Coffin Mews Employment Review November 2010.pub by dfsdf224s

VIEWS: 6 PAGES: 7

									Coffin Mew’s
Employment Review -
November 2010
If you are making redundancies, when
does the obligation to consult start?
                                                                         employees that the base             To contact one of our
                                                                         would be closing in                 employment team please call or
                                                                         September 2006 and there            email:
                                                                         would therefore be a period of
                                                                         consultation ending in June                     Dorlee Monschau,
                                                                         2006 with dismissals taking                     Partner
                                                                         effect at the end of September                  023 9236 6018
                                                                         2006.
                                                                                                             dorleemonschau@coffinmew.co.uk
                                                                         One of the employee started
                                                                         tribunal proceedings and
                                                                                                                         Darren Tibble,
                                                                         claimed that the USA had
                                                                                                                         Partner
                                                                         failed to comply with its
                                                                                                                         023 8057 4349
                                                                         consultation obligations
                                                                         because the decision to close
                                                                                                             darrentibble@coffinmew.co.uk
                                                                         the base was taken before the
                                                                         consultation process started
                                                                         and therefore the consultation
Essentially, when an employer                  or                                                                        Adish Farkhad,
                                                                         process was not in good time
is “contemplating” making            Answer 2: when the employer                                                         Solicitor
                                                                         as it was not possible to have
redundancies of 20 or more                     has made the                                                              023 8057 4320
                                                                         any meaningful consultation
employees within a 90 day                      strategic or
                                                                         on how to avoid making the
period they have a statutory                   operational                                                   adishfarkhad@coffinmew.co.uk
                                                                         200 employees redundant if
obligation to consult in good                  decision that is
                                                                         the decision to close the base
time with the employees                        likely to result in                                                       Charlie Barnes,
                                                                         had already been made.
affected by the proposal with a                redundancies.                                                             Solicitor
view to reaching an                                                                                                      023 9236 9522
                                                                         Initially, the Employment
agreement with them. Getting         So for example, if an employer
                                                                         Tribunal agreed with the
this wrong could be expensive        is thinking about moving                                                charlesbarnes@coffinmew.co.uk
                                                                         employee and ordered the
for employers because if the         premises, do they have to
                                                                         USA to pay each of the 200
employer does not properly           consult at the time they are                                                        Tabytha
                                                                         redundant employees a
carry out its statutory              thinking about it (and                                                              Cunningham,
                                                                         protective award.
obligation to consult they will      therefore about the reasons
                                                                                                                         Solicitor
face potential liability for up to   why they are moving
                                                                         The USA appealed to the                         023 8057 4343
13 weeks gross pay (known as         premises) or at the time they
                                                                         Employment Appeal Tribunal,         tabythacunningham@coffinmew.co.uk
a protective award) for each         have made the decision to
                                                                         essentially saying that it was a
employee affected by the             actually move premises?                                                 Southampton
                                                                         foreign state and therefore its
proposal.
                                                                         obligations to consult were         Kings Park House,
                                     This is not a new area of law.
                                                                         not as wide as the                  22 Kings Park Rd
This begs the question; when         The obligation to consult, in its
                                                                         Employment Tribunal had said
does the obligation to consult       current form, was introduced                                            Southampton SO15 2UF
                                                                         and that even if it did have the
begin?                               in 1992 and you would have
                                                                         same statutory obligation, that     Tel: 023 8033 4661
                                     hoped it would be clear by
                                                                         obligation was not as wide as
Is it:                               now; but regrettably not. In
                                                                         the Employment Tribunal had
                                     2007, the Employment Appeal                                             North Harbour Portsmouth
                                                                         said.
Answer 1. when the employer          Tribunal said it is Answer 1. In
                                                                                                             Bay House, Compass Road,
          is proposing, but          2009, the European Court of
                                                                         The Employment Appeal               North Harbour Business Park
          has not yet made, a        Justice said it is Answer 2.
                                                                         Tribunal agreed with the            Portsmouth PO6 4RS
          strategic or
                                                                         decision of the original
          operational                The question was recently one
                                                                         Employment Tribunal.                Tel: 023 9238 8021
          decision that is           that the Court of Appeal was
          likely to result in        asked to consider in a case
                                                                         The USA then appealed to the
          redundancies (and          involving the closure of a US                                           Offices also in Fareham &
                                                                         Court of Appeal.
          therefore includes         Army base in Hampshire in                                               Gosport
          consultation on            2006. In April 2006, the
                                                                         The Court of Appeal
          whether to actually        Commanding Officer at the
                                                                         considered the question and         www.coffinmew.co.uk
          take the decision);        base told all 200 civilian
                                                                         said that as a foreign state, the
USA had the same obligations
as any other employer in the
UK (and could have claimed
                                      Is an Employer
sovereign immunity to avoid
liability, but had not).
