Tag Archives: Law

Talking about complexity

Update.  The new TUPE rules coming into force progressively in 2014 will make this unambiguous – this post is now out of date. 

It’s been really interesting talking to people about my blog posts around TUPE and redundancy.   A number of serious legal practitioners assert that in a TUPE scenario the current employer cannot initiate consultation regarding post-transfer redundancies since they have no intention of implementing them.

It took a while to track down where the “current employer’s intention” came into it, and as far as I can see this comes from the idea that consultation is a conversation with a view to reaching/seeking agreement (1)   — and thus if the person initiating the conversation has no intention of implementing the project, then there is no such intent and so consultation has not been started.

Any consultation process, regardless of TUPE, can be challenged if there is no intention to try to reach agreement (and thus consultation is a sham). It is possible for the current employer and future employer in a TUPE scenario to sit down jointly with the employee representatives and start consultation with a view to reaching agreement on post-transfer redundancies.

There is a view that the TUPE regulations specify that the consultees must be employees of the person consulting them. (2)   The whole of TUPE is constructed around the legal fiction that anything done by the current employer is deemed to have been done by the future employer. (3)    So at the point of transfer earlier consultations, if properly conducted will be deemed to have been done by the future employer.

If the transfer is ‘hostile’ (as changes of contractor can often be), the situation is made more difficult for the future employer because TUPE does not allow them to insist that the current employer allows early access to the transferring staff.

If the future employer’s statement of measures is simply handed to representatives by the outgoing employer (current employer), the act of distributing the paperwork does not initiate ‘consultation’, since there is no dialogue and no attempt to reach agreement.

But, provided the ’statement of measures’ is properly worded, surely the future employer can say that they have started a process of consultation with people who are not yet their staff, as they are engaging with them (albeit at second-hand) “with a view to reaching/seeking agreement”.

If the current employer is being deliberately obstructive to the future employer and will not pass on contact details for the future employer so that a direct dialogue can be established, then subtler strategies to open the lines of communication with transferring staff will have to be adopted — but they are available.

The world of law, where we argue the equivalent of how many angels can we fit on a pin, and the world of men and women, where we are much more concerned with who is going to get hurt by the pin, do not naturally coincide.

Surely it can never be a wrong thing in employment law (with the exception of announcements governed by the Official Secrets Act, or Stock Exchange rules) for parties to sit down as early as possible to discuss what is being planned and see what can be agreed. The intention of the Business Transfers Directive 2001 (4) was always to encourage consultation and dialogue, not to prevent it. It would be an unusual employment tribunal that took the view that a real dialogue could not be initiated at the earliest possible stage provided the intention is there.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
(1)   The TUPE reg 13(6) wording is that consultation is with employee reps “with a view to seeking their agreement”. The collective redundancy wording [TULR(Consol)A 1992, s 188, is “with a view to reaching agreement with the appropriate representatives”.
(2)  TUPE reg 13(6) provides that the employer of an affected employee who envisages he will take measures shall consult reps with a view to seeking agreement to the intended measures.
Prior to the transfer, the transferring employees are NOT employees of the transferee. The transferor’s obligation is to pass on the transferee’s measures statement [TUPE reg 13(2)(d)].
(3)  TUPE reg 4(2)(b) provides that any act or omission before the transfer is completed…..shall be deemed to have been an act or omission of or in relation to the transferee……….
(4)  A consolidation of the 1977 Acquired Rights Directive and intervening amendments

See our previous  blog

Annabel Kaye is Managing Director of Irenicon Ltd a specialist employment law consultancy

Tel: 08452 303050 Fax: 08452 303060
www.irenicon.co.uk
www.koffeeklatch.co.uk
www.balancingthebump.com
You can follow Annabel on Twitter

1 Comment

Filed under employment law, redundancy, TUPE

Measure for Measure . . . TUPE and redundancy

We must not make a scarecrow of the law,
Setting it up to fear the birds of prey,
And let it keep one shape, till custom make it
Their perch and not their terror.
(Wm Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, Act II, Sc I)

The TUPE regulations are too dynamic for the comfort of those advising their employer (or their clients), with caselaw often changing between taking on a service contract and losing it again.   This is very anxiety-provoking for most HR practitioners, since ‘getting it wrong’ can mean their employer is taking on liabilities they otherwise need not, or, worse still, on the losing end of several employment tribunal claims.

