Mr. James was sacked for allegedly giving Mr. Mould’s labrador, Merlin, a bone that made [...]]]> Judge Christopher Camp recently ruled in favor of sixty-year old Ivor James in an unfair dismissal trial. Mr. James worked as a driver for Raymond Mould, a multi-millionaire racehorse owner and owner of estates in Gloucestershire, London, and France.

Mr. James was sacked for allegedly giving Mr. Mould’s labrador, Merlin, a bone that made it ill. Mr. Mould sacked Mr. James by phone for “gross irresponsibility”, despite the fact that the dog had previously needed surgery for eating conkers.

Mr. James explained that he fed the dog the fatty end of a rack of lamb; however, Mr. James insisted that he gave the dog a lamb bone instead.

Mr. Mould later admitted that he sacked Mr. James without discussing the incident with him. He also failed to question a housekeeper who was present when the dog was fed, which could have prevented the sacking incident in its entirety.

Judge Christopher Camp said he had no reason to doubt Mr. James’ story. He also scolded Mr. Mould for acting inappropriately by not giving Mr. James the courtesy of a face-to-face discussion.  Additionally, the Judge said no reasonable employer would just pick up the phone and fire employees without giving them the opportunity to change their employer’s mind.

The actress claims she was wrongfully dismissed from the show following arguments with its creator, Marc Cherry, but the first trial ended in a hung jury.

The makers of the show ABC Entertainment and Disney, requested that the judge [...]]]> Desperate Housewives star Nicollette Sheridan has been granted a retrial in her case against Unfair Dismissal .

The actress claims she was wrongfully dismissed from the show following arguments with its creator, Marc Cherry, but the first trial ended in a hung jury.

The makers of the show ABC Entertainment and Disney, requested that the judge dismiss the case based on evidence that surfaced during a trial earlier this year, but a judge has ruled in favour of a retrial.

The new trial is set for September 10, but Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Allen White urged both sides to end the case privately this morning.
She said: ‘I very, very strongly urge you to continue settlement discussions.’

Nicollette is seeking $5.7 million in damages and $35,000 in sanctions from ABC Entertainment for her treatment on the series, which saw her character, Edie Britt, killed off in season five by being electrocuted.

During the first trial the jury ended deadlocked 8 to 4 in favour of Sheridan, so expectations are that Sheridan is in a strong position in the case of a retrial.

One of the shows stars Eva Longoria says that the case, which continues without Sheridan, has put a huge strain on the shows legacy.
Eva said: ‘I was surprised that there was even a trial and it went that far. I love Nicollette and I love Marc Cherry, and I love our work environment.’

Sheridan,  arrived at court in LA earlier this month with lawyer Mark Baute, had eight jurors behind her when a mistrial was recorded, she needed just one more to win
‘It’s a stain on our legacy as a hit show. It was just unfortunate, the whole thing.’

During the first trial Nicollette claimed that Cherry gave her a ‘wallop’ on the top of head during a rehearsal for a scene in 2008, he contended it was a nothing more than a ‘tap’ for direction as they worked on her character’s responses.
It had seemed this argument was terminally wounded when the charge of battery against Cherry was dismissed.

Much of the testimony focused on the timing of Cherry’s decision to kill off Edie.

Ten witnesses said he made it months before the on-set incident, but two writers for the show said her fate was not sealed until after.The two-week trial offered jurors a behind-the-scenes look at the soap, which is to bow out this spring after eight seasons.
The testimony of more than a dozen writers, executives and producers was often unflattering.

If you need Unfair Dismissal Help then contact us today. We have impartial Unfair Dismissal Advice at hand.

An Unfair Dismissal Lawyer said the change applied to new recruits who started work on or after 6 April 2012. The Lawyer said the government [...]]]> Employment lawyers have predicted an increase in numbers of people claiming discrimination and whistleblowing actions after the qualification period to claim for Unfair Dismissal went from one to two years.

