Monday, January 13, 2014

Monday, February 25, 2013

Litigating Wrongful Dismissals

Employers generally can dismiss employees with or without cause.

If you are dismissed without cause then in many jurisdictions the employer must provide 'reasonable notice' prior to your departure. It is this grey area that drives many cases of employment litigation.

It is previous case-law that determines what is the ‘reasonable notice’ period that employers need to provide in any given situation. There are Statutory requirements in terms of what a ‘reasonable notice’ period has to be at a minimum but often the common law notice periods are substantially longer.

Often the biggest issue is the cost of litigating a ‘wrongful dismissal’. The wrongfully dismissed employee (which includes the employee who did not receive a sufficient ‘notice’ period (or pay instead of the ‘notice’) has a duty to try to find alternate employment. If alternate employment is available, this can significantly reduce (if not eliminate) whatever ‘damages’ the employee would have suffered.

Provided by the law firm of Taylor Conway specializing in real estate and injury law.

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Does my employer need a reason to fire me?

The power of the employer to dismiss employee rests with your jurisdiction (province or State). For example, your employer does not need a reason to fire you in most Canadian provinces. The law requires that the employer either have ‘cause’ for firing you or the employer must provide you with reasonable ‘notice’ of your dismissal. First, if the employer has a reason to fire you, such as you have been taking money illegally from the business or you have been fighting with your co-workers, the employer has ‘cause’ and need not provide you with any ‘notice’ of your dismissal. The employer can have you leave employment immediately. Second, if the employer does not have a reason to fire you, they can still dismiss you but only if they give you proper ‘notice’. What this means is that they have to let you know that after a reasonable period of time (based upon your seniority, experience, income, responsibility etc.) you will be dismissed. Alternatively they can dismiss you immediately if they pay you what you would have been paid had they dismissed you after the notice period. For example, your employer can decide that they just don’t like you and tell you that your job will end in three months. Instead of keeping you for the three months (as a disgruntled employee), they can simply pay you the three months’ salary and send you on your way. Provided by the law firm of Taylor Conway whom specialize in litigation and injury law.

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Walmart Employees Plan Protest

A limited 'strike' by some Walmart employees is planned for Black Friday in an attempt to raise awareness against the nation's largest private employer. Of course, the impact, be it minimal, will have zero impact on sales as Walmart shoppers are such because of one reason--price. Lower prices means lower inputs and the largest input is salary.

Of course, this is not about Walmart, the employees will use them as an example, but low age employees clear across the board in the US are suffering. Result?

Perhaps the union can once again rise up and look after the minimum wage worker (Rather than the historical trades). But again, unlikely to happen, as the very same people who work for minimum wage shop in the stores that employ them. Vicious cycle.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Men Need Not Apply

South Korea's Samsung operations in China are coming underfire for alleged sexual discrimination. An advertisement for positions at Samsung specified applicants be female and also be free of any communicable diseases. Chinese laws forbid any discrimination based on gender, and also states that refusing an applicant employment because of pathogens is illegal.

Here's the poster below:

The argument defending Samsung's questionable hiring practices in China is that, obviously, they don't know about the laws in place. This information comes at a time when Samsung is now under review for inhumane practices at their factories. The Samsung plants are accused of employing underage children, forcing long hours of work, and withholding pay.

The good news is, both American and Chinese labor watchdogs are confronting the situation. Let's hope these practices change for the better, though sadly, there are so many factories with inhumane working conditions in China that it will take a mammoth effort to usher in quality working conditions for the employees.

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Charging Fees in Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal

For our UK readers here is a piece on Employment Tribunals that you may find useful.

The Ministry of Justice recently confirmed that fees will be introduced in the summer of 2013 for users of Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, in a bid to encourage mediation as the preferred way to settle disputes between employers and employees. The Government conducted a public consultation on its proposal to introduce fees, as part of its Employment Law Review, and the outcome of this is summarised below. The purpose of this consultation was not intended to identify whether the principle of charging fees was well supported as the Government had already announced, with full reasoning, its intention to introduce these fees.

The jurisdiction of employment tribunals expanded from their initial purpose and now they embrace a large number of different types of claims that arise from employment situations. At present a claim to either an employment tribunal or to the Employment Appeal Tribunal is free of charge and funded by the taxpayer and these fee proposals are intended to relieve some of the financial burden from the taxpayer and place it on the users of this service, if they can afford to do so.

What the fee structure will be? The

Government proposed two alternative fee charging structures for employment tribunals and the chosen one for implementation is a two-tier approach which has different fee amounts depending on whether it is a Level 1 or Level 2 claim. There are two payments within these Levels that are charged at different points along the claim; an issuing fee and a hearing fee and these are intended to encourage the parties to consider settlement outside of a tribunal.

  • Level 1 claims are for the termination of employment and include unpaid wages, payment in lieu of notice and redundancy payments. A £160 fee is charge to issue a Level 1 claim while a hearing fee, for a claim of this type, is charged at £230.

  • Level 2 claims include those which relate to unfair dismissal, discrimination complaints, equal pay claims and claims that arise under the Public Information Disclosure Act. Level 2 claims require a £250 issue fee and a hearing fee of £950.

The proposed fee levels for an Employment Appeal Tribunals include an appeal fee costing £400 while the hearing fee charged at £1200.

There is also a list of additional fees that have to be paid in particular circumstances and the most noticeable is a £60 charge, irrespective of the level of the claim, for an application to dismiss proceedings, following a settlement

This payment plan is hoped to encourage more responsible behaviour by tribunal users but it has been criticised by a number of respondents who predict that it will deter some of the UK’s most vulnerable workers from taking valid claims to court, pricing them out of justice.

The Government has also announced plans to extend the HMCTS fee remission system for civil courts in England and Wales to the employment tribunal fee structure.

This is a move to protect access to justice for those who cannot afford to pay the fee, or those who can only afford to make a contribution to it. Union leaders have voiced number of concerns about this remission system stating that it is woefully inadequate and workers are more likely to be mistreated now as bosses can flout the law without the fear of sanctions.

The agreed fees are payable by the claimant, but there was mutual agreement across all groups following the consultation that the unsuccessful party should reimburse these if the claimant is successful. The Tribunal has been handed this power and in such a case an order will be made that requires the unsuccessful party to pay the costs.

The payment of fees for this service may act as a disincentive for claimants to bring vexatious claims to tribunal and rather claims will be increasingly settled outside court.

Guest post by specialist personal injury solicitors Russell Jones & Walker / Slater Gordon.

Monday, December 5, 2011

Wont' Someone Think of the Michigan children?!

Specifically Michigan farm kids working, well, on the farm.