This is particularly so when a TUPE transfer involves potential headcount changes and redundancies.

The legislation on redundancy and TUPE intertwine and interleave, and it can be tricky working out who needs to be consulted about what, in what format, over what period of time, and by whom.   So let’s have a go.

Consultation TUPE consultation Redundancy consultation
Statutory obligation to inform or consult with appropriate representatives Always, no threshold of employee numbers 20 plus redundancies at one establishment within 90 days
Appropriate representatives Reps from recognised trade union; or employee reps appointed or elected by affected employees for another purpose; or specially elected/appointed employee reps Reps from recognised trade union; or employee reps appointed or elected by affected employees for another purpose; or specially elected/appointed employee reps
Statutory Timescales No defined statutory minimum period of consultation Information about transfer given to reps long enough before the transfer to enable consultation (with a view to seeking agreement) to take place on the ‘measures’ to be taken by either employer Less than 20 redundancies  – no specified timescale20+ redundancies at least 30 days before first dismissal takes effect100 +plus redundancies; 90 days Consultation ‘in good time’
Description of employees covered by the consultation Anyone who may be affected by the transfer (not just those transferring) Anyone at risk, and those who  may be affected by measures taken in connection with those dismissals
Duty to inform Inform, in writing: fact of transfer, date, reasons, implications for affected employees, measures envisaged in relation to affected employees Inform, in writing: reasons; numbers and descriptions of employees proposed to be redundant, and total number of employees of each description at the establishment; proposed method of selection, and proposed method and timing of dismissals; proposed redundancy payments; number of agency workers working for employer, where in the business, and doing what
Duty to consult With a view to seeking agreement to intended measures, considering representations, and stating reasons if proposals rejected With a view to reaching agreement, about ways of avoiding the dismissals, reducing the numbers, and mitigating the consequences
On whom duty is placed Transferor to consult; transferee to provide ‘measures’ statement Employer
Penalties Up to 13 weeks’ pay (statutory maximum not applying) Protective award up to 90 days’ pay

The Government made a call for evidence on ways to improve TUPE, which closed on 31 January 2012.  No draft legislation has been published.

TUPE caselaw is developing all the time.  Where redundancies are to take place in a TUPE scenario, then both sets of regulations and caselaw have to be considered and applied.

The redundancy consultation process and timing requirements are currently the subject of consultation which ends on 19 September  (http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/employment-matters/docs/c/12-808-collective-redundancies-consultation.pdf).  It is proposed to shorten the consultation period for 100+ redundancy exercises.

Many of the toughest issues around TUPE, economic technical or organisational dismissals (ETOs) and collective redundancies (or finding alternatives to them) are most effectively resolved by having a good consultation process.

Having clear organisational and commercial objectives does not mean that the way of achieving these is set in stone, and there is a real difference between the aftermath of a well constructed and well consulted process, and the fall-out from a  rushed compliance exercise.

As long as the law applies to what employers can do to employees at work, there is always going to be an area of ‘grey’.  It is simply not possible to arrive at a system that is both predictable and clear and also flexible and fair (https://irenicon.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/red-tape-and-fairness/) .

If we accept this as a fact and work within it, then it becomes obvious that the way to deal with the ‘grey’ areas is to have a conversation – in other words, to consult.   If you do this in a TUPE context you will quickly discover that some people:

  • don’t want to TUPE through and would be happy to be made redundant (whether or not a genuine redundancy situation exists)
  • are not willing or able to change location/work base if that is what is needed
  • are not willing or able to learn new working methods and techniques

and by way of comparison some people

  • are keen to expand their skill base
  • are keen to change location
  • have unused skills in their current role that would be useful in a new structure
  • will do just about anything to keep a particular job

I have often sat down with HR teams and Directors who have said “X will never do this, Y will never agree to that”.  Sometimes they are right, but equally they can be wrong.  Flexibility can be as much influenced by circumstances as by personality.  We don’t know what people are keen to do until we ask them, and lay out the options for them.  Good consultation can have useful individual results, as well as improving the atmosphere at a challenging time.

For regular free teleseminars on TUPE, redundancy and more check our events page.  We are running a new seminar on how to handle the two processes simultaneously.

