Comments for Usefully Employed

Comment on BVC debacle by Usefully Employed

Usefully Employed — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:37:14 +0000

This can be done, but being the opposite of the route I took I’m not sure of the mechanics. The Law Society have information at:

http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/qltt.page

and read Simon Myerson at:

http://pupillageandhowtogetit.blogspot.com/2007/05/becoming-solicitor-first.html

Comment on BVC debacle by Yvonne

Yvonne — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:09:59 +0000

Hi Usefully employed,

I wanted to find out if one can qualify as a solicitor via the BVC route.
Therefore will not need a training contract after the BVC and be a qualified Solicitor after.

Thanks in advance

Comment on Contingency Fee Agreements – final regulations unveiled by Law Review: Ministry of Truth and news from the law blogs « Charon QC

Law Review: Ministry of Truth and news from the law blogs « Charon QC — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:54:04 +0000

[...] useful note on Contingency Fee Agreements – final regulations unveiled from Usefully Employed, an employment law [...]

Comment on Employee theft: can low value render a dismissal unfair? by James Medhurst

James Medhurst — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:44:36 +0000

If you go into a legal database and type in the word ‘milkshake’ you will come up with the case of Rentokil v Mackin. The claimants were dismissed for helping themselves to milkshakes and the tribunal boldly said that this was outside the reasonable range of respones, a decision which was upheld by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. I am not sure whether the same thing would happen today though.

Comment on Updated Vento Guidelines by What lies ahead in 2010? | Equality | Jobsworth by Michael Scutt

What lies ahead in 2010? | Equality | Jobsworth by Michael Scutt — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:37:57 +0000

[...] a fuller and very helpful discussion see Usefully Employed’s post on the [...]

Comment on Stagecoach drivers warned to fight the flab by Jobsworth by Michael Scutt » It’s not Blawg Review

Jobsworth by Michael Scutt » It’s not Blawg Review — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:07:14 +0000

[...] large one as I write this. I enjoyed Usefully Employed’s analysis of the law relating to overweight bus drivers back in October. Whether obesity can be considered a disability and thus qualify the larger [...]

Comment on A (for once) well-deserved facebook dismissal by John C

John C — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:47:18 +0000

As she had less than a year’s service a Tribunal is unlikely to have jurisdiction to hear any claim for unfair dismissal, so the lack of notice and/or being deprived of the right to be accompanied shouldn’t concern the employer too much. Unless she could tag on a discrimination claim?

Comment on A (for once) well-deserved facebook dismissal by Simon

Simon — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:59:18 +0000

re s86 point – likley to be gross misconduct so no entitlement to notice. However, hasn’t she be deprived on the right to be accompanied. I accept that she has to make a reasonable request to be accompanied but there is at least one case that held that being bounced into a dismissal meeting without warning was enough for the EJ to give the claimant the 2 week award. Also, what about the argument that she may not have recieved the notice via facebook. It was sent at 22.53 afterall. Presumably if she hadn’t seen it she would have gone into work the next day and found out but …..

Comment on Maternity leave and pay – a summary of the current law by Elizabeth Vassell

Elizabeth Vassell — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:15:23 +0000

Hi I have just read your blog but unfortunately it does not state that while on maternity leave you are entitled to all bank holidays. I have just returned to work after maternity leave and have been told that I am not entitled to the bank holidays that I have missed which would have been all 5 so far and that my employees decision is they will give me an additional day and a half but not the full 5 days that I am entitled to. I am now considering taking this to court for sex discrimination. They also mentioned long term sick which I was not on. I am still very confused by this matter and have taken legal advice and they have told me that I am entitled to the holidays but my company is refusing to do this as they are saying that the new legislation is ‘a grey area’. I thouhg it was in black and white! I have contacted ACAS and they’ve told me that I am entitled to them!

Comment on Age discrimination in redundancy selection – LIFO and length of service by K price

K price — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:27:27 +0000

I have been looking for an article such as this as I have concerns over the RMT union policies where “seniority” is the preferred method for redundancy selection. The Rolls Royce case touches on this but is not quite the same as the situation here.

According to RMT, if redundancies are to be made, if a man has been here for 10 years and another man has been here for 10 years and one day, then it is the FAIREST option to let the man with one less day go. This is something I have to disagree with. The more “senior” man (ie. he with the longest service) for example could have an appalling attendance record, whereas the junior man could have an impeccable record; the senior man may not have completed or passed as many training courses as the junior man or have the same skills etc. etc. The RMT want to use seniority within band as the sole deciding factor in the redundancy selection process and not take any of these other issues into consideration. I do not believe this is fair and if Network Rail do make redundancies in the near future (which is looking highly likely) then I believe that the wrong people are going to be sent down the road.

LIFO or “seniority”, though they may reward loyalty, offer no incentive to work hard or try to better yourself as time served is all that matters.

So, what I need to know is, is the idea of using seniority as the only selection criteria at all workable or legal?