophical belief.
This, says Martin Brewer and Anna Youngs of Mills & Reeve Solicitors, in Workplace Law Network's Discrimination Law: Special Report, “tells us very little”. They go on to explain that the notes to the Regulations say that a religion or belief does not include any philosophical or political belief unless that belief is “similar” to a religious belief. The guidance also adds that courts and tribunals may consider a number of factors when deciding what is a “religion or belief”. For example, whether there is collective worship, whether there is a clear belief system and whether the individual’s belief is profound enough so that it affects their way of life or their view of the world.
As a note of warning Brewer and Youngs add: “It can be seen that the circumstances which can give rise to claims under the Regulations are many and varied. A wise employer will consult with his staff before implementing any change of terms or, for example, introducing a new policy, in order to ensure that it does not impinge upon their religious freedoms. That same wise employer will also be prepared to be flexible so as to avoid litigation.”
From: http://www.workplacelaw.net
Poor leadership surrounds us, it's a fact of life and they seemingly find a way to keep their jobs. They are more focused on their personal needs and not of the professional needs of those below them. They have a hard time developing their employees because they lack the proper management techniques to do so. A leader is someone who you would follow to a place you would not go alone. Leadership is about action not status.1. Delegate work rather than balance work loads. This allows all attention to be diverted from them in case of failure. It may seem to them that are managing their people but in actuality they are creating work imbalances within the group. It can create unnecessary overtime for some and under utilization of others. A good manager is aware of the skill sets of all the people below them and should allocate work accordingly while trying to enhance the skills of everyone to be even more productive.
2. Reduce all answers to Yes or No rather than explaining their reasoning. This is an example of a crisis manager who can not think farther than a few hours ahead. A yes/no manager finds it a waste of time to find the real answer through intellectual thought. They are already thinking about the next crisis.
3. Not separate personal life from professional life. They will bring their personal problem to work. Working for these types of managers can be very dramatic. They are unable to separate their emotional imbalances while trying to manage people. They are less focused and will not give you the attention and direction you need for success.
4. Manage crisis. If you are a company that has crisis managers, then you can say goodbye to innovation and progression. Proactive thinking is critical to the success of any company. If you are not finding ways to stop or reduce the amount of crisis that has to be managed, then your competition will pass you by. Leaders have to think out of the box and make change.
5. Create an environment where mistakes are unacceptable. Being held accountable for wrong decisions is a fear for them. Making mistakes only helps you become a better person, manager, etc. I use the analogy of a basketball player that has no fouls. If they are not going for the ball and taking chances with their opponent, then they are trying hard enough. Take a chance and don't be scared.
6. Humiliate or reprimand an employee within a group. This is a clear and visible sign of a poor leader. A good leader takes employee problems away from a group setting to a more private setting. If you have a boss that does this, it is time for a visit to human resources.
7. Not stand behind subordinates when they fail. Never leave your people to hang out to dry. Always back them up, right, wrong, or indifferent. If an employee tries their best in a situation and they fail to come through. They should be commended on their effort and not punished for the failure
8. Encourage hard workers not smart workers. I am not impressed with hard workers. A hard worker is usually defined by hours. Smart workers are the ones that I hire and embrace. Smart workers understand the concept of time management and multi-tasking. Poor leaders miss this connection. Smart workers are methodical in their thinking and can generally be successful because of their abilities management projects and time. Hard workers may take twice as long to do the work. It is important to assign work accordingly to the skills and personalities
9. Judge people on hours not performance. This is similar to #8. Again, I am not impressed with overtime junkies. They have lost all perspective on a healthy family/balance. Bad managers will promote the employees that work the most hours and not look at the smart ones who work less, meaning have better time management. Stop watching the lock.
10. Act differently in front of their leaders. This is an indication of low self-confidence. They have doubts about their own ability to lead and they will act like little children when authority is present. A confident person acts the same around everyone. Remember, have respect for them, but also have self-respect.
By Chris Ortiz, from: badbossology.com
Unfair Dismissal - The Current Position in a NutshellIs There A Potential Claim For Unfair Dismissal?
There are three basic criteria that need to be satisfied for a claim of unfair dismissal:
The first port of call is whether a potential claimant is in fact eligible to claim relief under the Act. Section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, states that every "eligible employee" has the right not to be unfairly dismissed by his employer.