Click here for more about this

Annabel Kaye is Managing Director of Irenicon Ltd, a specialist employment law consultancy.
Tel: 08452 303050 Fax: 08452 303060
You can follow Annabel on Twitter
www.irenicon.co.uk
www.koffeeklatch.co.uk
www.balancingthebump.com

3 Comments

Filed under employment law, redundancy, TUPE

TUPE or not TUPE

. . . or The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune

In Eddie Stobart v Moreman the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decided that, for there to be a TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006) “service provision change” the group of employees had to be deliberately organised to service the particular  client. The EAT decided that, in the Stobart case, the fact all the employees happened to work on a shift that provided services to that client was not enough. The TUPE regulations define a service provision change transfer as applying when there is an:

“organised grouping of employees”, which has
“as its principal purpose the carrying out of the activities … on behalf of the client.”

The EAT decided where a combination of circumstances (largely shift patterns and working practices) meant that a group of employees were as a matter of simple fact working mostly on tasks which benefitted a particular client did not meet this test.

The EAT pointed out that TUPE does not say merely that employees should in their day-to-day work in fact principally carry out activities for the client in question – TUPE requires that the activities are the principal purpose of the organised grouping of employees to which the individual belongs.

Whether an individual employee works 50% or more for a particular client is not any part of the test under TUPE 2006. It was part of the test under the 1981 version of TUPE, but that wording did not continue into the current 2006 version of the Regulations.

There are still a number of grey areas left in TUPE – as it seems there have always been. For example – could an “organised grouping” have more than one “principal purpose”? It might be that the “time proportion” test is relevant here – applying to the whole grouping. Or perhaps “principal purpose” is to be judged by the priority of the work?

The world of work streams and dotted line reports has yet to be fully explored in the context of TUPE. Does work streaming mean no group has a principal purpose? Or should we be tempted to say that work streaming means no-one is part of an organised grouping of employees?

What difference does it make in real terms if a transfer is, or is not, covered by TUPE?

A)     If there is no TUPE transfer, then any workers who were working on the project/task/service will not go through to the new contractor as the new contractor’s employees.

  • It is the current employer’s job to find them alternative work, reassign them, or if necessary make them redundant.
  • Any liability for back pay or benefits remains with the current employer.
  • All unfair dismissal, discrimination, equal pay risks remain with current employer.
  • All contractual liabilities remain with current employer.

B)     If there is a TUPE transfer, then the same workers will (as a matter of law) become the new contractor’s employees (with their full service and contractual entitlements – save for pensions – intact).

  • It is the new employer’s job to find alternative work, reassign or if necessary make them redundant.
  • All the other liabilities under A) transfer to the new employer

Where an argument breaks out between the employers about whether TUPE applies, individual employees may feel lost in the no-man’s land of litigation between two employers who are having some kind of custody battle where no-one wants the kids.
HR on both sides can do a lot to make sure that the original tender documents (where they exist), pitches for business,  take on board the statutory TUPE obligations. HR can go beyond that, if allowed into the negotiating process early enough, and can help shape a contract for services that incorporates thinking about employees and service levels from the start.

Don’t forget the TUPE regulations are a set of minimums not a set of maximums.

Annabel Kaye is Managing Director of Irenicon Ltd, a specialist employment law consultancy.
Tel: 08452 303050 Fax: 08452 303060
You can follow Annabel on Twitter
www.irenicon.co.uk
www.koffeeklatch.co.uk
www.balancingthebump.com

Leave a comment

Filed under employment law, TUPE

TUPE or not TUPE

. . . or The pangs of despised Love, the Law’s delay

For the last year or so I have been talking about TUPE on a regular basis, both in teleseminars and in person. So far, no employee engagement, talent management or onboarding specialist has turned up.

Is TUPE seen as a completely unrelated discipline or as a simple compliance exercise? This may be why so many of the questions I deal with are around “What do we have to do?” instead of “This is what we need to achieve…”

Consultation

The consultation elements of TUPE are key to success or failure. There are two employers – the current employer (transferor) and the future employer (transferee). The law treats the two for most purposes as if they are one employer, but not at this moment. The transferor has to give elected employee reps information about the transfer, and to state what measures it is proposing to take (sometimes known as a “measures statement”), and the ‘measures’ it expects the transferee to take. The transferor is required to consult the employee reps about its ‘measures’ – with a view to seeking employee agreement to them.