An Unfair Dismissal Lawyer said the change applied to new recruits who started work on or after 6 April 2012. The Lawyer said the government had hoped the move would encourage employers to employ, as there would be a longer period during which they could be dismissed.
However, he said employers need to remember that in recent years there had been an overall increase in the amount of other  claims, including claims for discrimination based upon any of the protected characteristics and claims resulting from a public interest disclosure or whistleblowing.

“We expect to see an increase in these types of claims, as aggrieved ex-employees with short service try to fit their complaints within a legal claim they can pursue,” he said.

“As a result, care must always be taken in considering why you are dismissing any employee and what risk there may be of a claim.”

Joint head of employment law Jo Davis, at BP Collins, accepted that claimants would look for another route if they felt aggrieved.

“There may be a reduction in claims, but I would have thought it would be no more than ten per cent,” she said.

Davis said two years was quite a long time to be in employment without having unfair dismissal rights.

“This might encourage employees to hang onto their jobs and be reticent about moving,” she added.

Leon Deakin, associate in the employment department at Thomas Eggar, said the last few years had seen a rise in discrimination and whistleblowing claims from staff wanting to “strike back” at their employer.

“As these claims tend to be more complex and therefore expensive to defend there could be a nasty sting in the tail for employers and the coalition.” If you need any help for Unfair Dismissal then please contact us now.

But Fab Systems, which deals in double glazing and conservatories, is fighting the claim after arguing Mr Moran was only ever [...]]]> A sales manager has launched an Unfair Dismissal case for £10 000 against a window firm. Andrew Moran has taken  Newcastle based Fab systems to an employment tribunal over unpaid wages and holiday pay.

But Fab Systems, which deals in double glazing and conservatories, is fighting the claim after arguing Mr Moran was only ever self-employed. Fab systems are fighting the claim stating that the manager was only self employed and paid on an hourly basis. A tribunal judge needs to decide on the manager;s employment status to determine whether a full hearing will be held.

Mr Moran, of Ford Green Road, Smallthorne, told the Birmingham tribunal this week that he had been paid on an hourly basis.

He claimed this therefore made him a full-time employee.

But the firm, which only managed to make £14,000 profit last year despite increased turnover, said Mr Moran had been self-employed and denied he had been unfairly dismissed from his post.

They opposed Mr Moran’s “employment status” claim and alleged he had “walked out on the job”.

Mark Richards, who helped to run the business, told the tribunal that Mr Moran chose the hours he worked and was never given a contract.

He said Mr Moran had once come to work on a bicycle and made a successful “cold call” at a woman’s house on the way, which he said proved that he worked how and when he liked.

The tribunal was told that all reps and canvassers were employed on a self employed basis.

Mr Richards told Mr Moran: “I am appalled by what you have done in taking the firm to the tribunal.

“People working for the firm are well looked after.”

Tribunal judge Robin Balmain said he would make a decision about Mr Moran’s status at a later date.

That would  decide if a full hearing needs to be heard for the Unfair Dismissal Claim is to go ahead.

A McDonald’s restaurant manager is set to win a five figure [...]]]> A RESTAURANT manager is set for a five-figure payout after winning an Unfair Dismissal Claim.
David Arragon, who managed the Northumberland Street branch of McDonald’s, in Newcastle, buckled under intense pressure after being “belittled” and undermined by franchise holder Ahmed Khan, a tribunal heard.

A McDonald’s restaurant manager is set to win a five figure payout for Unfair Dismissal after being belittled and undermined by his boss and franchise holder Ahmed Khan. David Arragon, of Wallsend, North Tyneside managed the branch for 15 years during which time he rose steadily through the ranks.

Charged with running the Northumberland street restaurant he got positive appraisals of his performance in Jan 2010. But in April 2010 the branch was taken over by Mr Khan who said that Mr Arragon had showed “a lack of progress” and was “disappointing” and moved him on to a branch in Gateshead’s Metrocentre.

A series of different actions happened that left the manager under terrible strain. The supposed incidents included insinuations about telephone bills, false allegations about behavior towards female staff, functions normally delegated to lesser qualified junior staff and a ban on him being able to hire new staff.

