Andy Coulson, former editor at the News of the World and media advisor to David Cameron, has received several hundred thousands of pounds from News International as part of a compromise agreement that was made when he resigned in January 2007.
Coulson, who has been arrested by the police investigating allegations of phone hacking involving the News of the World, received payments from News International while he was working as the Conservative Party’s Director of Communications during 2007.
This financial link has raised further questions about Coulson’s impartiality, and further questions about the Prime Minister’s judgement for having hired him in the first place.
Coulson left the News of the World in January 2007 after Clive Goodman, the paper’s royal editor, was arrested and jailed for phone hacking. He started his new job with the Conservative Party in July 2007, on a salary of £275,000. He continued to receive payments from News International until the end of that year.
According to the BBC’s business editor, Robert Peston, the compromise agreement allowed Coulson to receive his full entitlement under the two-year contract with News International. The remainder was paid in instalments until the end of 2007.
In addition, it is reported that the compromise agreement allowed Coulson to keep his company car and enjoy work benefits, for example health care, for three years after his resignation.
A compromise agreement is a contractual agreement between an employer and an employee that is drawn up when the employee’s employment is to be terminated. Under the agreement, the employee is given a financial settlement in return for agreeing not to pursue an action against their employer, such as unfair dismissal.
The employee must have independent legal advice from an employment solicitor to ensure they are not giving up their right to legal action without suitable compensation. The employment solicitor must also sign the agreement.
Usually a compromise agreement will also include a confidentiality clause that prevents one or both parties from discussing the existence of the agreement or what’s in it. This may be the reason why senior Conservative party members have allegedly said none of the Party managers knew that Coulson was receiving money from News International when he was taken on as communications director.
Coulson was arrested in July 2011 when more evidence of criminality at the News of the World came to light. He had resigned as the Prime Minister’s communications advisor in January 2011.
He has maintained that he did not know anything about phone hacking activity while he was at the News of the World; however, a letter from Goodman that was written in March 2007 and disclosed last month by the parliamentary committee in charge of the phone hacking inquiry, stated that phone hacking was routinely discussed in the News of the World’s editorial conference.
For more advice on compromise agreements, you can call Job Justice free today. We work with recommended employment solicitors throughout the UK.
Tuesday, 23 August 2011
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Top horse trainer unlawfully made pregnant employee redundant
A former employee of the successful race horse trainer, John Gosden, was unlawfully selected for redundancy, an employment tribunal has found.
Julia Bocan, 28, took her former employer to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy after she was made redundant one month after colleagues found out she was pregnant.
Miss Bocan found out she was pregnant in January 2010. In February, she told colleagues she was expecting during a hen party. The next month she was made redundant by John Gosden Racing, Mr Gosden’s company.
She told the tribunal that Mr Gosden had deliberately created a staff scoring system that would score her the lowest, therefore giving him a legitimate reason to dismiss her from her role as head lad.
Her lawyer said the system was “haphazard” and had not been subject to consultation, as is necessary in redundancy processes in order for them to be fair.
Mr Gosden said that staff scoring system was introduced after he decided that savings needed to be made. He said Miss Boscan was selected because her German horse training qualifications were held in less esteem than those gained in the UK. In addition, he said she was less experienced than the other woman who was employed in the same role.
The employment tribunal in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, found that Mr Gosden had unlawfully selected Miss Bocan for redundancy. Judge Martin Warren said: “It appears the selection criteria adopted were to ensure Miss Bocan would be the person who would score the least.”
However, the tribunal threw out Miss Bocan’s claims of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination.
Mr Gosden said he was “not happy” with the employment tribunal’s ruling on Miss Bocan’s redundancy, but that he was “very pleased” the sex discrimination claim was thrown out. He said he was pleased to say that after thirty years as an employer, this was his first time in an employment tribunal.
Miss Bocan is entitled to compensation from Mr Gosden, which will be set at a later date.
For legal advice on redundancy selection, unfair dismissal and sex discrimination, call Job Justice today. We can find the right local employment solicitor for your needs, whether you are an employee facing these issues, or an employer deciding policy or being taken to an employment tribunal.