Who is an "eligible employee"?
An eligible employee will, as a general rule be an employee that has completed one year's continuous employment in order to qualify to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
It is worth noting however, that the answer above is over-simplistic; the question of "eligibility" is a potentially complex one.
It is important to understand that there are a number of exceptions to the one-year qualifying period that need to be considered. These exceptions do not require the employee to have completed one year's employment in order to bring a claim for unfair dismissal. To illustrate this point, a non-exhaustive list follows:
On the other side of the coin, there are also are categories of employees who will not be able to bring a claim even after one year of employment as listed (non-exhaustive) below:
The second criterion is that the employee must have been dismissed and his employment terminated. If the issue is in dispute, the onus of proof is on the employee to show that he has indeed been dismissed. This would be particularly relevant in the event of a constructive dismissal.
What is constructive dismissal?
Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer commits a "repudiatory" or serious breach of an express or implied term of the contract of employment. Contract is a sacred aspect of the English legal system and therefore the breach referred to above must be sufficiently serious to warrant the ending of a contract.
It is important to realise that unreasonable behaviour by an employer will not of itself be conduct that is sufficiently serious to end the contract. However, if the unreasonable behaviour is sufficiently serious it may amount to a breach of the mutual trust and confidence between the parties which is an implied term in almost any contract.
Examples of such a situation would be the failure of an employer to pay wages, or to unreasonably change the location of work so as to make the conditions of employment untenable for the employee.
After the serious breach by the employer, the employee is then entitled to accept the employer's breach and resign from his position. The contract is therefore discharged. It is important that the employee resigns in response to the breach of contract and should make this clear when resigning. If the employee does not make this clear in some circumstances, it may be evidence that he resigned for reasons that may not entitle him to treat himself as constructively dismissed.
It is vital that the employee accepts the breach within a reasonable time of the repudiation. If he does not, he may be taken to have affirmed the contract and thus lose his right to an unfair dismissal claim.
The onus is on the employer to show that the dismissal is for one of the five permitted reasons below as defined by the ERA 1996, s. 98.
It is for the employer to establish the only or principal reason for the dismissal, and it must fall within the following:
The Concept Of "Fairness" Explained
It is also important to note that it is not only dismissal for an unfair reason, which gives an employee the right to claim unfair dismissal.
The conduct and manner in which an employer dismisses an employee is of paramount importance. This is because a dismissal can and will amount to an unfair dismissal in the eyes of a Tribunal if the manner in which the dismissal was handled is unfair. For example, if an employee is not consulted and/or given a fair chance to improve the dismissal may be found to be unfair.
The current law requires an employer to carefully consider the options before him prior to terminating a contract of employment. It is important to note that there are situations in which an employer is entitled to summarily dismiss, i.e. dismiss an employee without any notice. This would be in cases where the employee is guilty of gross misconduct such as stealing or selling confidential company information. In these situations, the employer can simply "fire" an employee without any notice.
What happens once an employee is found to have been unfairly dismissed?
The remedies available are:
The Basic Award
The basic award has a theoretical maximum of £8,700, but is calculated according to a rigid formula that only rarely reaches the maximum amount by applying a formula based on length of continuous service (years), the appropriate age factor and one week's pay.
A maximum of 20 years employment can be taken into account when calculating the basic award. A week's pay may not be higher than £290, but cannot be lower that the national minimum wage.
The age factor applies to the calculation as follows:
The basic award will be reduced if:
The basic award can be expressed mathematically as:
Basic award = [years of continuous employment] x [age factor] x [weekly pay]
The Compensatory Award
This award compensates the employee for the loss suffered as a result of the dismissal insofar as the employer is responsible for this loss. As well as covering the loss of earnings between the dismissal and the hearing and an estimate of future loss, the tribunal will also consider matters such as loss of pension, other rights and any reasonable expenses incurred by the employee as a result of the dismissal.
The compensation awarded may be reduced by the tribunal if, for example, it is found that the employee was partly to blame for the dismissal, or that the employee has not tried to find another job in the meantime.
The compensatory award is difficult to predict and is intended to compensate the employee for financial loss and often involves the inexact science of calculation of future earnings. It is currently subject to a maximum award of £58,400.