The tribunal heard Mr Arragon was forced into a “downward spiral” and felt he had no choice but to leave the business.

“I was singled out in front of my peers and criticised, which undermined me and was humiliating,” Mr Arragon told the hearing.
“In January I was told by Mr Khan ‘I hoped you’d be man enough and do the right thing’, by which he meant that I resign. I spoke to colleagues immediately after this conversation because I was shocked by it.
“I was told, without any evidence for saying so, that I was not ‘enjoying my job’, that I was ‘on a downward spiral’ and that they could not see me ‘getting out of it’.”

The judgement reads: “The tribunal found that the respondent’s treatment of the claimant with regard to the undermining of his position, the comments made about him behind his back by his managers, the manner in which it dealt with the issue of the telephone bills and the unfounded suggestions of impropriety were all behaviour calculated to destroy of seriously damage the mutual relationships of trust and confidence between the claimant and his employer.”

From this and as a result of the above Mr Arragon started to suffer from anxiety and stress leading him to be signed off of work for two weeks in March 2011 by his GP.

After returning to work Mr Arragon raised a formal grievance about and was advised that he was at risk of redundancy – a process described at the tribunal as a “total sham”.
The manager never received any sick pay whilst off work.

The tribunal judgement reads: “The tribunal found that the respondent was determined to find a way to prevent the claimant from being paid his contractual sick pay.
“There was no possible justification for this.
“The tribunal found this to be a particularly spiteful, malicious and degrading attitude adopted by the respondent towards a long serving employee.”
The Unfair Dismissal Compensation will now be determined at a later hearing scheduled for June.

Mr Arragon, who now has another restaurant manager role in the North, added: “As Mr Khan has not appealed the only thing that remains is the remedies hearing but I really want it over now so that I can concentrate on my new job and the opportunities it offers in an industry I enjoy.”

He is unlikely to receive any money as such as the company has gone into voluntary liquidation owing debts totaling almost £600 000. [...]]]> Mark Freeman a Former Charity Business chief executive  has won his claim for Unfair Dismissal against the parent company CBusiness Holdings LTD, and been awarded nearly £86,000 for lost earnings and compensation.

He is unlikely to receive any money as such as the company has gone into voluntary liquidation owing debts totaling almost £600 000. Liquidators have filed documents at companies house showing that there is no value in the company.

The judgment from Bristol Employment Tribunal, dated 9 March, orders CBusiness Holdings to pay Freeman £67,000 notice pay in lieu of 12 months notice; £6,034 in respect of unpaid holiday pay, and a total of £12,695 comprising a basic compensation award, lost pension, and expenses.

Mr Freeman attended the tribunal hearing however there was no representative from CBusiness Holdings.
Mr Freeman was dismissed by the company at the end of October 2011 after members of the board commissioned an independent investigation into alleged financial irregularities at the subsidiary operating company, Charity Business, where he was chief executive.
At the time the board was made up of chairman Bruce Keith, Steve Round, Freeman, and Freeman’s wife Val Austin.
The investigator’s report contained evidence of missed VAT payments, early raising of invoices apparently to beat the VAT rise, and a failure to keep all client monies separate from company funds.

However, the report also emphasised that in general, client money was paid out on a timely basis as agreed, that there was no actual loss to clients, and there was “no evidence of systematic misuse of client funds”.

In Freeman’s unfair dismissal claim, he said the allegations made against him by two senior managers were never proved in the subsequent investigation; that the reason for the dismissal was unclear and that no proper dismissal process was followed.

In the wake of the judgment, Freeman said: “This judgment reflects the fact that I was unfairly dismissed though I was surprised that the business did not defend it when they had insurance to cover such matters.

“I can only conclude from this that they were aware that their actions of dismissing me were unsupportable. I understand that the decision to dismiss was voted on and it was not a unanimous decision.”

Calls to Bruce Keith and Steve Round, who were the two remaining board members at CBusiness Holdings in January when Freeman lodged his tribunal claim, were not returned this morning.