Julia Bocan, 28, took her former employer to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy after she was made redundant one month after colleagues found out she was pregnant.
Miss Bocan found out she was pregnant in January 2010. In February, she told colleagues she was expecting during a hen party. The next month she was made redundant by John Gosden Racing, Mr Gosden’s company.
She told the tribunal that Mr Gosden had deliberately created a staff scoring system that would score her the lowest, therefore giving him a legitimate reason to dismiss her from her role as head lad.
Her lawyer said the system was “haphazard” and had not been subject to consultation, as is necessary in redundancy processes in order for them to be fair.
Mr Gosden said that staff scoring system was introduced after he decided that savings needed to be made. He said Miss Boscan was selected because her German horse training qualifications were held in less esteem than those gained in the UK. In addition, he said she was less experienced than the other woman who was employed in the same role.
The employment tribunal in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, found that Mr Gosden had unlawfully selected Miss Bocan for redundancy. Judge Martin Warren said: “It appears the selection criteria adopted were to ensure Miss Bocan would be the person who would score the least.”
However, the tribunal threw out Miss Bocan’s claims of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination.
Mr Gosden said he was “not happy” with the employment tribunal’s ruling on Miss Bocan’s redundancy, but that he was “very pleased” the sex discrimination claim was thrown out. He said he was pleased to say that after thirty years as an employer, this was his first time in an employment tribunal.
Miss Bocan is entitled to compensation from Mr Gosden, which will be set at a later date.
For legal advice on redundancy selection, unfair dismissal and sex discrimination, call Job Justice today. We can find the right local employment solicitor for your needs, whether you are an employee facing these issues, or an employer deciding policy or being taken to an employment tribunal.
Monday, 8 August 2011
Temp industry to suffer from new regulations
The use of ‘temps’ in offices up and down the country will noticeably diminish towards the end of 2011 as businesses stop hiring them ahead of new rules coming into force, say several employers’ groups.
The warning comes after unpublished research conducted by a leading business group shows one in five employers plans to stop using temporary workers altogether in order to avoid costly legislation coming into force on 1 October 2011.
The legislation will give temporary workers the right to the same pay and working conditions as permanent staff after they have been in the job for just 12 weeks.
Temps have long been used in the UK’s workplaces as a handy way of filling a gap in the workforce on a temporary basis. Temps are often brought in to cover employees on maternity and paternity leave, or those on sick leave. In addition, they can be called in to cover a position during sabbaticals or lengthy recruitment processes.
Temps, or agency workers as they are also known, do have the same statutory employment rights as permanent employees in their temporary place of work. For example, they are protected by anti-discrimination legislation, are entitled to the national minimum wage, paid holiday, rest breaks and limits on working times, and protection under the health and safety in the workplace laws.
However, they have not necessarily been entitled to the same benefits as their permanent co-workers, unless this is specified in their contract.
The new legislation being introduced in October this year will ensure the UK’s 1.3 million temporary workers are entitled to the same level of pay as their full-time counterparts and that they receive the same benefits, such as the same rate of holiday pay. Pregnant agency workers will also be entitled to paid time off to attend medical appointments and antenatal classes.
The changes are being implemented as the result of a piece of EU legislation, by which the UK must abide.
However, although the new regulations are intended to give temporary workers more rights in the workplace, it may inadvertently cause them to end up without a workplace at all.
Employers’ groups are arguing that the legislation will be expensive for employers and therefore fewer will be hiring temps in their workplaces. This could lead to an increase in unemployment during a time when the Government is urging the private sector to reduce unemployment and kick-start the economy.
Employers’ groups who have warned over the effects of the new rules include the manufacturers’ body EEF, the British Chamber of Commerce (BCC), and the Institute of Directors (IoD).
David Frost, the director general of the BCC, said: "Many firms tell us that the new directive will mean they will use fewer agency workers. Since businesses use temporary workers to improve the flexibility of their workforce and to cover any short-term periods of increased demand or staff absence, it is reasonable to assume these jobs will be lost and productivity hit."
For more information on the changes to temporary worker regulations, you should speak to an expert employment solicitor. Job Justice works with employment solicitors throughout the UK and can recommend a local expert who can assist you with the transition in October 2011.
