Author: blogger

Grievance Letter And Court Structure Illustrated By Emilio Botin Grupo Santander Banking

Posted on by blogger

UK employment disputes grievances and court structure is illustrated by the high-profile Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006) legal case, where the Tribunal made a finding of racial discrimination which led to the record 2.8 million compensation award. Abbey Santander banking group (the UK retail bank due to be re-branded as Santander price, and being part of the gigantic Emilio Botin Banco Santander Central Hispano Group, BSCH) terminated Balbinder Chagger’s employment in 2006, asserting compulsory redundancy as the reason. Mr Chagger, on the other hand, believed the true reason behind his dismissal was racial discrimination. Mr Chagger was of Indian origin and worked as a Trading Risk Controller for Santander 2009. He earned about 100,000 per annum and reported into Nigel Hopkins.

An employee who has suffered employment related unfairness and/or discrimination could decide to make an appeal. The initial place of appeal would be to the employer, in the form of a formal grievance. The employee lodges a formal grievance letter with the employer, and the employer is responsible for processing the grievance and deciding the outcome. Thus, the employer is given the first the opportunity to handle the employment dispute and to close it satisfactorily. Mr Chagger’s grievances and issues, however, were simply dismissed out of hand by Emilio Botin Abbey Santander share price.

If the employee and the employer are unable to resolve their employment dispute by themselves, then the employee may appeal to an Employment Tribunal for an objective resolution. UK Employment Tribunals will hear matters about redundancy payments, unfair dismissal and discrimination. Mr Chagger took his matter to the Employment Tribunal by initiating legal action against both Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins, on the grounds of unfair dismissal and racial discrimination. The Employment Tribunal considered the evidence and ruled that Mr Chagger had in fact been both dismissed unfairly and racially discriminated against by both Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins. In order to remedy the wrong of race discrimination Santander Abbey had committed, the Employment Tribunal ordered the company to reinstate Mr Chagger. However, Santander Abbey refused to comply with the Employment Tribunal’s reinstatement order. The Employment Tribunal then ordered Abbey Santander to pay Mr Chagger 2.8 million compensation for his loss, as an alternative to reinstatement.

The party that is dissatisfied with the Employment Tribunal’s ruling may appeal to the next higher-level court, being the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The EAT will look into appeals against rulings made by the Employment Tribunals. The appeals must only be about points of law (i.e., an appeal must only be about mistakes in legal reasoning by the Employment Tribunal). The EAT will not look into matters about facts of the case. In 2008, Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins appealed to the EAT against the Employment Tribunal’s ruling of racial discrimination and against the record-breaking 2.8 million compensation awarded. The EAT considered the appeals. It upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s ruling that Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger in respect of his dismissal. However, it accepted Santander Abbey’s appeal concerning the 2.8 million compensation award and decided to send back the compensation amount to the original Employment Tribunal for reconsideration.

The party that is dissatisfied with the ruling of the EAT may make an appeal to the next higher-level court, the Court of Appeal (the second highest court in the land). The Court of Appeal will look into appeals against rulings made by the EAT. As before, the appeals must only be about points of law (i.e., an appeal must only be about mistakes in legal reasoning by the EAT). The Court of Appeal will not look into matters about facts of the case. In 2009, the Chagger v Santander Abbey case was appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal’s List of Hearings showed that the case was heard on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court of Appeal’s records concerning the outcome of the hearing were not available at the time of writing this article. The 11KBW set of barristers’ chambers (who represented Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins), had reported that the hearing was to be only about quantum (i.e., compensation) and not liability also (i.e., not racial discrimination also). That would appear to suggest that the wrong of race discrimination committed by Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins was finalised by the EAT (it upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s finding that Mr Hopkins and Santander Abbey had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger), and that Mr Chagger had appealed against the EAT’s ruling to send back the compensation amount back to the Employment Tribunal stage for reconsideration.

The party that is dissatisfied with the ruling of the Court of Appeal may appeal to the next higher-level court, the House of Lords. Appeals to the House of Lords require the Court of Appeal’s approval. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal must require the House of Lords to decide upon a question of general public importance. As previously, appeals to the House of Lords must only concern points of law and not be about facts of the case. The House of Lords is the highest court in the land and the final stage of appeal for most legal cases in the UK. Occasionally, cases may be approved for appeal to the European Court of Justice, which has jurisdiction on matters of European Community law.