Misconceptions

Often that the transferor fails to organise TUPE reps, believing that there is a ’20 person’ threshold to this requirement. That threshold is a redundancy one – it does not apply to TUPE. There is no statutory timetable for TUPE consultation unless more than 20 employees are at risk of redundancy and the redundancy thresholds are triggered. It can be tricky to do a good consultation exercise in no time at all whatever the law says. Many HR departments think they have to consult only on proposed changes to contracts (most of which would be difficult under TUPE anyway) whereas the ‘measures statement’ should cover changes to the contractual terms (such as pension schemes so far as TUPE permits) but also to non contractual arrangements (e.g. discretionary sick pay and bonus schemes).

Measures

The transferee is required by TUPE to provide their ‘measures statement’ to the transferor in good time so that the transferor can pass it on to the employee reps. Sometimes the transferor will even allow the transferee access to staff to begin their own consultation process. But there is no requirement for the transferor to allow personal contact or meetings with staff prior to the transfer date. If the two parties are rival contractors (rather than a situation of client outsourcing), there can be little practical motivation for the outgoing employer to invest a lot of time in the consultation process for outgoing employees. Some employers simply make an announcement and say “your new employers will tell you everything when you turn up to work for them”.

Compliance is not much of a goal

The real problem for the transferee is not legal compliance, which can be fairly easily achieved in most circumstances. Difficulties arise because the incoming employees are bringing with them the whole psychological contract they had with their existing employer, along with their own personal set of misunderstandings about their contractual and legal entitlements, their expectations of how they should be treated, and their memories of how they were. They will be adding to that psychological contract how they are treated during this process – by the transferee and by their soon to be ex-employer, the transferor It’s a potent mix that can result in three way tribunal claims, disaffected employees and a lot of wasted time and effort.

If the transferee is “allowed in” prior to the transfer, the consultation process can be a wonderful way to start to understand these issues, and to arrange to bring those individuals into their new employment relationship with a better basis for working together. At any point consultation can also be the time when a mini ‘skills audit’ is done to see what training is needed to properly induct the new team members. It can be a ‘getting to know you’ process and a ‘checking we understand the data’ process. Alternatively, you can make this process into: ‘This is where we tell you what we want you to know, and you just listen and obey’.

The spirit of consultation is often overlooked in the rush to compliance, and many highly motivated and resourceful individuals start working for their new employer confused, angry and resentful. It is an extremely hard thing for some people to be sent to work for someone they have never met, never applied to work for or indeed wanted to work for. We need to recognise that, and build our processes accordingly. This is the first opportunity you have to show them how your ’employer brand’ really works – are you going to fail?

Annabel Kaye is Managing Director of Irenicon Ltd, a specialist employment law consultancy.

Tel: 08452 303050 Fax: 08452 303060
You can follow Annabel on Twitter
www.irenicon.co.uk
www.koffeeklatch.co.uk
www.balancingthebump.com

Leave a comment

Filed under employment law, TUPE

Every worker in the UK is entitled to statutory minimum paid holiday?

When the Working Time Regulations were first introduced in 1998 they created a legal right to a minimum amount of paid leave.   At that time there was a three month’s qualifying threshold. Later the three months threshold was removed and the basic holiday increased.

The threshold still lives on in the organisational memory – we still see contracts today that say you don’t get any leave during the first 3 months (or some other period) of employment. Whilst employers can prevent staff from taking leave during this period, they cannot prevent at least statutory leave from accruing.

So anyone on a short term contract of employment is accruing statutory leave whatever the contract says and should be able to take the paid leave during their employment or paid for any unused leave when they leave.

For more information on holidays

Tel: 08452 303050 e-mail: info@irenicon.co.uk
twitter: annabelkaye
http://www.irenicon.co.uk
Employment law with attitude
http://www.koffeeklatch.co.uk
http://www.balancingthebump.com

via Annabel Kaye’s blog at Ecademy http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=176767 by Annabel Kaye

Leave a comment

Filed under contract, holiday

TUPE and the Big Society

Charities who are tendering to provide services that are currently provided by local authority, civil service or quangos find themselves caught in the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)  Regulations –  TUPE  which may apply where a change of service provider is taking place.

TUPE has the effect of putting the new employer in the legal situation they would have been in if they had employed the transferring staff from the day they started with their original employer (the transferor).  Outstanding liabilities under the contract will transfer through to the new employer – anything from accrued holiday, to back pay, equal pay claims as well as unfair dismissals relating to the transfer.

