Previous Article Next Article Medical treatment affects appealOn 1 Mar 2001 in Personnel Today Comments are closed. A telephone operator’s disability claim goes back to appeal,but his ongoing medical treatment must then be taken into account. Plus caseson race discrimination, disciplinary proceedings and the ‘unreasonable’ actionsof a tribunal chairman in striking out a sex discrimination claimWhat is a disability? Abadeh v British Telecommunications IDS Brief 675, EAT Abadeh, a telephone operator, suffered permanent hearing loss and tinnitusin his ear after receiving a sudden, high-pitched noise through his headset. Healso developed post-traumatic stress disorder. Abadeh brought a disabilitydiscrimination claim and the tribunal had to establish if Abadeh was”disabled” within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act. The tribunal considered four medical reports, two for each of the parties.BT’s reports were prepared by M. The tribunal held that although Abadeh had animpairment that adversely affected his ability to carry out normal day-to-dayactivities, the effects of the impairment were not substantial. Accordingly,Abadeh was not disabled. Abadeh appealed. The EAT found that the tribunal had been over-influenced byM’s opinion and the matter was remitted to a fresh tribunal. Interestingly, theEAT also held that the effects of medical treatment (Abadeh’s ongoingpsychotherapy), should be taken into account if the medical evidence showedthat continuing treatment brought a permanent improvement. Awareness of investigation necessary London Borough of Ealing v Garry IRLB 656, EAT Garry, a Nigerian, was the council’s housing benefits manager. Afterlearning she had been investigated by her previous employer for suspectedhousing benefit fraud and soon after dismissing another Nigerian employee for asimilar reason, the council appointed Singh, a “special” investigatorto look into the case concerning Garry. In March 1997, Singh concluded Garry had been involved in a fraudulent claimbut Garry only learned she had been under investigation in May. The next monthshe met the auditors and in August the council concluded there was insufficientevidence to start disciplinary proceedings. It omitted to tell Garry or Singhof this and he continued with his investigations, albeit limited to a fewfurther phone calls. Only in July 1998 was Garry told no further action wouldbe taken. She brought a successful race discrimination claim. The tribunal held thatstereotypical assumptions had been made about Garry being a Nigerian and thiswas why a “special” rather than ordinary investigator had beenappointed. Further, Garry had been subjected to a detriment by the ongoinginvestigation even though she had been unaware of it. The council successfullyappealed. Although the tribunal had been entitled to infer the reason forSingh’s appointment was Garry’s race, she had not suffered any detrimentbecause her lack of awareness of the ongoing investigation had not caused herany actual disadvantage. Care needed in disciplinary proceedings R v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police ex-parte Bennion IDS Brief 678, High Court Bennion, a chief inspector, made a formal complaint about her systematicharassment by another officer. After the investigation of her complaint, thechief constable upheld the decision to transfer Bennion to another area. Shebrought a sex discrimination claim, but before this was heard, was interviewed,cautioned and tape-recorded about a possible disciplinary matter. She added a victimisation claim to the tribunal proceedings, which werestayed, pending the outcome of the disciplinary matter. The area’s new chiefconstable refused Bennion’s request that the disciplinary hearing, which he wasto conduct, should be transferred to another force. Following the disciplinaryhearing, Bennion was demoted to Inspector. On her successful application for a judicial review, the High Court quashedthe disciplinary decision. The chief constable should not have conductedBennion’s disciplinary hearing because the outcome could have a bearing on thetribunal claim. No one could be a judge in their “own cause” wherethere was a real possibility of partiality. Clearly this is a lesson to allthose conducting disciplinary proceedings. Tribunal chairman acted unreasonably Unwin v Governors of Sackville School and another Unreported, February 2001, EAT Unwin began proceedings for victimisation contrary to the Sex DiscriminationAct 1975. There was a massive amount of paperwork and the chairman adjournedthe hearing so that he and the tribunal members could read the papersthemselves. The chairman listed the matter for a directions hearing, which heconducted alone. At that hearing, he struck out Unwin’s claim and ordered herto pay the school’s costs. Unwin successfully appealed to the EAT. It held that while the provisions ofthe employment tribunals Act 1996 did enable a chairman to strike out a claimbefore a final determination of the case on its merits and to determine costs,the chairman had erred by not consulting the lay members and seeking theirviews. The chairman and lay members had spent four days discussing Unwin’s casebefore the adjournment and the chairman had not exercised his power in a”judicial” manner. Related posts:No related photos.