                                      responsible for a theft
The Court of Appeal has not           carried out by an
made a decision on how wide
the obligation to consult is. It      employee?
took the view that it is an
important question that needs         Employers can be held
to be clarified and so it has         responsible for their              Brink made a claim against
referred the question to the          employees' wrongdoings if          Igrox that they were
European Court of Justice and         they are carried out in the        responsible for the theft on
asked, is it Answer 1 or Answer       course of their employment.        the basis that it had been
2?                                                                       carried out by one of their       his employment that it would
                                      Common examples include            employees in the course of        fair to hold the employer
Comment                               acts of discrimination carried     their employment. In making       responsible. The court
                                      out by one employee against        its decision the court            decided that as the warden’s
It is likely to take a least a year   another whilst at work.            considered a number of            employer was responsible for
before the European Court of          However, an employer may           previous cases which dealt        the care of vulnerable children
Justice decides whether it is         not be responsible if they can     with the issue of whether an      and had employed the warden
Answer 1 or Answer 2. In the          show that they have tried to       employer could be held            to carry out that duty on their
circumstances, employers who          prevent the employee from          responsible for the acts of its   behalf they were also
are faced with this situation         carrying out the act. For          employees.                        responsible for the sexual
should generally take a               example, to prevent an                                               abuse.
cautious approach and                 employee from discriminating       One of those cases was where
presume that it is Answer 1           against another because of         a company (company A) had a       Another case referred to was
until we have the European            their sex the employer could       contract to clean another         one where a semi-professional
Court of Justice’s decision.          have an up to date equal           company’s (company B) offices     rugby player had punched a
This may well cause difficulties      opportunities policy and train     and equipment. An employee        player on the other team,
regarding the amount of               their employees so that they       of company A was instructed       causing damage to his eye,
information that should be            know what conduct is               to clean the offices but whilst   after play had been halted by
given to employees about why          considered discriminatory and      doing so used company B’s         the referee. A claim was
the strategic or operational          is prohibited whilst at work.      telephones to make expensive      brought against the rugby
decision needs to be made to                                             international telephone calls.    club that they were
ensure that the consultation          Theft is another example of an     Company B claimed company         responsible for their player’s
process is meaningful and             act which employers can be         A were responsible for the        actions. The court decided
employers might take the view         held responsible for. The case     employee’s misuse of the          that it was fair to hold the
that they have little choice          of Brink illustrates the factors   telephone. The court decided      rugby club responsible for the
about whether they, for               that will be taken into account    that company A were not           player’s conduct as it was a
example close an office, but          when deciding in what              responsible. The reason for       likely risk given the nature of
couching it in terms of “this is      circumstances an employer          their decision was that           the sport.
what we are proposing to do”          could be held responsible for a    although the employee’s job
and explaining it is for “cost        theft carried out by one its       meant he had access to the        The decision in Brink
efficiencies” or to achieve           employees.                         phones and had been
“centralisation of resources”                                            instructed to clean them he       The court decided that Igrox
might be enough to enable             Brink Global Services Inc v        had not been authorised to        were responsible for the
the employees to understand           Igrox Limited                      use them. For company A to        employee’s theft. Igrox were
the problem the likely                                                   be responsible there needed       being paid to fumigate the
redundancies will resolve to          In this case Igrox had a           to be something more than         container and therefore had a
enable meaningful                     contract with Brink to fumigate    just providing the employee       duty to the owner of the silver
consultation.                         a container carrying bars of       with the opportunity to use       bars to keep them safe. It
                                      solid silver before Brink          the telephone.                    would take 24 hours to
Dorlee Monschau                       shipped them to India. Two                                           fumigate the container during
                                      Igrox employees were               However, in a later case which    which Igrox were responsible
                                      instructed to fumigate the         involved the sexual abuse of      for its contents. The employee
                                      container. However, the            children by a warden of a         had been instructed by Igrox
                                      employees did not fumigate         hostel the court decided          to fumigate the container and
                                      the container as they had run      differently. Instead of looking   had therefore been instructed
                                      out of chemicals. Instead they     at whether the employee had       to deal with the silver bars, the
                                      sealed the container with a red    been authorised by the            value of which meant that
                                      warning sticker as if it had       employer to sexually abuse the    theft was a likely risk. When
                                      been fumigated. One of the         children the court looked at      taking into account all of the
                                      employees later returned and       whether the warden’s acts         circumstances the court
                                      stole 15 bars of silver.           were so closely connected to      decided that it was fair to hold
Igrox responsible as there was                                                                              could cause an organisation is
a sufficiently close connection
between the employee’s theft
                                    Have Yourself A “Merry”                                                 significant.