The warning comes after unpublished research conducted by a leading business group shows one in five employers plans to stop using temporary workers altogether in order to avoid costly legislation coming into force on 1 October 2011.
The legislation will give temporary workers the right to the same pay and working conditions as permanent staff after they have been in the job for just 12 weeks.
Temps have long been used in the UK’s workplaces as a handy way of filling a gap in the workforce on a temporary basis. Temps are often brought in to cover employees on maternity and paternity leave, or those on sick leave. In addition, they can be called in to cover a position during sabbaticals or lengthy recruitment processes.
Temps, or agency workers as they are also known, do have the same statutory employment rights as permanent employees in their temporary place of work. For example, they are protected by anti-discrimination legislation, are entitled to the national minimum wage, paid holiday, rest breaks and limits on working times, and protection under the health and safety in the workplace laws.
However, they have not necessarily been entitled to the same benefits as their permanent co-workers, unless this is specified in their contract.
The new legislation being introduced in October this year will ensure the UK’s 1.3 million temporary workers are entitled to the same level of pay as their full-time counterparts and that they receive the same benefits, such as the same rate of holiday pay. Pregnant agency workers will also be entitled to paid time off to attend medical appointments and antenatal classes.
The changes are being implemented as the result of a piece of EU legislation, by which the UK must abide.
However, although the new regulations are intended to give temporary workers more rights in the workplace, it may inadvertently cause them to end up without a workplace at all.
Employers’ groups are arguing that the legislation will be expensive for employers and therefore fewer will be hiring temps in their workplaces. This could lead to an increase in unemployment during a time when the Government is urging the private sector to reduce unemployment and kick-start the economy.
Employers’ groups who have warned over the effects of the new rules include the manufacturers’ body EEF, the British Chamber of Commerce (BCC), and the Institute of Directors (IoD).
David Frost, the director general of the BCC, said: "Many firms tell us that the new directive will mean they will use fewer agency workers. Since businesses use temporary workers to improve the flexibility of their workforce and to cover any short-term periods of increased demand or staff absence, it is reasonable to assume these jobs will be lost and productivity hit."
For more information on the changes to temporary worker regulations, you should speak to an expert employment solicitor. Job Justice works with employment solicitors throughout the UK and can recommend a local expert who can assist you with the transition in October 2011.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
NHS staff must ‘blow the whistle’, say MPs
MPs have warned that doctors, nurses and midwives must report their concerns about their colleagues, known as ‘whistle-blowing’, or face their failure to report being investigated instead.
The warning came from the cross-party health select committee and was directed at the regulators. The MPs told the General Medical Council (GMC) and the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) that they must do more to warn NHS staff of their obligation to report their concerns.
The committee said this was important as many doctors, nurses and midwives are at a higher risk of being investigated for failure to report than they are of being investigated for their own poor performance.
The GMC said it recognises that it must do more in this area and said that it is committed to doing so. It reported that in the past five years it has investigated 80 doctors for failing to report their concerns about fellow NHS staff.
The committee chairman, the Conservative MP Stephen Dorrell, said: "If there are doctors or nurses who unreasonably fail to report serious concerns, they should be held to account.”
However, he acknowledged that sometimes NHS staff face disciplinary action for whistle-blowing.
Dorrell said: "There have been examples of people raising concerns, and then facing inappropriate or heavy-handed action from their employer.
"We intend to follow up and to examine what is appropriate and what isn't, in terms of how employers respond."
Peter Walsh, from the charity Action against Medical Accidents (AvMA) said: "Many whistle-blowers are affected by threats and bullying. They lack independent help and support.
"If there are doctors or nurses who unreasonably fail to report serious concerns, they should be held to account.
"However, the management who make it so difficult for staff to raise concerns must also be held to account."
The GMC is currently conducting an investigation into doctors at Stafford Hospital. Although their own practice is not being questioned, they are being scrutinised for their failure to report colleagues about whom they had concerns.
In order to allay fears of potential whistle-blowers, the committee did conduct a consultation into the strengthening of safeguards for whistle-blowers, which concluded in January 2012. The report is yet to be published.