Related posts:No related photos. Achef caught with illegal drugs outside his place of work has won an unfairdismissal case against his employer on a legal technicality.DavidLloyd Leisure, owned by the Whitbread chain, sacked Ellesmere Port chef RobertWilson, 21, after he was found with cannabis.Wilsonwas caught with the drugs in a car park opposite the leisure centre by securityguards. He was suspended and then sacked three weeks later following a policewarning.Althoughthe tribunal last week ruled David Lloyd Leisure was within its rights to sackhim for bringing the company into disrepute, it said Wilson should not havebeen disciplined while police were investigating the case.Wilsonclaimed his personal rights had been infringed under the Human Rights Act andwon £175 compensation – a week’s pay.Aspokesman for David Lloyd said the company had no formal drugs policy but didnot tolerate criminal activity among its staff.Headded, “The tribunal agreed that we were within our rights to sack him –but it was the process that caused the problem.”Whilethey are at work we have to ensure our employees are functioning properly –which they might not do if they are taking banned substances.” Victory in drug case due to a legal loopholeOn 13 Mar 2001 in Personnel Today Previous Article Next Article Comments are closed.
I have spent my entire working life – almost 20 years – working in HR. Istill find it rewarding and challenging, but I’m beginning to feel slightlyguilty about not getting wider business experience. I can see the arguments fordoing this, but I’m happiest doing what I’m doing. My perception is thatstaying in HR will not damage my career prospects unduly in the future. Do youagree? Sarah Rendell, consultant, EJ Human Resources I would agree you are not necessarily harming your future career prospectsif you are happiest working within an operational HR role. However, if yourlong-term aspirations are to reach the top of the HR career ladder, you maywell need to develop an understanding of other areas of business. Whichever option you choose, you must do it because you want to do it ratherthan because you feel you ought to. If you are sure you would like to remain inan operational HR role, there is no reason to feel guilty about your lack of‘wider business’ experience. If your career comes to the point when you are no longer challenged, theskills you have acquired through what seems to be a generalist HR role can beused to create fresh opportunities for you. You might specialise in aparticular area of HR and to develop in-depth knowledge of a specific field. Clive Sussams, recruitment consultant, Malpas Flexible Learning There is no doubt that you have a wealth of experience which will be usefulto prospective employers. Equally, as the role of HR changes, many companiesare seeking professionals who have been exposed to line management positions inother areas of business. I do not feel that there is any need for you to feel guilty as you havedeveloped a specialist career which has value to an employer. It would beuseful to consider how your personal skills could be enhanced so you are moreinfluential in business decisions. Embarking on additional qualifications suchas an MBA would emphasise how you are broadening your knowledge in order thatyou can be seriously linked to the business. Take stock of your career, skills and experience and how best to use them ina rapidly changing workplace. It is particularly important to work closely withmanagement, understand their expectations and use your expertise to help drivethrough best practice. Claire Coldwell, consultant, Chiumento Staying in HR will not necessarily damage your career prospects – it dependson how you plan your future development. Doing a job which you enjoy is animportant consideration, but you also need to ensure you are continuallyupdating your skills. Does your boss see potential within you which he/she believes can berealised by wider business experience? This experience will give you a user’sperspective on the whole HR function and a broader understanding of businessissues, particularly of a commercially strategic nature. One way to get a better understanding of business while continuing to workin HR is to take an MBA. There are lots of flexible courses available thatcould be combined with your current role. Am I limiting my career prospects?On 5 Mar 2002 in Personnel Today Related posts:No related photos. Comments are closed. Previous Article Next Article
Data fileOn 12 Mar 2002 in Personnel Today Our continuing series of articles which give the basics on key areas ofemployment legislationFixed-term employeesThe hard factsThe Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations2002 are due to come into force on 10 July 2002. The regulations will prohibitemployers from discriminating against fixed-term employees and limit the use ofsuccessive fixed-term contracts. The regulations are being introduced as secondary legislation under theEmployment Bill and will implement the EC Directive on Fixed Term Work. The main changes The main changes that the regulations will introduce are: – A right not to be treated less favourably than those on permanentcontracts, unless the treatment can be objectively justified – A right to receive a written statement of reasons within 21 days ofrequest if a fixed-term employee believes he has been less favourably treated – An obligation on