In a country where perceived corruption is one of the key barriers to international trade, it is not surprising that Russia’s Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, has criticised a group of customs officials who posted a video on YouTube making light of the situation and celebrating the wealth that unofficially comes with their jobs.
The video, which looks like it took quite a bit of organisation to film, shows a group of customs officials in sunglasses and bling jewellery raping about their lavish lifestyles with a Rolls Royce in the background.
As the average custom official earns an average of £700 a month, the lavish lifestyles boasted about can only be funded by corruption.
Indeed, corruption amongst government officials is a widespread problem in Russia, with customs officials being named as the worst offenders by every day Russian citizens.
Putin met with the head of the Federal Customs Service to discuss the matter. No disciplinary action has been taken so far; however, the Prime Minister has condemned the way the video laughs at corruption.
He said: “Discipline is needed in several of the divisions; we have to raise it little.”
Under employment law in England and Wales, an employer is not obligated to have disciplinary procedures in place. However, it is considered good practice and employers are encouraged to adhere to the Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. If they don’t, an Employment Tribunal can penalise them if they end up having to defend a claim there.
The custom officials’ video is a good example of the conflict between private material being posted by individuals on the web and the need of employers to protect their reputation. Employers should make sure they have clear policies in place about posting work-related material online and the action they will take if employees disparage the company or organisation in anyway.
The customs officials may be facing written warnings or possibly even dismissal. Employees in the UK who find themselves in similar situations should ensure they read their employment contracts and employee handbooks thoroughly to see if their conduct is grounds for dismissal.
President Dmitry Medvedev sent a bill to Parliament on Wednesday the 16th February increasing the fines for officials caught taking bribes. The bill proposes increasing the fines to up to 100 times the size of the original bribe.
Commentating on the video, Putin said “this kind of creativity should be saved for a talent show.”
Friday, 4 March 2011
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
Galliano dismissed by Dior for “odious” views
John Galliano, fashion designer extraordinaire, has been sacked by Parisian fashion giant Dior after video footage emerged in which he declared his love for Hitler.
Tuesday, 1 March 2011
What’s the future for the Bribery Act 2010?
The Bribery Act 2010 has had a troubled first few months of existence. The Act, which received Royal assent on the 8th April 2010, has yet to come into force after it was heavily criticised by the business community and the Ministry of Justice was ordered by Downing Street to review its provisions.
The Act is intended to clean up the outdated and complex old anti-bribery measures, and allow the courts and prosecutors to respond more effectively to acts of bribery at home and abroad.
It was originally due to come into force in April this year. However, that is now looking increasingly unlikely, with the date for implementation more likely to be sometime in May 2011.
The Bribery Act essentially creates three new bribery offences. The first is a general offence that can be committed by an individual offering or accepting a bribe. A bribe is described as an advantage, financial or otherwise, that is given with the intention of inducing a person to perform a relevant function or activity improperly, or reward them for doing so. The ‘intention’ to bribe is key, as is the test of ‘improper performance’; that is, behaviour which would not normally be expected by a person in the UK.
The second offence is the bribery of a foreign public official. This offence is committed when a person bribes a foreign public official with the intention of influencing them and obtaining or retaining business.
John Cridland, the head of business group CBI, said the legislation was “not fit for purpose” and that “exporters won’t be able to hoover up the demand in developing countries such as Asia if the Bribery Act prevents them from knowing on which side of the law they stand.”
The third offence created by the Bribery Act is the failure of a commercial organisation to prevent bribery. This offence will have a big impact on employers as they will be guilty of an offence if their employees have offered or accepted a bribe on their behalf.
However, there is a defence to this offence. If a commercial organisation can show that it had proper procedures in place to prevent bribery, it will not be guilty of the offence. This means there is significant pressure on employers to ensure they have anti-bribery and corruption procedures in place before the Act comes into force.
Guidance from the government sets out six principles that will help a company to establish the ‘proper procedures’ defence. These are an initial risk assessment, top level commitment from the senior members of the organisation to ensure a culture of compliance, due diligence, clear and accessible policies and procedures, effective implementation, and constant monitoring and review.
Practical steps a company can take include extra training for staff, updating the whistle blowing policy, and tightening the financial controls. In addition, employers may want to include bribery and corruption as gross misconduct in employees’ contracts.
Many employers are also concerned about how the new Act will affect their ability to entertain corporate clients. The effect of the Act on corporate hospitality is still unclear. A letter was attached to the Bill as it went through Parliament saying that it was not the intention of the Government to penalise corporate hospitality for genuine commercial purposes. However, “lavish” hospitality may be seen as a bribe used to secure advantages. For example, paying for a five star hotel room for a client when there is no discernible business advantage.