For legal advice on whistle-blowing and your rights, or if you are an employer and you want to know how you should approach this, contact Job Justice today. We work with local employment solicitors throughout the UK and we can find the right one for you or your business/organisation.
The warning came from the cross-party health select committee and was directed at the regulators. The MPs told the General Medical Council (GMC) and the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) that they must do more to warn NHS staff of their obligation to report their concerns.
The committee said this was important as many doctors, nurses and midwives are at a higher risk of being investigated for failure to report than they are of being investigated for their own poor performance.
The GMC said it recognises that it must do more in this area and said that it is committed to doing so. It reported that in the past five years it has investigated 80 doctors for failing to report their concerns about fellow NHS staff.
The committee chairman, the Conservative MP Stephen Dorrell, said: "If there are doctors or nurses who unreasonably fail to report serious concerns, they should be held to account.”
However, he acknowledged that sometimes NHS staff face disciplinary action for whistle-blowing.
Dorrell said: "There have been examples of people raising concerns, and then facing inappropriate or heavy-handed action from their employer.
"We intend to follow up and to examine what is appropriate and what isn't, in terms of how employers respond."
Peter Walsh, from the charity Action against Medical Accidents (AvMA) said: "Many whistle-blowers are affected by threats and bullying. They lack independent help and support.
"If there are doctors or nurses who unreasonably fail to report serious concerns, they should be held to account.
"However, the management who make it so difficult for staff to raise concerns must also be held to account."
The GMC is currently conducting an investigation into doctors at Stafford Hospital. Although their own practice is not being questioned, they are being scrutinised for their failure to report colleagues about whom they had concerns.
In order to allay fears of potential whistle-blowers, the committee did conduct a consultation into the strengthening of safeguards for whistle-blowers, which concluded in January 2012. The report is yet to be published.
For legal advice on whistle-blowing and your rights, or if you are an employer and you want to know how you should approach this, contact Job Justice today. We work with local employment solicitors throughout the UK and we can find the right one for you or your business/organisation.
Monday, 18 July 2011
‘Nutty professor’ hired in the Apprentice final
Another year, another series of classic television comes to an end. The latest person to have emerged as winner from a motley crew of contestants is 31-year-old ‘nice guy’ and inventor, Tom Pellereau.
We’ve had eight weeks of absolutely brilliant lines, such as Margaret Mountford asking smooth-talking Irishman Jim "What would you like to tell me about yourself? And try to say it without using clichés?” followed by his reply: “I'm exactly what it says on the tin”. Oh dear.
We’ve enjoyed some rage-inducing decisions by the contestants and some great board-room backstabbing.
But it all ended yesterday when Sir Alan Sugar told Pellereau “You’re hired”.
The inventor of the curved nail file impressed Sir Alan with his story about his determination to get his invention noticed in the States. He managed to personally hand the curved nail file to Walmat’s buyer in the USA. Pellereau’s business plan for selling back-ache healing office chairs was less impressive as he managed to forget to include the word ‘chair’. Lord Sugar however, was more impressed with his proven record of selling.
Although, it has to be stressed, not Pellereau’s record of selling on the actual show. The winner had so far been the show’s serial loser, losing all but three of the tasks. Runner-up Helen Milligan had won 11 out of 12 tasks in comparison.
She may have been victorious if not for her horribly outdated business plan idea of a concierge service.
Unlike the previous six winners of the Apprentice, Pellereau will not be getting a job in Sir Alan’s vast corporation. Instead he will be handed £250,000 cash as in investment from Sir Alan and the pair will go into business together.
Sir Alan said: “I am a product man in my heart. I’ve made products and sold them to retailers, that’s in my blood and that’s what Tom is all about. It’s just a gut feeling and I’ve done a lot of things in my life on gut feeling.”
Pellereau said the decision to hire him over Helen left him stunned. He said: “I was shocked and almost thought Lord Sugar would take it away or change his mind.
“One of the reasons I think I have done well is because I lost a lot and people like losers. Now that I am the winner, are people going to like the ideas that I bring out? I hope so, but that is a very real fear.
“Lord Sugar has taken a punt on me and now it is time to shine.”