employers to advertise permanent vacancies in a mannerreasonably likely to come to fixed-term employees’ attention– The use of successive fixed-term contracts will be limited to a maximum offour years, subject to limited exceptions– Fixed-term employees will no longer be entitled to waive their right to astatutory redundancy payment and– A dismissal of an employee seeking to enforce rights under the Regulationswill be automatically unfair. Who will the regulations apply to? – All employees who are employed on fixed-term contracts, so it does notcover the wider category of ‘workers’ used in other discrimination legislation.Agency workers, apprentices, government-supported training schemes and thearmed forces are excluded. Pay and pensions – After the initial consultation, the Government has decided that thenon-discrimination principle in the regulations will cover pay and pensions.Accordingly, it will become unlawful for occupational pension schemes toexclude employee who are on fixed-term contracts from membership if comparablepermanent employees are eligible, unless it can be objectively justified. Part-time and agency workers – As a result of the regulations, the Part-time Workers (Prevention of LessFavourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 will be amended on 30 June 2002 toabolish distinction between fixed-term and open-ended contracts. – It has been widely reported that the EU is putting together proposals togive temporary/agency workers equivalent employment rights to permanentemployees. CBI comment is at: http://www.cbi.org.uk/home.htmlReading around the subject – The first consultation took place last year, and the Government responseto it can be found at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/fixed/response.htm– Final consultation is now in progress, and the deadline for responses is15 April 2002. The consultation document (including explanatory notes) is at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/fixed/consult2.htmIn the news – Equal Opportunities Commission comment on the Regulations: http://www.eoc.org.uk/cseng/legislation/legal_developments.asp– CBI comment on the proposals implemented under the Employment Bill: http://www.cbi.org.ukBy Claire Hughes at Wragg & Co Previous Article Next Article Related posts:No related photos. Comments are closed.
This month’s news in briefLawsuits piling up for supermarket giant Global retail giant Wal-Mart is facing lawsuits in 28 US states forallegedly forcing staff to work unpaid overtime. The Times reported that staffwere locked inside stores until work was completed and hours were deleted formtimesheets to keep them under 40 hours per week. Wal-Mart owns theUKsupermarket Asda. Transexual wins discrimination case A transexual dismissed by Isle of Wight firm Structural Polymer Systemsafter complaining of discrimination and harassment is to receive £22,000 incompensation. The claimant said she was treated in an abusive manner by herteam leader, was subjected to comments about her transexuality, and wasdismissed after raising her concerns with the md and head of HR. Staff security breaches on rise as IT use soars The number of employee-related IT security incidents is growing as staff gete-mail and internet access, while some companies face computer fraud andsabotage by disgruntled workers, says a report backed by the Department ofTrade and Industry. The PricewaterhouseCoopers Information Security BreachesSurvey 2002 says the number of companies suffering a security breach as aresult of premeditated or malicious intent rose from 24 per cent in 2000 to 44per cent by the beginning of this year. EU set to legislate on corporate responsibility HR professionals could be forced to report on how their organisations impacton society and the environment if new proposals from the European Commissionbecome law. Fast-track scheme helps immigrants fill skills gap More than 300 immigrants have been given approval to work in the UK in thepast five months under a new fast-track work permit system for highly-skilledpeople. Of 953 applicants up to 13 June, 338 were successful, includingdoctors, scientists and computer specialists. Immigration minister BeverleyHughes said they “contribute a great deal to our society” andinsisted the Government was keen to attract people who could help the economygrow. Haulage firms fight working time limits Employers in the road haulage industry are urging the Government to fightthe EU on its proposed Working Time Directive for Mobile Workers, which willlimit lorry drivers to a 48-hour week by 2005. Comments are closed. Related posts:No related photos. Previous Article Next Article in briefOn 1 Jul 2002 in Personnel Today
