DWP sends out bogus C.V's

The government has sent out 1,000 bogus CVs to employers as part of an investigation into equality in recruitment, it has emerged.The Department for Work and Pensions sent out the fake job applications as part of an exercise to establish the extent to which people with “foreign” names faced discrimination. The CVs included candidates with “Anglo-Saxon” names and those with similar qualifications and a name that suggested they were from an ethnic minority. The CVs were linked to mobile phone numbers, which were used to monitor whether the candidates were offered an interview.The research was undertaken by the Ethnic Minority Employment Task Force, which is part of the DWP, bypassing the body with responsibility for monitoring discrimination, the Equality and Human Rights Commission. With results due later in the summer, the project is thought to be laying the groundwork for future legislation requiring that nameless CVs are used in job applications.But the move came in for criticism from some employers’ groups. “We are completely shocked to hear the DWP has gone ahead with this,” said Gareth Elliott of the British Chambers of Commerce. “Businesses have enough on their plate without having to deal with the underhand tactics of the DWP.”The DWP defended the work by saying it was used to gather data and not to point the finger at individual firms. “The ethnic minority task force is charged with finding a solution to the persistent gap experienced by ethnic minorities. This research was commissioned to identify and tackle any underlying causes. It is not about highlighting any individual company and all information gathered will remain completely anonymous.”Legislation on the issue of nameless CVs is not imminent and in fact is “five or six steps down the line,” the spokesman added.

Childrens Adventure Farm Trust

I had the absolute privilege today to be invited by Lousie McCarthy-Teague, HRD at Meridian Business Support to join her friends and fellow Directors at the Ladies Charity Luncheon in aid of the Children's Adventure Farm Trust in Millington, Cheshire.

Held at Mere Golf and Country Club the excellent lunch was enhanced by an afternoon of wonderful music and entertainment. A superb fashion show was styled by the talented Martine Alexander and the truly amazing Calender Girls gave a hilarious account of their journey to raise enough money for a settee for their local hospital, following on from the tragic death the husband of one of the ladies. To date they have raised £2.5 million for luekemia and still continue!

I was very successful in the charity bid and outbid my opponent to be the lucky recipient of a full days hospitality and dining and the next meet at Chester Races.

For further details on the Children's Adventure Farm Trust visit www.childrensadventurefarm.org

Risk Assessments from activities conducted off premises

Judgment helps define employers' risk boundaries

How far do you have to go in carrying out risk assessments when the risks to your employees arise from activities conducted off your premises?
It is a question that has always troubled health and safety advisors.
The recent decision of the House of Lords in Smith (Jean) v Northamptonshire County Council, 2009 has helped to define the boundaries.
In this case a care worker employed by the council was injured at a client's home.
Mrs Smith was employed as a minibus driver, and part of her duties was to attend the home of a wheelchair bound client to collect and transport her to a council-run day centre.
Mrs Smith had undertaken this task on many occasions, and it involved pushing the client down a wooden ramp at the back of her property when its' edge crumbled. The ramp had been provided by the NHS and had been in situ for many years.
Mrs Smith sued the council for damages for her injury alleging that they were strictly liable under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) because the ramp was ‘work equipment'.
There is strict liability upon an employer for inadequately constructed or inadequately maintained work equipment.
Mrs Smith was successful in the county court. The judge ruled that the ramp was work equipment because it was being used by Mrs Smith while she was at work.
The council appealed the matter to the Court of Appeal who allowed the appeal and held that the ramp was not work equipment for the purposes of PUWER. They took into account a number of factors:
the ramp had been installed by others and not the county council
the county council had neither the ability nor the right to maintain it
it was used mostly by people not employed by the county council
it was to an extent permanent
the ramp was part of the patient's home

Mrs Smith appealed that decision to the House of Lords. Judgment was given on the 20 May 2009 in favour of the county council. The House of Lords emphasised the need for an employer to have control over the equipment before they could be liable.

One of the arguments used by Mrs Smith had been that as the council carried out a risk assessment at the client's home and although primarily for the purposes of the Manual Handling Regulations, it was therefore aware that the ramp would be used whilst Mrs Smith was in the course of her employment. The Law Lords, however, ruled that employers would not be considered to have control over equipment for the purposes of PUWER just because of the mere fact that they had inspected it. Their Lordships considered employers should not be strictly liable just because they had been careful to satisfy the requirements of other Regulations requiring them to undertake risk assessments.

This decision is important to a number of organisations whose employees by the very nature of their undertaking must work away from the employer's premises. This is frequently the case for housing associations, charities, educational establishments where students are undertaking workplace experience, as well as the caring professions when attending people in their home.This decision does not, however, reduce the need to ensure the safety of equipment supplied by an employer for use by the employee or the need to ensure that there is a safe system of work and adequate supervision.

House of Lords eagerly awaited sick leave and holiday pay decision

House of Lords' eagerly awaited sick leave and holiday pay decision

10 June 2009
The House of Lords has handed down its decision in Stringer v HMRC.
It overturned the Court of Appeal's previous decision that employee's on long-term sick leave do not accrue holiday, and substituted the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision in favour of the employees.
The European Court of Justice was asked to consider the case and handed down its decision earlier this year. In summary, it held that:

• 
  workers absent on sick leave do accrue the right to paid annual leave during such time a national rule preventing workers taking paid leave during sick leave is not unlawful, as long as the worker has the right to take their leave at another time (i.e. when they return to work)
• 
  a national rule allowing workers to take paid annual leave during sick leave is also allowed (this is in contrast to the position for maternity leave, which cannot be ‘mixed' with annual leave)
• 
  it is not lawful for national laws to provide that the right to annual leave is lost at the end of a leave year where the worker has been on sick leave for the whole leave year
• 
  a worker absent for the whole leave year, and so not able to take their leave, must be allowed to carry over their leave to the next leave year (this principle must also apply by extension to those on maternity leave)
• 
  however, a national rule providing for the loss of the right to paid leave at the end of a leave year is lawful as long as the employee has had the opportunity to take their leave
  on termination of employment, the worker is entitled to a payment in lieu in respect of their accrued leave
• 
  the amount of any paid holiday or payment in lieu must be at the worker's normal rate of pay

The House of Lords was required to apply this ruling, but it was also hoped that they would clear up certain unresolved practical issues for employers.

Disappointingly, the judgment focuses on the technical issue of what type of claim an employee can bring to enforce their right to unpaid holiday pay.
This is important, because there is a more generous time limit for claims that are brought under provisions relating to unlawful deductions from wages.

The House of Lords decided unanimously that an employee could bring an unlawful deduction from wages claim and this will allow a claim to go back more than three months if there is a series of underpayments by the employer.

We understand that the Government is currently considering the implications of the judgment in relation to the Working Time Regulations. It remains to be seen if changes will be made.

Statutory Redundancy Payment rise in October 2009

Statutory redundancy payment rise in October - then limits frozen to 2011

10 June 2009

There is good news and bad news about the statutory redundancy payment.

It was announced in the Budget that there would be a one-off increase in the limit on a week's pay used to calculate statutory redundancy payments from £350 to £380.
The Government has now said it will introduce this change in October 2009, and it appears that this increase will also apply to other compensatory payments, such as the basic award for unfair dismissal to which the weekly limit applies.

However, at the same time it was announced that the Government proposes to suspend the annual increase in line with inflation in February 2010, so the weekly limit on a week's pay will remain unchanged until February 2011.