Abusive email puts employer on the spot

An abusive rejection letter sent by email to a jobseeker has landed a company director in hot water. 

The email was sent to 48 year old James Allen, a former serviceman from Devon, who was described in the letter as ‘an old, aesthetically challenged guy with no teeth’.

Written by the company director of a window and conservatory manufacturer, the message to the would-be labourer read:  “You are not only the most inappropriate person for this job, but probably for any job you will spend the next few years applying for, only to get rejected as soon as they meet you.”

Sarah Hassler, the company director who wrote the abusive email has said that it was a mistake that she sent her so-called ‘rant’, saying that she had read an article suggesting that anger and upset could be released by writing down how one felt, but not sharing what was written.  She said that she had written an appropriate email turning down James Allen for the job, but the two had become muddled and she had sent the wrong one.

This is a pretty extreme example of what not to say to either a potential or existing employee.  And whilst problems with performance, for example, may involve some plain-speaking, it’s important that you keep to the facts and don’t resort to any personal attacks.  

There is a raft of legislation that could be breached by such a conversation, including the Equality Act, and getting it wrong could turn a performance review into an expensive conversation for the company.”   

In any discussion with a member of staff, whether a performance review or simply a general discussion about their role and responsibilities, it’s very important to document what is said.  It’s also worth looking at how anyone in the business with responsibility for staff management and interaction is properly trained in the right procedures.  

Most importantly, everyone should know they can’t draft ill-considered emails, or share frustrations with other colleagues, even to release pent-up anger.

 

 

Web site content note: 

This is not legal advice; it is intended to provide information of general interest about current legal issues.

More Right to Time Off: Parental Leave Update

New rules for parents wanting time off to look after their children will come into force in April, including the much debated option for parents of new babies to share 50 weeks of leave.

And as the deadline looms, businesses are being warned to make sure they’re prepared, or risk claims for discrimination by fathers seeking to share the time with their newborn. 

Paid Shared Parental Leave is a new right available to parents of babies who are expected to be born, or placed for adoption, from 5^th April 2015 onwards. This scheme comes into force on 5^th April, operating alongside the existing maternity leave regime, and will allow fathers and mothers to share up to 50 weeks of SPL, which can be taken by parents together or consecutively.

This is a major change and recognises the shifting patterns in families.  When the new rules come into force, once the mother has taken two weeks maternity leave immediately following the birth of her child, she can choose to share the remaining 50 weeks with her partner, having time off together or consecutively, and in whatever pattern they wish, subject to the employers of both parents agreeing to that pattern.

Some businesses are still not ready to deal with requests and they leave themselves open to claims of discrimination.  It’s important to get the process in place and start talking to employees now, to deal with any up-coming requests.

Eligible employees will be entitled to up to 37 weeks’ Shared Parental Pay at the weekly rate of £139.58, which may be shared between parents. This is in addition to the compulsory two weeks' maternity pay and subject to offsetting any additional maternity or adoption pay already paid in respect of that child.

The other change in rights for parents is for unpaid parental leave, which has been extended to parents of all children under 18.  This was previously restricted to parents of children under 5 years of age, or up to 18 where a child was disabled.  The same rules also allow adoptive parents to take leave for up to 5 years after the child is placed with them. 

From 5 April, all parents of children under 18 will be entitled to request unpaid parental leave of up to 18 weeks, taken in blocks of between one and four weeks per year.  To make the application an employee must have a year of service with an employer, have responsibility for a child and, usually, give 21 days notice of any request for leave.

The Top Gear Teaser....

The Top Gear Teaser

It may just be me but the Top Gear debacle this week with Jeremy Clarkson got me thinking about employment issues and the process followed by the BBC. What a way to kill an interesting story? Not quite….

#bringbackclarkson was trending on Twitter today in top place, a petition now has over 130,000 signatures, there is no doubting Clarkson’s popularity, but has he become too big for the BBC? Have they lost control of him and panicked?

So what has happened to date? The press noted Clarkson had been issued with a final warning, any more offensive or unacceptable conduct and he would be out of a job. This week we hear that Clarkson has been suspended following a ‘fracas’ with a male producer, further details emerge on the rumour mill that a ‘punch was thrown’, Clarkson allegedly ‘hit a producer’ and that it was over a catering issue.

Clarkson was the only person to be suspended. “Fracas” suggests a brawl, a fight, or the like. An action involving two people, yet Clarkson was the only person suspended. In addition Clarkson has denied any violent behaviour. While suspension is ordinary not utilised as ‘punishment’, and indeed at this stage in a disciplinary there should be no predetermination, yet the rest of the Top Gear series has been cancelled. That is three weeks of shows. Richard Hammond and James May are perfectly capable of hosting the show, and I believe (though may be corrected), they have hosted in his absence due to illness in the past. Top Gear is not cheap to produce and most of it is prepared and filmed in advance, to scrap three entire episodes on the basis of one presenter out of 3 not being available, something is not adding up.

 

Have Hammond and May refused to proceed without him? Do they disagree with what is happening to him? Whatever it is, there is clearly more to this that has been released to the press, the key being the 3 cancelled shows. Predetermined guilt is a hot spot for employment lawyers in assisting an unfair dismissal case, has the BBC condemned him too early by cancelling the shows?

Indeed by cancelling the shows the entire issue has become much bigger than it needed to be, by cancelling the BBC is most definitely putting its cards very boldly on the table rather than dealing with Clarkson quietly. All the while during the furore, the ‘fracas’ is still alleged, not proven!

 

There is no going back for the BBC unless there was a significant back track for the shows to be reinstated, which is unlikely. I simply find it astounding that they would take such a substantial step at suspension stage. Indeed I would not be advising my clients to take such bold moves unless they are prepared to argue on Polkey (would have been dismissed in any event even if the procedure was fair).

Stand by for updates as the rumour mill gathers pace.