and his employment.                 Little Christmas?                                                       Compensation would ordinarily
                                                                                                            come under the jurisdiction of
The court also suggested that                                                                               the Civil Courts. A Company
the previous decision from the                                                                              could face a very costly claim
case where the employee was                                                                                 for damages from the
making international calls                                                                                  deceased person’s family.
would now be decided
differently and that an                                                                                     Only a Company can be
employer may be responsible                                                                                 prosecuted under CMCHA. The
for the theft or misuse of office                                                                           person who holds
equipment which a cleaner is                                                                                responsibility within the
employed only to clean.                                                                                     Company for Health and Safety
                                                                                                            could also face prosecution
Comment                                                                                                     under the Health and Safety at
                                                                                                            Work Act 1974. A resulting
                                    The Christmas party season will    encouragement of the                 conviction may mean a
The Brink case highlights how
                                    soon be upon us once more.         employer, with colleagues and        significant fine and/or jail term.
important it is for employers to
                                    Despite the good cheer it is       even the employer present? Is
assess the risks of liability to
                                    believed that drinking,            it clear in those circumstances      Can a Company prevent a
third parties that their
                                    particularly at lunchtime, can     that the employee wasn’t             prosecution?
employees could expose them
                                    reduce productivity and            “working”?                           There can be no full
to. For example will your
                                    judgment amongst the                                                    guarantees. However, every
employees have access to            workforce. However, there          If it can be shown that the          Company needs to ensure that
valuable goods which belong         could potentially be a far         employee was working at the          it has full Health and Safety
to a third party or will they       greater consequence of             time the fatal accident              policies and procedures in
have access to equipment            unchecked work based               occurred, then it is also            place. Without these it cannot
belonging to a third party          drinking.                          possible that the employer           mitigate culpability or show,
which they could potentially                                           could be prosecuted for              potentially, that there was no
exploit (illegally downloading      Scenario                           Corporate Manslaughter under         culpability.
films or music from a               An employee has been on a          the Corporate Manslaughter
computer belonging to a third       work related Christmas event       and Corporate Homicide Act           In light of the CMCHA, a Driving
party or stealing equipment         and decides to drive after         2007 (“CMCHA”).                      at Work Policy is now a
from a building site operated       consuming alcohol. After                                                necessity to deal with
by a third party)?                  leaving the event he has a road    The SGC indicate that financial      compliance of employees
                                    traffic accident and he kills      penalties for CMCHA (on              using vehicles (both owned by
Measures which you could            another person in that             conviction) should be                the Company and the
take to reduce the risk of being    accident.                          significant and both punitive        employee) whilst at work. Also
held responsible for your                                              and a real deterrent to prevent      a Company should give
employee’s wrongdoings              Personal Consequences              re-occurrence. The starting          consideration to a Policy
include providing them with         The Sentencing Guidelines          point should be a minimum            dealing with the question of
appropriate instructions about      Council (“SGC”) has recently       fine of £500,000 and could           Alcohol Consumption in
what is and is not expected of      increased the maximum              realistically run into millions of   relation to work or work related
them and ensuring that they         sentence for causing death by      pounds. The Court should not         activities, which should make
have adequate supervision.          dangerous driving to 14 years.     take into account the impact to      reference to the Driving at
                                    One of the main aggravating        Directors and Shareholders.          Work Policy.
Unfortunately though, in light      factors is driving with excess     Any linked Health and Safety
of Brink, this may not be           alcohol. Although it is by no      breaches resulting in                It should also be noted that
sufficient to avoid being held      means the only one, it is          prosecution and conviction           merely having policies in place
responsible in which case the       considered to be “serious          should also result in significant    is never enough. A policy needs
only other option would be to       culpability”. The starting point   financial penalty.                   to be reviewed and, if
consider taking out insurance       for determining a sentence of                                           necessary, updated on a
in the event that such claims       imprisonment for serious           Following a conviction under         regular basis. A record of
are made.                           culpability is 7 years.            CMCHA publicity orders should        review should also be kept.