Comments are closed. Joined up thinking is the key to improving UK productivityOn 8 Apr 2003 in Personnel Today Gordon Brown’s prudent image is about to be tested to thelimit with tomorrow’s Budget. But his focus on productivity is right – as longas UK industry starts to think long-term and looks at the bigger pictureThe chancellor of the exchequer Gordon Brown’s Budget options, alwaysnarrow, have closed down completely with the war in Iraq. The £3bn he hasearmarked for the war already looks too low; if the UK is spending at the samerate as the US then the allocation should be close to £10bn. With government borrowing set to rise significantly above £30bn in the nextfinancial year and the year afterwards, Brown has no room for manoeuvre toraise spending further or cut taxes. He therefore risks breaking his own-selfimposed rules for spending and borrowing. Only if he can present the Iraq war and reconstruction as a one-offadditional spending increase with the wider global downturn undermining hisreceipts, will he escape being tagged as fiscally imprudent. He may rob Peterto pay Paul, lifting taxes stealthily to pay for worthy spending increases soleaving the overall economic impact broadly neutral, but even that strategy isunappealing. You can write the headlines about stealth taxes yourself. Rather thispromises to be a sober budget in keeping with the times – with the mainpreoccupation being delivering on productivity. The trouble is that while the chancellor vowed to improve the UK’sproductivity performance six years ago, which he has attempted to do through arange of macro- and micro-economic tinkering, productivity stubbornly refusesto rise. Rather than catching up with productivity levels in other major economies,the UK has fallen further behind. This is partly about mismanaged expectations– having presented himself as having the cure for UK productivity malaise,Brown was always going to fall short of the hype. The UK also has a long-termproblem of under investment in physical and human capital that cannot bereversed overnight. But even if he succeeds in redressing some of that under investment, theopen question is whether there is anything the Government can do to influencesuch a long-standing problem. Brown’s focus on ‘bottom-up productivity’ – which looks set to be a theme ofthe Budget – has been a real step forward in focusing attention on the longtail of under-achieving firms and individuals at the bottom of the labourmarket. According to the Treasury, the UK’s best firms in every sector are upto five and a half times more productive than the weakest. Equipping universities to network in local economies, new targets forworkforce skill levels, measures to address deprivation as well as to stimulateenterprise, and new ideas to eradicate joblessness in particular neighbourhoodshave all been features of a regional, bottom-up approach to productivity thatlooks set to reap longer-term productivity rewards. But there are two vital weaknesses. The first is that the policies need toconnect in a way that makes sense on the ground, so the various initiatives arepart of a coherent bigger picture and not seen as another standaloneinitiative. The problem here is that, historically, the educational,technological, commercial and employment agendas – all productivity focused –have run in parallel, almost oblivious of each other. Instead there needs to bea far better micro-economic strategy that really joins up the drive to improveskills and innovation. But that means addressing the second deficiency: the UK lacks abusiness-building culture, so we have too few businesses that want to groworganically through being great high-performance organisations. Too many aredriven by short-term financial priorities – what matters is not long-termproductivity growth, but the next half-year’s numbers. Brown has tried to dosomething about this with his Myners Review on pension fund management andincentives to hold shares for a longer term with tapered capital gains tax, buthe has abstained from substantial reform of corporate governance and financialstructures. If he’s to leave any worthwhile legacy, Brown needs to address bothdeficiencies and inject some humanity into productivity. He won’t be chancellorforever, and time is running out. Maybe he will surprise us. By Will Hutton, Chief executive, The Work Foundation Previous Article Next Article Related posts:No related photos.
French employees in revolt over short hoursOn 30 Sep 2003 in Personnel Today Comments are closed. In a move that supports arguments that the UK should be allowed to continueto opt out from the Working Time Directive, French workers are rejecting thecountry’s 35-hour working week. According to a poll conducted for L’Expansion magazine, employees aregrowing increasingly disaffected over the 35-hour week and are demanding thefreedom to work longer hours. More than 60 per cent of employees think the limit penalises Frenchcompanies, and more than half feel the legislation is encouraging companies torelocate outside France. Thirty-six per cent of French workers want to see a return to theirtraditional working week of 39 hours. The cut to 35 hours was introduced five years ago under socialist premierLionel Jospin. The EU is currently reviewing the UK’s opt-out clause, which allowsemployees to choose to work longer than the 48-hour maximum stipulated by theWorking Time Directive. Mike Emmott, employee relations adviser at the Chartered Institute ofPersonnel and Development, said the cost of limiting the working week inFrance, originally carried by government, was now being passed onto employees. “Some of the financial strain is falling on the employee. They areenjoying the freedom, they are getting time to go to the Alps, but the bill isbeing called in and they can’t square the circle.” However, TUC policy officer Paul Sellers argues that French workers arelucky to have the luxury to debate whether they prefer the 35- or 39-hour week.”The priority [in the UK] is to end the opt-out,” he said.”We need to protect people’s health and safety.” Previous Article Next Article Related posts:No related photos.