We’ve had eight weeks of absolutely brilliant lines, such as Margaret Mountford asking smooth-talking Irishman Jim "What would you like to tell me about yourself? And try to say it without using clichés?” followed by his reply: “I'm exactly what it says on the tin”. Oh dear.
We’ve enjoyed some rage-inducing decisions by the contestants and some great board-room backstabbing.
But it all ended yesterday when Sir Alan Sugar told Pellereau “You’re hired”.
The inventor of the curved nail file impressed Sir Alan with his story about his determination to get his invention noticed in the States. He managed to personally hand the curved nail file to Walmat’s buyer in the USA. Pellereau’s business plan for selling back-ache healing office chairs was less impressive as he managed to forget to include the word ‘chair’. Lord Sugar however, was more impressed with his proven record of selling.
Although, it has to be stressed, not Pellereau’s record of selling on the actual show. The winner had so far been the show’s serial loser, losing all but three of the tasks. Runner-up Helen Milligan had won 11 out of 12 tasks in comparison.
She may have been victorious if not for her horribly outdated business plan idea of a concierge service.
Unlike the previous six winners of the Apprentice, Pellereau will not be getting a job in Sir Alan’s vast corporation. Instead he will be handed £250,000 cash as in investment from Sir Alan and the pair will go into business together.
Sir Alan said: “I am a product man in my heart. I’ve made products and sold them to retailers, that’s in my blood and that’s what Tom is all about. It’s just a gut feeling and I’ve done a lot of things in my life on gut feeling.”
Pellereau said the decision to hire him over Helen left him stunned. He said: “I was shocked and almost thought Lord Sugar would take it away or change his mind.
“One of the reasons I think I have done well is because I lost a lot and people like losers. Now that I am the winner, are people going to like the ideas that I bring out? I hope so, but that is a very real fear.
“Lord Sugar has taken a punt on me and now it is time to shine.”
Thursday, 14 July 2011
“Try something new today and pay us a decent wage” say Sainsbury’s staff
Checkout staff from supermarket giant Sainsbury’s staged a protest about their wages yesterday outside the company’s central London headquarters.
The supermarket chain was holding its 2011 Annual General Meeting on 13 July while its staff protested outside waving slogans aimed at the group’s chief executive, Justin King, who earns £3.2m a year in salary and bonuses.
The checkout staff are angry that their pay has been frozen at the current minimum of £6.31 an hour, despite the company reporting a profit of £665m for the last year.
Their union Unite is calling for Sainsbury’s to increase their minimum wage to £8.30 for staff in London and £7.20 for those outside.
Jennie Formby, national officer of Unite, said: "It is only right that the dedicated workforce, many of whom are female and work part-time for family reasons, who form the backbone of this company are given a fair pay settlement which reflects the outstanding performance of Sainsbury's."
The company is failing to pay staff fairly when compared to its main rival, Tesco. Tesco pays its staff a minimum of £7 per hour.
One of the protesters, Debbie Walker, is paid £6.71 an hour and has been with the company for 15 years. She travelled from Ellesmere Port, near Liverpool, to join the protest. She said: "I don't really have enough money to live on. I get paid just 40p more than my daughter, who only started this year. What's that for loyalty?"
A spokesperson for Sainsbury’s said that only a “small proportion” of those who were paid “above the market rate” were having their pay frozen.
Justin King said the company pays it staff “absolutely competitive wages” and is “very proud” of its competitive pay record.
For more information on the law relating to pay, contact Job Justice today and we can find the right solicitor for you.
The supermarket chain was holding its 2011 Annual General Meeting on 13 July while its staff protested outside waving slogans aimed at the group’s chief executive, Justin King, who earns £3.2m a year in salary and bonuses.
The checkout staff are angry that their pay has been frozen at the current minimum of £6.31 an hour, despite the company reporting a profit of £665m for the last year.
Their union Unite is calling for Sainsbury’s to increase their minimum wage to £8.30 for staff in London and £7.20 for those outside.
Jennie Formby, national officer of Unite, said: "It is only right that the dedicated workforce, many of whom are female and work part-time for family reasons, who form the backbone of this company are given a fair pay settlement which reflects the outstanding performance of Sainsbury's."