                                                                       “ordinarily be imposed” by the
Charlie Barnes                      Employer Consequences              Court. The Court has the power       Jane Walker and Paul Ralph
                                    Was the individual “working” at    to impose details as to the          Licensing and Regulatory
                                    the time? If the employee was      nature of the publicity the          Team
                                    returning from a daytime           Company must comply with.
                                    event, organised with the full     The order must be a public
                                    knowledge and backing of his       announcement, e.g. an advert
                                    employer, then it might be         in a national newspaper,
                                    easier to prove causation          detailing all aspects of the
                                    wasn’t broken. What if it was      conviction, particulars of the
                                    after work, but with the           offence and level of fine
                                    knowledge, or even                 imposed. The damage that this
Snow chaos: Are you ready                                               be entitled to receive pay for
                                                                        this absence.
                                                                                                           withhold pay if an employee
                                                                                                           does not turn up for work,
for another ‘white-out’                                                 Transport issues
                                                                                                           employers need to ensure that
                                                                                                           any deduction is either
winter?                                                                                                    authorised under the
                                                                        As an employer, you need to        employee’s contract of
                                                                        ensure that the health and         employment (by way of an
                                                                        safety of your employees is not    appropriate clause that
                                                                        put at risk. Employees’ health     authorises the employer to
                                                                        and safety could be put at risk    make deductions from pay) or
                                                                        if they are unable to get in to    made with the employee’s
                                                                        work safely by using their         consent. Failure to do so may
                                                                        normal mode of transport. As       result in employees pursuing
                                                                        such, if an employee's normal      Employment Tribunal claims
                                                                        mode of transport cannot be        for unlawful deduction from
                                                                        used because of disruption         wages.
                                                                        due to severe weather
                                                                        conditions (for example,           Can employees be required
                                                                        because their car is snowed in),   to work from home if they
                                                                        you should first encourage the     are unable to get into work?
                                                                        employee to explore
Britain is set for another 'white-   the above challenges in the        alternative means of safe          If the facilities are available,
out' winter this year, according     most effective way. This article   transport. You may wish to         many employers will choose
to one weather forecast              considers the most common          consider whether the               to ask employees who are
agency. That is just one             problems faced by employers,       employee could work from           unable to travel to work from
opinion, and it may well be          together with practical advice     home until the weather             home. To ensure productivity,
that we escape the winter            on how to deal with these          situation has improved (see        employers may wish to
months without any snow or           challenges.                        below). If this is not a viable    implement a home working
other chaos caused by adverse                                           option, as an alternative you      policy setting out the
weather conditions. The reality,     What can we do if                  can either;                        expectations on employees
however (based on the recent         employees are unable to get                                           when working from home. If
snow fall in Scotland and in         in to work and are they                Exercise your discretion to    heavy snow or adverse
the north of the country) is         entitled to be paid if they            pay employees in the           weather is expected,
that at some point this winter       stay at home due to the                usual way;                     employees should be
all employers will have to deal      adverse weather?                                                      informed, in advance, of their
with the effect of the likely bad                                           Advise employees that          option to work at home in
weather on an employee’s             Under a contract of                    any time off work in these     order to ensure that they can
ability to attend work,              employment, employees are              circumstances will be          make the necessary
unauthorised absences, pay,          required to attend work during         unpaid; or                     arrangements.
leave, health and safety and         their normal working hours
other employment related             unless they are on authorised          Agree with employees           What about employees who
problems.                            leave, for example for sickness,       that the time off can be       are unable to come to work
                                     authorised holiday or                  taken as annual leave (you     due to school closures?
If you are an employer, and          maternity leave. The starting          cannot force an employee
you have employees that are          point, therefore, is that              to take time off as annual     Employees and workers have
likely to be affected by the         irrespective of extreme or bad         leave without giving           the right to take a reasonable
snow chaos or other adverse          weather conditions,                    notice in advance.             amount of unpaid time off to
weather conditions, then you         employees are still required to        However, employees may         deal with the unexpected
should be aware of your legal        attend work. Absence because           opt for this option if the     break down or disruption of
obligations towards your             of adverse weather conditions          alternative is to take         their care arrangements for
employees and also what you          would amount to                        unpaid leave).                 their dependants. This is likely
can reasonably expect from           unauthorised leave and                                                to apply where a school
them, so that you can tackle         therefore an employee will not     Although it is possible to         closure is announced in the
morning or during the                 employees to work from
working day and employees             home.                         Discriminatory Job
are unable to make alternative
arrangements. Employees in             A policy should then be      Adverts
this situation are, therefore,        implemented and
entitled to take a reasonable         communicated to all staff,
amount of unpaid leave to             setting out the
make alternative care                 expectations on
arrangements.                         employees regarding
                                      attendance at work, who
What happens if we are                to notify if employees are
forced to close the office?           unable to attend and how
                                      the business will operate
Unless employees expressly            with reduced numbers.