Inland Revenue P46 Tax Questions With Notes On Accepting The P46 Form

Posted on by blogger

A new employee may not have a P45 due to circumstances of first job, student, first employment in the current financial year, immigrant worker, P45 lost or perhaps not issued by a previous employer or issued late. If a new employee does not give the new employer a P45 on the day employment commences then the employer has a responsibility to ensure the new employee completes a P46 form

Completing the Inland Revenue P46 form is the method an employer uses to advise HMRC about the employment of a new employee who does not have a P45.

2. P46 forms should be sent to HMRC on the first pay day they are paid allowing a short period of time for a new employee who does not have a P45 to obtain one.

3. A new rule was introduced from 6 April 2008 if the employee has ticked either box A or B then the P46 revenue form does not have to be sent to HMRC until that employee earnings reach the lower earnings limit. PAYE records still need to be produced by the employer but official notification to HMRC is not required unless the lower earnings level is exceeded.

Should the earnings of the employee continue to be below the lower earnings limit then the earnings and employment would still be advised to HMRC on the P35 annual employers return.

4. If the new employee does not complete the Inland Revenue P46 form before the first pay day then the new employer should complete section one. Section one includes the employee name and address, date of birth and national insurance number.

5. If the employee does not have a national insurance number then the employer must also advise the job centre. It is important to advise the authorities when the employee does not have a number to avoid illegal employment laws. The P46 revenue form can still be submitted to HMRC without a national insurance number who have the facility to trace the number from the information supplied.

While preferable for the employee to sign the P46 form the P46 tax form can be submitted by an employer without the employee signature.

6. If the employee does not complete the P46 the employer must deduct tax using a BR tax code taxing all earnings and excluding personal tax allowances.

7. The tax code to be applied to new employee earnings is dependent upon when the employee joined and which of the boxes A, B or C are ticked on the P46 tax form.

If box A is ticked then apply the emergency tax code which from 6 April 2008 is 543L and after 7 September 2008 and the new tax code 603L. Tax is deducted on a cumulative basis. If box B is ticked then apply the emergency tax code which from 6 April 2008 is 543L and after 7 September 2008 and the new tax code 603. Tax is deducted on a week 1 or month 1 basis.

If box C is ticked then apply the BR tax code. Income tax is deducted on cumulative basis.

If none of the boxes A, B or C are ticked then apply the BR tax code and deduct tax on a cumulative basis.

8. If the new employee has ticked box D then student loan deductions should be made with effect from the first pay date provided the earnings level for deduction of student loans has been reached. Refer to the student loan deduction tables at Student Loan Table to determine how much should be deducted.

9. P46 forms can be filed online by an employer. When the Inland Revenue P46 form is filed online the employer should also have kept a record of how the information submitted was obtained.

10. Before the P46 Inland Revenue form can be filed online the employer must have obtained the facility to do so by registering with HMRC for a PAYE scheme. The HMRC website contains free software that can be used for this purpose.

Entrepreneurial Options

Posted on by blogger

Very few people ever got rich by working for someone else. Leaving aside pop musicians, sportsmen and similarly gifted people, the only way to acquire wealth by work is to build a business of your own. The type of business you decide upon will depend on: a) how much money you have available as start-up capital and working capital; b) your business idea; and c) your confidence level.

There are three types of business: 1) the traditional one in which you are reliant solely on your own efforts; 2) a franchise where you follow a proven idea and receive considerable training and back-up from the franchise company; and 3) network marketing.

Each business type has its pros and cons.

The traditional business requires considerable financial input, either from your own resources or part-funded by your bank. You may need to rent premises; buy equipment; hire staff; pay for advertising, brochures, stationery, and stock. A frighteningly high percentage of this type of business fails in the first year. To succeed you need: a good idea, considerable financial backing, good health, an understanding spouse, and stamina. If you do succeed you will own the business outright and benefit from all the profits.
Franchises have a high success rate. Banks like them because each franchise operation has a proven track record and thus the banks can accurately judge the risk, consequently they will lend money for this sort of start-up. However, all the support and training comes at a price: the initial entrance fee is likely to be very high, and a percentage of the business’s turnover has to be paid to the franchise company.
Network marketing, also known as multi-level marketing, has many advantages and few disadvantages. The entrance fee is low and the ongoing expenses are even lower. A network marketing business can be started in your spare time – in fact that is the best way to approach it. Start small, and keep at it. The secret is perseverance, get past the first year and you should find the business has a sound foundation from which you can build a serious income. It is said that 95% of those who survive ten years in network marketing become wealthy beyond their wildest expectations.