The company is failing to pay staff fairly when compared to its main rival, Tesco. Tesco pays its staff a minimum of £7 per hour.
One of the protesters, Debbie Walker, is paid £6.71 an hour and has been with the company for 15 years. She travelled from Ellesmere Port, near Liverpool, to join the protest. She said: "I don't really have enough money to live on. I get paid just 40p more than my daughter, who only started this year. What's that for loyalty?"
A spokesperson for Sainsbury’s said that only a “small proportion” of those who were paid “above the market rate” were having their pay frozen.
Justin King said the company pays it staff “absolutely competitive wages” and is “very proud” of its competitive pay record.
For more information on the law relating to pay, contact Job Justice today and we can find the right solicitor for you.
Monday, 11 July 2011
Can ex-News of the World journalists sue their former employer?
Employment law specialists have offered a ray of hope to ex-News of the World journalists who may be worried about getting another job within the media because of their employer’s involvement in the phone-hacking scandal, which by all accounts is due to continue, both with further revelations and public inquiries, for quite some time.
A House of Lords judgement in 1997 established that, in principle, employees can sue their former employers for damages if they struggle to find further employment because of their employer’s damaged reputation.
The court’s judgement in the Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International case set the precedent for employees to sue their employers if their corrupt conduct has made it difficult to find a job within the same industry.
News of the World journalists who are worried that they will be unable to find a job because they’ll be tarred with the same brush as News International, Rupert Murdoch’s company that owned the now defunct newspaper.
The City of London law firm, Silverman Sherliker, has offered its services to the former News of the World employees who are concerned that the allegations of phone hacking will diminish their professional reputations, according to the Financial Times.
The law firm said: "News of the World employees are... distressed about the potential long-term career damage that they may suffer by being... unjustly tainted by the acts of others”.
Bringing a claim for damaged reputation is difficult and therefore such actions are rare. However, in the House of Lords judgement, the judge did say that the "difficulties of proof cannot alter the legal principles which permit, in appropriate cases, such claims for financial loss caused by breach of contract being put forward for consideration”.
The legal action would concern the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence between the two parties in an employment relationship. It is possible to argue that by damaging an employee’s professional reputation through association with the disgraced employer can be a breach of this implied duty.
Employment law experts could be giving News International cause to consider just how many ex-News of the World journalists will be re-employed elsewhere in the giant media corporation, in order to avoid being sued by them for damages.
Job Justice works with specialist employment solicitors throughout the UK. If you have been affected by this issue, or any employment issue, please get in touch today. We can help you find the right employment solicitor for your needs.
A House of Lords judgement in 1997 established that, in principle, employees can sue their former employers for damages if they struggle to find further employment because of their employer’s damaged reputation.
The court’s judgement in the Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International case set the precedent for employees to sue their employers if their corrupt conduct has made it difficult to find a job within the same industry.
News of the World journalists who are worried that they will be unable to find a job because they’ll be tarred with the same brush as News International, Rupert Murdoch’s company that owned the now defunct newspaper.
The City of London law firm, Silverman Sherliker, has offered its services to the former News of the World employees who are concerned that the allegations of phone hacking will diminish their professional reputations, according to the Financial Times.
The law firm said: "News of the World employees are... distressed about the potential long-term career damage that they may suffer by being... unjustly tainted by the acts of others”.
Bringing a claim for damaged reputation is difficult and therefore such actions are rare. However, in the House of Lords judgement, the judge did say that the "difficulties of proof cannot alter the legal principles which permit, in appropriate cases, such claims for financial loss caused by breach of contract being put forward for consideration”.
The legal action would concern the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence between the two parties in an employment relationship. It is possible to argue that by damaging an employee’s professional reputation through association with the disgraced employer can be a breach of this implied duty.
Employment law experts could be giving News International cause to consider just how many ex-News of the World journalists will be re-employed elsewhere in the giant media corporation, in order to avoid being sued by them for damages.
Job Justice works with specialist employment solicitors throughout the UK. If you have been affected by this issue, or any employment issue, please get in touch today. We can help you find the right employment solicitor for your needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)