agree or there is a clause in an
employee’s contract of                It is advisable for
employment which allows the           employers to put in place
business to lay off employees,        an "adverse weather" or
an employer who is forced to          “journey into work” policy    Several recent cases have           bring a discrimination claim if
                                                                    highlighted the problem faced       they can demonstrate that a
close the office due to the           to clarify the steps that
                                                                    by companies of “serial claim-      job has been advertised in a
snow or other adverse weather         employees are required to
                                                                    ants”, individuals who target       discriminatory way which has
will still be obliged to pay          take to try to get into
                                                                    employers and recruitment           caused them a disadvantage.
employees for the period of           work on time and the          agencies who publish job ad-
time the business is closed.          consequences of their         vertisements which contain          Although most employers are
Failing to pay employees’             turning up for work late      potentially discriminatory          astute enough not to include
wages, may result in                  with regard to, for           terms, making fake applica-         overtly discriminatory terms in
employees pursuing claims for         example, their pay.           tions in order to bring discrimi-   advertisements, for example
unlawful deductions from                                            nation claims.                      asking for a “young” candidate,
wages in the Employment               When considering                                                  careful thought should be
Tribunal. As stated above,            emergency plans,              In order to avoid being the         given to other terms which are
depending on the nature of                                          target of similar claims, it is     less obviously discriminatory.
                                      employers need to bear in
                                                                    important that employers are
the work, some employees              mind their duty of care
                                                                    aware of their obligations in       The most common trap which
may be able to work from              towards employees to
                                                                    relation to job advertisements      employers fall into is language
home, in which case the               ensure their health and       under the Equality Act 2010         which implies that only some-
employer must pay them their          safety. Employers must        ("the Act") and ensure that         one of a certain age would be
normal wages.                         ensure that their             they do not unknowingly dis-        suitable. For example the use
                                      employees are not             criminate against applicants.       of “mature” or “experienced”
Practical Advice                      pressured into risking                                            may deter younger applicants
                                      their safety to attend work   The Law                             from applying, whilst the use
    As a starting point,              in dangerous conditions.                                          of the term “school leaver” or
    employers should carry            Employers should,             Under the Act it is unlawful for    “recent graduate” may deter
    out an assessment of the          therefore, ensure that        employers to discriminate in        older applicants.
                                                                    the "arrangements" they make
    workplace to identify the         they communicate to all
                                                                    for filling a vacancy.              The difficulties faced by em-
    risks which will be caused        employees that they
                                                                                                        ployers in this area are demon-
    by extreme weather                should only attend work if
                                                                    Arrangements include all            strated by two recent cases
    conditions and the steps          they are able to do so        forms of job advertisement,         brought by serial claimants.
    that will need to be taken        safely.                       including internal advertise-
    to minimise disruption to                                       ments published via e-mail or       Ms Keane v Investigo and
    the business, for example      Adish Farkhad                    the intranet and external ad-       Others
    by diverting calls or where                                     vertisements published in the
    possible making                                                 press or online. The Act there-     The first series of cases were
    arrangements for                                                fore allows someone who has         brought by Mrs Keane, a quali-
                                                                    not yet applied for a job to        fied accountant who at the
time of bringing her claims        ceived £23,300 in settlement       At the Employment Tribunal,                                   Discriminatory adverts may also
was 50 years old. Despite hav-     payments from other compa-         Mr Berry's claims were also                                   be used as evidence by genuine
ing significant experience in      nies.                              unsuccessful and he appealed                                  applicants who are not ap-
the accounting sector, Mrs                                            to the Employment Appeal                                      pointed and allege that this is
Keane began making a large         As Mrs Keane’s job applica-        Tribunal.                                                     for a discriminatory reason.
number of applications for         tions had not been genuine,
jobs advertised on the internet    the companies argued that          The Employment Appeal Tri-                                    In order to avoid potential
as being suitable for newly        Mrs Keane could not show that      bunal agreed with the compa-                                  claims, employers should ensure
qualified accountants.             she had been discriminated         nies' argument that Mr Berry's                                that they carefully consider the
                                   against as she hadn't suffered     claim must fail as again he had                               requirements of new positions
In each case, shortly after mak-   any disadvantage as a result of    suffered no disadvantage as a                                 before advertising and ensure
ing the application, and on the    the advert. She would never        result of the discriminatory                                  that adverts do not contain any
assumption that she would          have accepted the job in any       advert. He never had any in-                                  terms which could be read as
not be offered an interview,       event.                             tention of applying for the jobs                              discriminatory.
