Employment Lawyer In Your Pocket: Recent Episodes
blackadders.co.uk
By listening to this podcast, you have your very own Employment Lawyer In Your Pocket #ELiYP We're aiming to help managers and business owners navigate the murky and often contentious world of employment law and keep you on the straight and narrow with your staff.
NEW Season 7 Season 7 is ‘The Newbies’ series of podcasts. The ELiYP team will be looking at the ins and outs of recruiting and integrating new employees into the business, together with identifying some legal pitfalls.
In season 1, Simon and Jack discuss the eight essential steps which an employer must take when looking to fairly dismiss an employee.
In seasons 2 and 3, Simon and the team answer questions which have been tweeted by our listeners. These seasons include our “How To..” and “Tell Me…” episodes. How To Be A Good Witness? How To Give A Reference? How To Deal With Stubble & Tattoos? Tell Me How To Process Employee Information? Tell Me How To Stop Employees From Swearing? And many, many more.
In season 4 the Employment Team’s episodes include The One With The Bert & Ernie Cake, The One With The Potential Data Breach, The One With The Glitter Ball & Fake Tan, The One With All The Christmas Films and many more!
In Season 5 it is our “listen and learn” season of podcasts. The ELiYP team tell a story, week by week, about a situation which the team has encountered. The team then discuss the law relating to that situation. One story told week by week.
In season 6, we take a look at the stories making the headlines and ask, “Is this case for real? How did the employer get away with that? And what is the law behind the headlines?”
You can follow the award-winning Employment Team on Twitter @EmpLawyerSimon @EmpLawyerDonna @EmpLawyerJack, @EmpLawStephen and @EmpLawyerBlair
You can also tweet us any questions using the #ELiYP hashtag
In our last podcast of this season, we discuss the 1992 legal drama (and listener-pick), A Few Good Men. There are a helluva lot of examples of sexual harassment, sex-based harassment and even sexual orientation harassment in this film, mostly by Jack Nicholson’s character. Although Simon and Jack jockey for position to say the immortal line, “You can’t handle the truth”, there is only one winner. Oscar-nomination incoming? Until next time, folks…
We hope you’ve got your tissues handy, dear listeners, since Simon and Jack dissect the 1997 film, Titanic. Does gross negligence (hitting an iceberg) require to be wilful for it to amount to gross misconduct? What are the rules regarding the 48-hour working week for the Titanic crew? And was there enough room on that floating door for both Kate and Leo? In our penultimate podcast, Simon and Jack answer at least two of these three questions…
This week, Simon and Jack discuss listener request and 2007 film, Hot Fuzz. Was it fair for Sergeant Angel’s employer to reward his high performance with a move from London to Gloucestershire? Did his contract include a relocation clause? Should PC Butterman have been performance-managed? And how could the employer have dealt with PC Doris’ risqué comments? Fortunately, there is no singing in this podcast, mainly due to the high pollen count. But, if you listen closely, you might hear Jack’s chair…
OK listeners, I hope that you’ve warmed up your vocal cords since Simon and Jack are discussing the employment law themes contained in The Greatest Showman. Did Lettie Lutz aka the bearded lady have a protected characteristic? Was PT Barnum’s recruitment style discriminatory? Could Anne Wheeler have lodged a harassment claim against Barnum’s Circus. And should Mr Jackman have created a DEI committee. Si restrains himself and sings just the once... Or twice. (Actually, you’d better draw me a five-bar gate).
This week, we review a hidden gem. Two Days, One Night is a Belgian film which was BAFTA nominated in 2014. If you were offered the choice between a €1,000 cash bonus, or the option to save a colleague from redundancy, what choice would you make? Simon and Jack take an in-depth look at redundancy including the test for redundancy and whether an employee can be made redundant after a period of sickness absence. Can an employer fairly dismiss when other people have voted on the matter? And you can find out whether Simon’s “conversational French” allowed to him to understand this film without subtitles. (The answer, in French, is “non”)
This week, we review the employment law themes contained in the 1993 film, Jurassic Park. Billionaire John Hammond won’t give Dennis Nedry, brilliant computer programmer, a raise, nor will Hammond discuss the matter with him. Despite the fact that lots of people die, as a direct result of Nedry’s actions, Simon argues that Nedry was the real hero of Jurassic Park with Hammond’s greed being the villain... Jack assesses whether Nedry was self-employed or an employee. And they both dispense legal advice to Nedry re grievances, discrimination and subject access requests. Warning… there is a fairly poor impression of John Hammond at the start of this episode but it’s over within the first ten seconds.