Government itself has created an extra problem for charities by agreeing with unions a set of protocols that go beyond the basic legal provisions of TUPE.   For example, under TUPE there is no obligation on an employer to create a final salary pension scheme, or to honour discretionary termination payments.  But the Cabinet Office Statement of Practice concerning Staff Transfers in the Public Sector sets out “there should be appropriate arrangements to protect occupational pensions, redundancy and severance terms of staff in all these types of transfer”.  Whilst this guidance has been revoked for local authorities, it has not been revoked for all of the public sector.

There is a significant difference between the redundancy entitlements of ordinary employees and civil servants.   An ordinary worker is entitled to statutory redundancy pay at a maximum allowable weekly pay of £430 whereas the civil service redundancy scheme has no limit and even has a minimum.  Statutory redundancy is calculated on age related multipliers of a week (or a week and a half, or half week depending on the age of the worker) whereas the Civil service scheme is calculated with multipliers of months at full pay.

Whilst charities do not always pay their existing employees at the statutory basics when it comes to contractual benefits, few charities are well enough funded to have staff on the same terms as civil servants.

For example:

Statutory entitlement Typical local government/civil service
Holiday 5.6 weeks including bank holiday 6.6 weeks including bank holiday
Sick pay SSP only 6 months full pay, 6 months half pay
Redundancy Statutory only maximum allowable weekly pay £430Years of service multiplied by weeks (or 1.5 weeks or 0.5 weeks, age dependant) No maximum weekly pay (minimums apply)Years of service multiplied by months
Pensions Stakeholder/NEST Final salary

Charities who are receiving staff via TUPE transfers find themselves paying higher benefits than they normally pay, with much higher termination payments if they cannot afford to keep the staff on.  Charitable funding is often  quite short term, often project by project, or year by year at best.  Such higher benefits and termination payments can risk the viability of the Charity itself if they are not foreseen and budgeted for.

Charities who intend the service to be provided by volunteers may be able to work around the TUPE problem if their existing delivery model is long standing and pre dates the transfer.  The situation is changing, but it is still a high risk scenario for many Charities to simply ‘pitch’ to provide services that are currently provided by salaried staff.

My experience of working with social enterprises and charities and helping them plan TUPE transfers is that much of the advice they are given encourages them to take on obligations beyond the ones they are obliged to in law (or even by the government’s own standards) and leaves them very vulnerable if there are changes in funding at a later stage.   A well planned tender to outsource work needs to properly evaluate the TUPE situation and prepare for it.

See our previous blog

To be continued

Christopher Head is qualified as a barrister.  He edited Harvey on Industrial Relations and Employment Law and  a director of Irenicon Ltd a specialist employment law team.  To join the conversation about TUPE you can join our free KoffeeKlatch teleseminar on TUPE by registering via http://koffeeklatch.co.uk/category/tupe/

2 Comments

Filed under contract, employment law, free stuff, redundancy, TUPE

The past is no guide to future performance

Mary is an established member of her team, with good social and professional relationships with her co-workers.  Her boss has managed the unit with a fair degree of success (neither perfect nor imperfect), and everyone knows where the boundaries are and what is expected of them.

Boss moves on with fond farewells.  New boss Sarah arrives, with her own way of doing things.  Mary feels put out by the changes, and wants to carry on working as before.    She complains to colleagues about the changes, and starts to campaign with them that they should not implement them.     She tells her colleagues that many of the changes are pointless and will not work, and she will not participate in them.   When a colleague tells her “Sarah’s the boss, why not just do what she says?”  Mary turns on her heel and laughs.  Although Mary is a valued member of the team, her campaigning is making life very difficult for her new boss.  The team is dividing into ‘pro Sarah’ and ‘pro Mary’ camps.  Mary talks about “I was here first”, and “it worked well before”

Sarah was a very popular boss with her old team, and she is well liked by some of the new team.  She is very approachable, regularly buys drinks for everyone in the pub, and is willing to bend the rules to help her team members, letting them go home early if needed.    Standards are slipping a bit – the old boss was a stickler for detail, whereas Sarah is more of an overview person.   No-one from outside would notice the difference, but old team members shrug their shoulders and pick up the slack.  Sarah doesn’t seem to know.