Mrs Keane presented the com-                                          in the first place.
pany responsible for the ad-       The Employment Appeal Tri-                                                                       In particular, employers should
vert with a questionnaire alleg-   bunal agreed that individuals      Helpfully, the Employment                                     ensure that the requirements
ing that she had been discrimi-    can only succeed in a claim if     Appeal Tribunal expressed a                                   referred to in the job advertise-
nated against on the basis of      they could show that they had      dim view of claims of this na-                                ment are genuinely required for
her age. Shortly afterwards,       been treated less favourably or    ture made by serial claimants,                                the role and that adverts do not
Mrs Keane then made claims         suffered a disadvantage as a       emphasising that the purpose                                  present jobs in a stereotypical
for age discrimination against     result of the discriminatory       of the discrimination law was                                 way, or indicate that only peo-
11 companies in the Employ-        advert. They decided that Mrs      not to provide a source of in-                                ple of a certain characteristic
ment Tribunal                      Keane's claims were not suc-       come for people who have no                                   should apply, for example using
                                   cessful as they had not been       genuine intention of applying                                 “salesgirl” as opposed to
Prior to the Employment Tribu-     genuine and she had not suf-       for roles and that individuals                                ”salesperson”.
nal hearing, Mrs Keane negoti-     fered a disadvantage.              trying to exploit the law for
ated payments to settle her                                           "financial gain" would be likely                              Tabytha Cunningham
claims with 6 of the compa-        Mr J Berry v Recruitment           to find themselves liable to
nies. She did not succeed with     Revolution & Others                pay the companies' costs.
the remaining claims at the
Employment Tribunal and ap-        This case dealt with four claims   Summary
pealed to the Employment           made by Mr Berry, a man in his
Appeal Tribunal.                   mid fifties.                       Whilst the Employment Ap-
                                                                      peal Tribunal's robust ap-                                      Warning! Coffin Mew LLPs E-Briefings
At the Employment Appeal           Mr Berry's claims were also for    proach to these cases will as-                                  are no more than an immediate
                                                                                                                                      response to a recent decision (or other
Tribunal the companies’ main       age discrimination and he re-      sist employers in defending                                     legal development), on a selective basis,
argument was that Mrs Keane        lied on terminology in adverts     these types of claims, these                                    intended to help recipients keep up to
had only made the job appli-       which suggested that they          cases highlight the risks to                                    date with information which may
                                   were targeted at younger peo-                                                                      interest them without needing to await
cations so that she could make                                        employers when recruiting
                                                                                                                                      publication of more considered
claims in the Employment           ple, for example referring to      new employees.                                                  material. Recipients should therefore
Tribunal, either to make a         school leavers.                                                                                    seek advice or await fuller information if
point about age discrimination                                                                                                        proposing to take action in
                                                                                                                                      consequence of an E-Briefing.
or with a view to obtaining        Mr Berry would contact the
compensation.                      agency/employer advertising
                                   the role, stating that whilst he
In support of their arguments      was interested in the role, he
they pointed to the fact that      assumed that as he was over
Mrs Keane had not taken any        50 years old there would be no
care with her job applications     point in him applying.
and had provided no evidence
as to why she suddenly             Unlike Ms Keane, even though
                                   one recruitment agency ac-          Southampton                                           North Harbour Portsmouth
wanted to take a job at a junior
                                                                       Kings Park House, 22 Kings Park Rd                    Bay House, Compass Road,
level. They also highlighted the   tively encouraged him to ap-        Southampton SO15 2UF                                  North Harbour Business Park
identical pattern to Mrs           ply, Mr Berry did not actually                                                            Portsmouth PO6 4RS
                                                                       Tel: 023 8033 4661                                    Tel: 023 9238 8021
Keane's claims and the fact        apply for any of the roles.
                                                                       www.coffinmew.co.uk                                   Offices also in Fareham & Gosport
that by this point she had re-
                                                                      Coffin Mew LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales
                                                                      (registered number OC 323868) which is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Lexcel Accredited

								
To top