So which type of business is for you? If you wish to provide a service or product where you have previous experience from, say, a former employment, the traditional business will be probably be the best choice. However, if you are just tired of working for someone else and making them rich and wish to strike out on your own, then a franchise or network marketing must be the preferred option.

The choice then is determined chiefly by the funds you have access to, and the time and effort you wish to put into your enterprise. A franchise will require substantial funds and 100% commitment. You are jumping in at the deep end, although the franchise company will provide training and support to help you to swim.
On the other hand you can ease yourself gently into network marketing by starting part-time while you continue with your current employment, building your business by ploughing back profits if necessary. Persevere and there will come a time when the income from your own business will be sufficient to support you financially. You will then be able to leave your employment and concentrate on your business, spending more time on it or enjoying considerable free time with your family.

Information On Tier 2 Change of Employment Visa

Posted on by blogger

There are many working individuals in the UK holding a Tier 2 work permit. This visa category allows them to work in the UK. An individual who carries a Tier 2 visa, but wish to change employment, needs to submit a change of employment application with the UK Border Agency.

If you too are planning to change employment and are holding a Tier 2 work visa, contact one of the best immigration consultants in Sheffield. They would offer you the best guidance on this matter. You need to apply with the UK Border Agency for getting this status. You will not have problem in getting a change of employment as you already hold a Tier 2 visa. Your employer will need to issue a Certificate of Sponsorship and this certificate needs to be submitted to the UK Border Agency. Once the certificate is issued, you will further have to make an application for FLR, which is Further Leave to Remain in UK under Tier 2 of the Point Base System.

Criteria for getting Change of Employment

The employer you wish to change must be registered and licensed sponsor with UK Border Agency
The employer you want to change must be willing to issue you a Certificate of Sponsorship
The employer you wish to change must be in a position to furnish all UKBA requirements

Applying for change of employment becomes very easy if you have the assistance of one of the best immigration consultants in Sheffield. They will help you from the beginning till end. When you contact them for your individual needs, they will help you submit a change of employment application to the UK Border Agency. They can help you with that if you already have a Work Permit for a job, training or work experience with any other employer. They will also be a great help if your designation has been changed in the existing organization or your duties and conditions of work has changed.

As quoted earlier, the process of applying with UK Border Agency for change in employment becomes hassle-free if you choose the services of a professional immigration law firm. When you do this, you can be rest assured that your immigration matter is in safe hands and the best strategy has been applied for your case. They will be able to guide you step by step and limit the possibility of failure by their expertise.

Fusco Browne is the author of the above article. They are a pool of highly qualified and experienced immigration consultants in Sheffield. They are the best visa experts in UK offering advice to individuals and corporate houses. If you want to know more about them, please visit www.fuscobrowne.org.uk

Employment Law – The Enforceability Of Post Employment Restraints Of Trade (vic.)

Posted on by blogger

Employing highly intelligent and highly qualified employees in a range of sophisticated commercial businesses is a risky business for employers.

To acquire competitive business advantage in an increasingly globalized and networked world of pharmaceuticals, genetics, telecommunications, power supply and information technology requires the employment of highly qualified, well educated, experienced and clever employees.

Potential employers and employees are both well advised to seek legal assistance when drafting or accepting terms of employment. Due to the seniority of these employees, their employment contracts are less likely to be workplace agreements but more likely to be private , one-off, contracts of employment.

Often, employees in the pharmaceuticals, genetics, telecommunications, power supply and information technology industries will have access to secret and confidential information which is both price and market-sensitive. This information might be chemical formulae, scientific and technological data, chemical, electrical or manufacturing trade processes, hardware or software engineering designs, or a range of other sophisticated technological and scientific information. The potential employee will need access to this information to perform his or her anticipated role. When the employment relationship ends, however, the employer is faced with a double problem. First, the employee is leaving. Whether the departure is voluntary or involuntary, it will be an inconvenience and a disruption to the employer. Secondly, and more importantly long term, the departing employee will take with him or her, knowledge of the secret and confidential information which may be the very basis of the employer’s competitive advantage in a particular industry or market.

To minimise this long term disruption, employers often include restraint of trade clauses in employment contracts when employing people in these sensitive areas. Commonly, the restraint of trade will prevent the former employee from seeking employment with any competitor of the former employer in the particular market for a period of time.