Forthe past two years, Peugeot Citroën has encouraged the 3,000 staff at its Rytonplant to see the OH department rather than their GP, and some 70 per cent havedone so.Inthat time, there have been no adverse medical outcomes, said Dr Kneale, andbecoming involved in the pilots was the logical next step. “If you have goodprotocols and procedures, then the nursing staff will generally feel confidentabout it,” she explained.Oncean employee has been seen by the OH department, a ‘fitness to work’ report isprepared for the line manager, although Dr Kneale stresses there is still aduty of confidentiality to the employee. Ifdeemed fit, a return date is set and, if the employee does not then return, itbecomes an attendance rather than an absence matter, with the prospect ofbecoming a disciplinary issue.TheGP still retains ultimate medical responsibility so if, after seeing the OHdepartment, it’s clear that medical intervention is required, the employeetransfers into the usual medical channels. Aswell as five OH nurses and a doctor, the plant has access to a physiotherapist and psychotherapist, meaning there is also the option to referpeople on to them.–To subscribe to Personnel Today’s sister publication Occupational Health magazine call 01444 445566. Peugeot driving the use of OHOn 27 Jul 2004 in Personnel Today Previous Article Next Article Related posts:No related photos. Comments are closed.
One New York Plaza and Brookfield Property Partners CEO Brian Kingston (Google Maps)Brookfield Property Partners has recently landed an $835 million refinancing loan for its Financial District office tower at One New York Plaza.The new loan was originated by Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and BMO Harris Bank. Proceeds from the loan were used to retire an existing $750 million loan issued by Wells Fargo in 2016, according to Kroll Bond Rating Agency.Brookfield has owned the 50-story, 2.6 million-square-foot office building since 2006, when the company, in partnership with Blackstone Group, acquired Trizec Properties, an office landlord that owned the building, for $8.9 billion.Read moreBrookfield Property Partners reports $135M net loss in Q3Does Brookfield’s balance sheet fully reveal the health of its real estate?J.C. Penney saved by Simon and Brookfield Tagsbrookfield asset managementBrookfield Property PartnersCommercial Real EstateReal Estate Finance Full Name* Message* In May 2016, Brookfield sold 49 percent of its ownership stake to Chinese sovereign fund China Investment Corporation for $683.5 million. And in December of the same year, Brookfield sold 16 percent of that stake to AEW Capital Management for $223.2 million.The firm retained the remaining 35 percent stake and continues to manage the building.As of November 2020, the property was 96.5 percent leased to 26 tenants, the largest of whom is Morgan Stanley, which takes up about 1.37 million square feet, or about 53 percent of the building’s total rentable space, according to Kroll.Brookfield’s spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Contact Akiko Matsuda Share via Shortlink Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare via Email Share via Shortlink Email Address*
Email Address* Message* The Vessel at Hudson Yards (Getty)Related Companies has closed the Vessel, the Thomas Heatherwick-designed sculpture at the Hudson Yards megaproject, after a third person died by suicide by jumping from the structure.The developer is working with suicide prevention experts in an effort to stop such events happening in the future, the New York Times reported. In the meantime, the attraction will be “temporarily closed,” a Related spokesperson said.On Monday, a 21-year-old man leapt to his death from the structure. His was the third suicide at the Vessel since it opened nearly two years ago, following the deaths of a 19-year-old man last February, and a 24-year-old woman on Dec. 22.Heatherwick’s sculpture, which reportedly cost about $200 million, is a series of 154 interconnected staircases and 80 platforms, and stands about 150 feet tall. There are Plexiglass barriers on either side of the stairs that lead to the top of the structure, but they only reach about chest height at their tallest points.Lowell Kern, the chair of Manhattan Community Board 4, told the Times that the group would like to see the height of those barriers increased to prevent future deaths.“That’s the only thing that’s going to work,” he said. Related has indicated it will run any new preventative measures by the community board before they are implemented, according to Kern.Other landmarks have implemented such measures in an effort to prevent people from taking their own lives. The Empire State Building has a suicide prevention barrier around its observation deck. At the George Washington Bridge, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey installed an 11-foot fence, along with netting.A similar measure is planned for the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge on Staten Island, though its implementation has been delayed, to the dismay of lawmakers who want the fencing erected immediately.Those who are having thoughts of suicide are encouraged to call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255 (TALK) or contact the Crisis Text Line at 741-741.[NYT] — Amy PlittContact Amy Plitt Share via Shortlink TagsArchitecture & DesignHudson YardsRelated Cos. Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare via Email Share via Shortlink Full Name*