Time Limit for Bringing a Claim for Unfair Dismissal
An unfair dismissal claim must generally be presented to an employment tribunal before the end of three months from the date employment ended (otherwise referred to as the 'effective date of termination' or 'EDT').
There are means by which this time limit can be extended, most commonly by following a grievance procedure. This is a complicated part of the law surrounding unfair dismissal and it is therefore always best to act on the advice of a trained employment lawyer.
Wrongful Dismissal
Wrongful dismissal is a common law concept. It is simply another name for a dismissal in breach of contract. The most common example of this is the failure to give employees the contractual notice they are entitled to when the circumstances do not justify instant dismissal.
Wrongful dismissal is most relevant in cases where employees are entitled to a long notice period or to a particularly valuable remuneration package. Wrongful dismissal is therefore particularly relevant if the employee is in a senior position, due to the large amount of compensation that can be recovered from the employer for the breach of contract.
Wrongful dismissal can also occur when the employee is constructively dismissed (see note on unfair dismissal for explanation of constructive dismissal).
However, an employee can be dismissed summarily in situations where the employer is entitled to treat the contract as discharged, and dismiss the employee without notice. This will generally occur in serious circumstances such as where an employee is found to be stealing money, selling trade secrets or behaving in a manner equivalent to gross misconduct so that the reasonable response on the part of the employer is to dismiss that employee instantly.
Compensation
There is no statutory limit to the amount of damages a Court can award for wrongful dismissal, though Tribunals are limited to a maximum award of £25,000.
Time Limits for Wrongful Dismissal
High Court - An action must be brought within six years, and there is no upper limit on the level of damages, which may be awarded.
Tribunals - The action must be brought within three months of termination. This limit however, can be extended at the discretion of the Tribunal and through the use of the appropriate grievance procedure.
General Advice
Unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal are totally separate concepts. Thus, a dismissal may be either unfair or wrongful, both unfair and wrongful, or neither.
The Obligation to "Mitigate" the Loss
The employee is under a duty to mitigate the loss of his employment and the consequences that follow. Once employment is terminated, the employee must take steps to obtain suitable alternative employment. This includes accepting reasonable offers of re-employment.
Unfair and wrongful dismissal: Where does one bring the claim?
Currently, the ordinary courts have no jurisdiction to hear unfair dismissal cases. However, since 1994, Tribunals have had jurisdiction to hear both wrongful dismissal claims as well as unfair dismissal claims.
It is important to realise the significance of Tribunals having a limit of £25,000 on the amount of compensation that can be awarded for wrongful dismissal. The result of this is that the most sensible route for a claimant may be to pursue an unfair dismissal claim before an Employment Tribunal, and a breach of contract (wrongful dismissal) claim before a County Court or the High Court.
Costs
As a general rule, no costs are awarded in employment tribunals. This means that bringing a claim in an employment tribunal is relatively risk free as far as legal costs vis a vis Tribunals are concerned.
Unlike most cases held in Courts, costs are not generally awarded in employment tribunals. It is prudent to note however, that tribunals do have the power to award costs if they deem it necessary in the circumstances.
Jenny Johnston is a freelance writer doing a piece for Glamour magazine on workplace stress. She writes:
In the midst of experimenting with the following laws I have found that their hypotheses are true at Wolverhampton.
In particular:
• Skorupski's Law: The more vain one's ambition, the more redundant one's grasp of morality.
• Farlie's Law: If in one's professional career one reaches a position way above what is merited, then one can only maintain this position or progress further by surrounding oneself with incompetent people.
Farlie's extensions:
1. If the people surrounding you are not incompetent, filter their every communication so that they appear incompetent and that you've rescued them.
2. If you are/have been the servant of one, then it is reasonable to assume that you will be the one in the future.
Further research and experimentations:
Please, add other locations and subjects observed so that if a significant number of cases are detected they can become published in a relevant conference. ;-)
There are of course 'The Peter Principle', stated as "In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence", and
The 'Max Rangers Principle' (a new one), states that when called to account, make up anything spontaneously to fit the needs at that moment.
And an extension to the 'Max Rangers Principle': to be a convincing and practised liar, feign victimhood when held accountable, usually by bursting into tears or claiming you're the one being bullied and harassed.