No further guidance appears in the Act and therefore it will be up to prosecutors to decide if and when to prosecute individual cases of corporate hospitality.
Despite the criticism of the Act, there are those who support it and say it is necessary in order to fight corruption both in the UK and abroad.
The Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke has reassured his colleagues in the US that the Act, which aims to bring UK law into line with US foreign corruption practices, will come into force, and that Britain is dedicated to fighting corporate corruption.
For more information on the Bribery Act and how it can affect your business, contact Job Justice today. We can put you in touch with specialist employment solicitors who can explain and manage its impact.
The Act is intended to clean up the outdated and complex old anti-bribery measures, and allow the courts and prosecutors to respond more effectively to acts of bribery at home and abroad.
It was originally due to come into force in April this year. However, that is now looking increasingly unlikely, with the date for implementation more likely to be sometime in May 2011.
The Bribery Act essentially creates three new bribery offences. The first is a general offence that can be committed by an individual offering or accepting a bribe. A bribe is described as an advantage, financial or otherwise, that is given with the intention of inducing a person to perform a relevant function or activity improperly, or reward them for doing so. The ‘intention’ to bribe is key, as is the test of ‘improper performance’; that is, behaviour which would not normally be expected by a person in the UK.
The second offence is the bribery of a foreign public official. This offence is committed when a person bribes a foreign public official with the intention of influencing them and obtaining or retaining business.
John Cridland, the head of business group CBI, said the legislation was “not fit for purpose” and that “exporters won’t be able to hoover up the demand in developing countries such as Asia if the Bribery Act prevents them from knowing on which side of the law they stand.”
The third offence created by the Bribery Act is the failure of a commercial organisation to prevent bribery. This offence will have a big impact on employers as they will be guilty of an offence if their employees have offered or accepted a bribe on their behalf.
However, there is a defence to this offence. If a commercial organisation can show that it had proper procedures in place to prevent bribery, it will not be guilty of the offence. This means there is significant pressure on employers to ensure they have anti-bribery and corruption procedures in place before the Act comes into force.
Guidance from the government sets out six principles that will help a company to establish the ‘proper procedures’ defence. These are an initial risk assessment, top level commitment from the senior members of the organisation to ensure a culture of compliance, due diligence, clear and accessible policies and procedures, effective implementation, and constant monitoring and review.
Practical steps a company can take include extra training for staff, updating the whistle blowing policy, and tightening the financial controls. In addition, employers may want to include bribery and corruption as gross misconduct in employees’ contracts.
Many employers are also concerned about how the new Act will affect their ability to entertain corporate clients. The effect of the Act on corporate hospitality is still unclear. A letter was attached to the Bill as it went through Parliament saying that it was not the intention of the Government to penalise corporate hospitality for genuine commercial purposes. However, “lavish” hospitality may be seen as a bribe used to secure advantages. For example, paying for a five star hotel room for a client when there is no discernible business advantage.
No further guidance appears in the Act and therefore it will be up to prosecutors to decide if and when to prosecute individual cases of corporate hospitality.
Despite the criticism of the Act, there are those who support it and say it is necessary in order to fight corruption both in the UK and abroad.
The Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke has reassured his colleagues in the US that the Act, which aims to bring UK law into line with US foreign corruption practices, will come into force, and that Britain is dedicated to fighting corporate corruption.
For more information on the Bribery Act and how it can affect your business, contact Job Justice today. We can put you in touch with specialist employment solicitors who can explain and manage its impact.
Monday, 28 February 2011
Men face discrimination at work too, says Tory MP
Dominic Raab, the MP for Esher, has angered feminists by calling them “obnoxious bigots” and saying that men face “flagrant discrimination” in the workplace and the media.
Monday, 21 February 2011
2012 Olympic Games staff grievance procedure agreed
The London Olympic Committee has agreed on a grievance procedure with the Trade Union Congress (TUC) and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) in order to minimise the disruption caused by any employment disagreements that may happen during the games in 2012.
Monday, 14 February 2011
Lloyds bank under fire over 200 more job cuts
The part-nationalised banking giant Lloyds has been criticised by trade unions for their announcement last week that they are to cut another 200 jobs in the near future.
Monday, 7 February 2011
Andy Gray reaches settlement with Sky after sexism row
Andy Gray has reportedly reached a settlement with his former employer, Sky, after he was sacked for his part in the sexism row that engulfed Sky Sports last month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)