Government pledges to enforce ‘day-one’ rights for workers. The Government vows to enforce workers’ rights from their first day in a new job.
This pledge is in response to recommendations made in the Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices. All workers including casual and zero-hours workers will receive basic rights including payslips, holiday and sick pay.
There will also be penalties for a rogue employer which will include to ‘name and shame’ those who fail to pay employment tribunal awards and fines for employers acting with malice, spite or gross oversight up to £20,000.
We work closely with specialist Employment Lawyers and Family Law Solicitors. There is no obligation on a Solicitor to take a case referred. Each case is assessed on its own merits.
Any agreement you subsequently enter into with a Solicitor is confidential between yourself and that legal firm.
We are obliged under regulations laid down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority to point out where there is a financial referral arrangement between a Solicitor and ourselves.
Bullying does not discriminate, we are all potential targets. No one person is immune to Cyberbullying either. Both individuals and organisations may be susceptible to Cyberbullying which targets an individual or an organisation is Cyberbullying.
We are hearing about some very serious cases of on-line abuse associated with the workplace. APP’S are being used to stalk a person (SPYWARE for example), or place a person under surveillance without their knowledge or consent.
eCRIME in the workplace is an increasing, very serious, problem that employers are struggling with. It is reported that bullying in the workplace costs UK employers in excess of £2bn per annum in litigation, investigation costs, lost productivity and sick pay. We think the figure is probably higher. So, this new anti-social behaviour on line is not helping.
There is legislation that covers areas closely associated with eCRIME and Cyberbullying. In this section we look at some of the laws that are in place to protect you.
Under clause 17 in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill compromise agreements were renamed Settlement Agreements (formerly known as Compromise Agreements.
These are a legally defined agreement under which an employee whose working relationship with the employer has become irretrievable agrees, in return for a negotiated financial sum, not to bring a tribunal claim against the employer.
Importantly; there is a requirement for the employee to receive independent advice from a solicitor, trade union official or qualified advice worker before entering into a settlement agreement.
Under The Protection from Harassment Act it is a criminal offence to commit an act of Cyberbullying with intent to harass another person or which the perpetrator knows, or reasonably ought to know, amounts to the harassment of another person.
A person found guilty of this behaviour could face imprisonment of up to 6 months, or receive a financial penalty, or both.
Section 4 of the Act provides the potential for greater punishment to those found guilty o f causing another person to believe, on two or more occasions, that violence will be used against them. A person found guilty of this offence could face up to 5 years imprisonment.
The 1997 Act also gives Courts powers to grant Restraining Orders against those found guilty of one of the above offenses.
Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 states that it is an offence for any person to send a communication that is “indecent or grossly offensive” with the intent of “causing distress or anxiety to the recipient” and this includes threats and information which is false or known or believed to be false by the sender of the communication.
A person found guilty of this behaviour could face imprisonment of up to 6 months or a fine of up to £5,000 or both.
Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 states that it is a criminal offence to send comments electronically which are deemed “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character”.
If found guilty a person can receive up to 6 months imprisonment, a fine or both.
This is an old piece of legislation which still applies today. It is an offence to publish an obscene article intended to deprave or corrupt persons likely to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in the article. Publishing includes; circulating, showing, playing or projecting the article or transmitting that data.
Under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 it is an offence to use threating, abusive or insulting words, behaviour, writing or any visual representation likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress within the hearing or sight of a person. With regards to Cyberbullying, this offence could apply where a camera or video functionality now found on the vast majority of mobile phones is used as a way of causing such harassment, alarm or distress.
“The Equality Act protects people from being victimised for making complaints about any form of discrimination in the workplace. It also says employers have a responsibility to take complaints seriously and to put a stop to discrimination".
Under the Health and Safety Act at Work 1974, all employers have a Duty of Care to provide employees with a safe working environment. If an employee can prove they are a target of eCRIME in the workplace, by colleagues using Company technology (computers, mobiles etc)., the employer may be in breach of their duty to protect employees under The Health & Safety at Work Act.
In such a case (described above) an employee is advised to raise a formal complaint ie: a Stage 1 Grievance. Refer to the Company Harassment and Grievance Policies and trigger the formal process.