In current times, where there is a shortage of trained staff, particularly in scientific and technological areas, the reason why an employee departs is generally because he or she has received a better offer from a competitor.
In deciding whether or not to enforce the restraint of trade clause against a departing employee, Victorian courts have to balance a number of competing factors.

First, neither Australian nor Victorian general law will restrain a former employee from seeking employment with a competitor. Any such restraint must be found in an enforceable clause in the contract of employment with the former employer. Employers, therefore, should always ensure that staff are employed pursuant to written contracts of employment which contain enforceable restraints of trade.

Secondly, Victorian courts will not allow employers to prevent former employees from conducting a living by practising the skills which may have taken many years to acquire through university courses or practical experience. However, this is only a general rule or starting point.

Thirdly, Victorian courts will not allow former employees to obtain an unfair springboard into a new career by abusing the trust of the former employer. Examples are where employees spend an entire weekend photocopying price lists, formulae, client contact details and other confidential information and then resign the following Monday morning to set up a competitive business the following Tuesday morning.

Essentially, Victorian courts perform a balancing act between the competing interests of the employee to be able to continue to gain a living on the one hand and the employer’s interests of being able to reasonably prevent the disclosure of confidential and secret trade-sensitive information to competitors when the employment relationship ceases.

The sorts of factors courts have taken into account are as follows. First, Victorian courts will look to see whether the restraint of trade is reasonable or is too restrictive. Any restraint which tries to prevent an employee from working not only in the particular business of the former employer but any other associated or ancillary business is likely to be struck down. Likewise, a restraint which seeks to prevent an employee from working for an excessively lengthy period (generally more than 12 months) is also highly likely to be struck down and declared unenforceable. To overcome these problems, lawyers draft restraint of trade clauses to have a “waterfall” effect. The clause contains a number of alternatives, for example, starting from a very wide restraint and then proceeding to an increasingly narrow restraint in terms of future employment activities or in terms of length of time. Each one of the alternatives is severable from the contract if declared unenforceable by a court. Accordingly, a court might reject a restraint which provided for former employee X not to be employed in any pharmaceutical industry within South East Asia including Australia. The court, on the other hand, may be prepared to enforce a restraint which prevented employee X from being employed in the field of molecular genetic artificial-blood technology in either Melbourne or in Sydney for a period of one year. Such a restraint is far more precise and reasonably protects the former employer’s confidential information whilst allowing the employee to seek employment in the general field of molecular genetics.

A court must also be satisfied that an employer’s fears are genuine. For instance, is the information really secret and confidential? If the information is only knowledge which an employee would obtain through the repetitive working of his or her ordinary job, courts are less likely to regard this as secret or confidential information. Other sorts of information which are publicly available (even such as client contact details and price lists) may also not qualify. If there is no secret or confidential information, then there can be no restraint of trade.

Courts will also look to see whether the employee was specifically compensated for the restraint when first employed. If an employee received a specific additional sum as a hiring incentive for a longer than normal restraint of trade, courts are more likely to be persuaded that the restraint, when ultimately applied, is reasonable. The employee has accepted the restraint when first employed and has received a specific benefit for it.

Another factor which courts will examine is the seniority of the former employee. The more senior, the more likely it may be that the now departed employee may be capable of encouraging other staff to follow him or her and more capable of influencing former clients to switch allegiance. Alternatively, if the former employee was not employed in a managerial position and was only employed at either a junior or specific technical level, courts may be less worried about wholesale client or staff defections which would need to be prevented by the restraint of trade clause.

Until recently, courts seemed reluctant to enforce restraints of trade for more than 3-6 months. However, recent New South Wales Supreme Court authorities seem to be swinging the pendulum back in favour of employers where the balancing exercise outlined above suggests that the restraint of trade does need to be enforced to reasonably protect the former employer’s market and confidential information interests. For instance, Brereton, J., in John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v. Bert & Ors [2006] N.S.W.S.C. 995 upheld a restraint of trade for 12 months in relation to a former employee who had been employed at a senior level. The same judge, in Cactus Imaging Pty Ltd v. Peters [2006] N.S.W.S.C. 17 (18 July 2006) also enforced a restraint of trade for 12 months in a situation where the former employee operated in a restrictive market or oligopoly.

This is a complex area of law. Contracts of employment generally and restraints of trade particularly need to be carefully drafted to have their intended legal effect.

Employers and employees need to be carefully advised on the range of tactics available in post employment scenarios.