Why is it we are so bad at change?

Planning for change, or accepting changes that are not planned, is something few us are willing or able to do.

Sarah went into a new team without a clear plan for how she would evaluate whether change was needed, communicate that change, implement it, and monitor it.  She just did what worked well in her old team.

Mary did not expect any change except for the name of her boss.   When faced with change she resisted it all.

If the team is lucky there will be a natural mediator on the team – one of those wonderful people who are the glue that really make the workplace work.    We need someone to say to Mary: “The boss is the boss.  Unless it is dangerous, or illegal, it is her job to say what we do.  If you think it is inefficient or there are better ways, have a quiet word with her and let her know, otherwise you need to do it.”   And we need someone to feedback to Sarah that she is changing how things are done (she may not be aware of it), and that she needs a process for bringing people along with her and for dealing with Mary.

How many HR specialists does it take to change a light bulb?

That depends on whether you want to keep the light bulb.

Sarah could have a useful learning experience that will enhance her skills and make her next promotion easier, or she could struggle with Mary and slowly begin to fail – she could get stuck here.  Mary may even accuse her of bullying, as Sarah repeats the same instructions over and over again and Mary gets progressively more isolated from her team.

Mary can learn how to handle change and difficult situations.  Or she can campaign against her boss, and sooner or later she will find herself with no promotion prospects, and quite possibly no job.   Mary can feel bitter that her lovely job was ‘stolen’ from her by this awful manager – an attitude that may affect her life at home as well as at work.

It’s not a big deal to help new managers put together a system of ‘raising the bar’ so that they can change the way a team works.   It’s not such a big deal to help Mary (at an early stage) to work out the difference between changes she needs to give feedback on, and those that are not really something to worry about.

So where were HR when all this was happening?   They were busy with other important things.  They had not routinely touched base to see how this team functioned.  Of course, when Mary claimed she was being bullied, and Sarah claimed she was totally unsupported by management, HR were all over the investigations like a rash.  The hours of note taking and decision making meant they were then too busy to touch base with any of their other teams.

Is there a happy ending to this tale?  Not really:  Mary spent years resenting Sarah, and then transferred to another team.  She is not regarded as a popular or successful team member, because she has kept up the habit of complaining about the boss and resisting all change.  Sarah never got another promotion in the organisation.  She stayed in post for a few years and then got a job outside.  She started with her new team in the same way, and is now convinced that people are just awkward and you have to push them harder to get what you want.   HR are still doing a lot of paperwork and taking a lot of notes at meetings with unhappy people.  No change there then.

Employment law is where the rubber meets the road – where people problems become legal problems and the law intervenes.  It can’t make Sarah a better manager, or Mary a more realistic employee.  It can’t make an organisation introduce the small interventions that prevent this type of problem  What employment law does do is penalise and sanction those organisations who get to tribunal after they haven’t done their part and a legal issue has arisen.

Of course if there are any ‘equality’ or ‘discrimination’ issues here, this turns into a nightmare scenario.  Sarah picked on me because I am white, transsexual…..  Even in unfair dismissal terms, the process of performance management can be a very long haul if it is started late and from an already-broken situation.

If there were no employment law and the organisation was free to act in any way, would that really solve this problem?  To what extent is the very existence of employment law the problem?

To my thinking, employment law, if incorrectly applied, can be a complicating factor, but it’s never the problem itself.   Giving long serving employees three warnings and an opportunity to change their behaviour doesn’t seem unreasonable.   In this situation would you really want to walk in and just sack Sarah or Mary (or both)?

There is another complicating factor:  in many organisations, both performance management programmes and warnings are often seen as the death knell for individuals – simply the start of an inevitable process of ‘managing someone out of the business’.  We need to do something to change that – but that’s not an employment law issue, it’s a cultural one.

It’s not employment law that gives us difficult problems.  The Sarah/Mary problem is one we get every day, and it has a relatively easy prevention plan, early on.  But allow it to fester to the point when employment law becomes an issue, and then you are in for a more painful remedy.

Annabel Kaye is Managing Director of Irenicon Ltd, a specialist employment law consultancy.
Tel: 08452 303050 Fax: 08452 303060
Website:  www.irenicon.co.uk
You can follow Annabel on Twitter

Leave a comment

Filed under bullying at work, discrimination, employment law, performance management