A former NHS worker was awarded £933,115 in compensation after an employment tribunal found that he had been subject to racial discrimination and unfair dismissal. Elliot Browne was a divisional director at Central Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust until he was dismissed in 2008. Browne told an employment tribunal that he had been the victim of “discriminatory treatment” in the final year of his employment at the trust and had been unfairly dismissed.
The tribunal found that Browne had suffered “systematic discrimination” and “an intimidating environment” in his role, and that after Browne had raised a grievance the trust had failed to take it seriously or investigate it sufficiently. The expenditure of almost £1 million of taxpayers’ money could have been avoided if this employer had just followed its own policies and procedures – experts say.
An Employment Tribunal awarded a former NHS doctor one of the largest every discrimination pay-outs after she was subjected to a sustained campaign of sex and race discrimination. The tribunal found that three senior managers, one of whom was the HR Director, to be jointly and severely liable.
ET’s are currently approaching the concept of ‘discrimination arising from disability’ under The Equality Act 2010, as this case shows. However, the claimant (the employee) lost the case because he failed to demonstrate a link between his disability and his treatment by the employer. However, this is an important case which should not be underestimated.
Damages for negligent misstatement were awarded in a case involving Swindon College and Mr McKie, an art historian. The Judge described a job reference issued to a prospective employer to be ‘slapdash’ and staggering – due to reference to a formal process which was contrary to an earlier, positive, job reference issued.
Also, in the case of Kidd v Axa Equity & Law Life Assn’ce Soc’y Plc (IRL 301 QBD) it was said; ‘There is no general or statutory obligation on an employer to give a reference for an ex-employee but in particular cases there may be a contractual or other obligation to do so, either express or implied. However, if an employee does give a reference for an ex-employee he must take reasonable care to ensure that it is not misleading.
This rare case involving Manchester College demonstrates that a Judge will occasionally make an order for reinstatement in TUPE cases. It was decided that there should be re-engagement by way of recognising the breach of TUPE that has occurred here.
As this case demonstrates, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee by treating him or her less favourably than others because of someone else’s disability. http://www.xperthr.co.uk/article/114101/employee-discriminated-against-because-of-his-wifes-disability.aspx
In August 2012 a bungled racism case cost Royal Mail big tribunal pay-out. Employer investigation into complaint ‘shambolic,’ says EHRC . A Royal Mail employee who blew the whistle on racism at his workplace but was then sacked is believed to have won £100,000 compensation in an employment tribunal.
Abdul Musa, a former worker at a RM depot in Blackburn, reported racist behaviour at the depot to managers, which resulted in one worker being sacked and others disciplined. However, following his complaint, Musa was victimised by remaining colleagues as managers failed to protect or support him, the tribunal heard. He was then sacked so claimed both race discrimination and unfair dismissal.
The tribunal found failings in the employer’s internal investigation, which it said had not examined complaints that union representatives from the Communication Workers Union had backed an unofficial campaign to have Musa sacked by fabricating evidence.
The tribunal judgment said RM’s managers had viewed Musa as “a problem” in terms of the negative reaction of other workers, which could only be solved by dismissing him. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which funded Musa’s legal representation, called RM’s internal inquiry into the complaint “shambolic”.
John Wadham, general counsel for the EHRC, said: “The Equality Act protects people from being victimised for making complaints about any form of discrimination in the workplace. It also says employers have a responsibility to take complaints seriously and to put a stop to discrimination".
As a voluntary run organisation, we operate with limited resources and funds. All donations are gratefully received and 100% of every donation goes in to the running of our free helpline and website. By donating as little as a £1, you are ensuring a dedicated helpline is there when someone is reaching out for help.
We will give you option and choice and we will not record your call. Whilst we do everything we can to help our callers, occasionally there are circumstances where we are unable to help due to limited resources and expertise. You may need to seek advice from a specialise expert.
It is our Policy not to get involved in a dispute you may be having with; • The Police • The Courts or Legal System • Your GP or the NHS • Local Authority. In those cases we recommend you seek advice from your local MP or a Solicitor.