Simon and Jack continue season two of their “The Law Behind The Movies” podcast by discussing the 2005 trial drama, North Country. Was Josie (Charlize Theron) wrong to take a job in the iron mine where her dad worked? Should the owners of the mine have been concerned when she lodged a complaint of harassment? And was it a reasonable step to suggest that she could resign? (Warning listeners – this is a fairly academic podcast with discussions about workplace incidents of harassment. But, if you stay tuned to the end, you will hear the VERY limited laughter when Si picks next week’s film).
Simon and Jack commence season two of their “The Law Behind The Movies”
podcast by discussing the 1986 action/drama film, Top Gun. Was Maverick (Tom
Cruise) serenading Kelly McGillis in the bar the most romantic gesture ever?
Should the Top Gun Academy have been concerned about the student/instructor
relationship and have created an internal Relationships Policy? And who was to
blame for Goose’s death? (Warning listeners – there is some singing in this
episode).
For the final podcast of this season, Simon & Jack travel back to the Summer of ‘63, have the time of their lives & discuss hit chick flick, Dirty Dancing. Was Max Kellerman guilty of discrimination? Could his nephew Neil have fired Johnny for the stolen wallets? And was Baby’s admission about her mamba partner “all for nothing”? Don’t fret, listeners. We’ll return later in the year. But, in the meantime, please remember, nobody puts JB in a corner…
Does Anakin Skywalker meet the common law test of being an apprentice (agreement, training, duration of contract) in Star Wars, Attack of the Clones? Has the young Padawan received any training? And can Obi Wan expel Anakin from the Jedi Order like he could a normal Jedi? Lastly has Jack actually watched the film in the last week? (If you listen to the very end of this podcast, you will find your answer).
Is Andy’s sweater truly cerulean blue? Will you ever look at belts in the same way again? And is a grilled 8lbs Jarlsberg sandwich the best snack ever? Simon and Jack don’t actually answer any of these questions, but they do discuss the real demon in The Devil Wears Prada. And spoiler alert they bicker about Miranda Priestley’s management style…
For a Disney film (Zootropolis), this fairly packs an employment law punch. The team discuss sex discrimination, unilateral variations to contract and unconscious bias. Si tells a story about a surgeon. JB impersonates Officer Hopps. And Roman spoils the “Flash, Flash, Hundred Yard Dash” ending for everyone! (They also get the singing out the way within the first six seconds of this podcast)
If you’ve watched the film, Filth, in preparation for this week’s ELiYP podcast, then we apologise. Amongst other things, Simon and Jack discuss perceptive discrimination related to sexual orientation. If you’re easily shocked or have a nervous disposition, please don’t listen to this podcast (particularly not the last exchange when these two quote from the film)! All complaints to JB please.
NEW Season 9
Season 9 is ELiYPgoes to Hollywood, or the Law Behind the Movies. In this season, the team will be giving film reviews with a twist. Each week, we will pick a film. We will watch the film. We will then analyse the film with a particular focus on any employment law/HR issues arising from the plot. Big spoiler alert with every episode. We hope you enjoy.
This week, Simon, Jack and Roman discuss the 1992 film, The Bodyguard. Did Rachel Marron (Whitney Houston) successfully engage Frank Farmer (Kevin Costner) on a self-employed basis? Do the team score The Bodyguard as highly as they scored the previous films? And will Si avoid singing Queen of the Night/I Will Always Love You? (No, no, and thrice no).
OK listeners. I hope that you’ve popped on your penguin pyjamas and reindeer jumper because this week, we take a deep dive into the world of Bridget Jones’ Diary. Simon and Jack ask, would Mr Fitzherbert have a claim against Bridget if he discovered his nickname? Is the Tarts and Vicars’ Party within the course of employment? And was it Daniel Cleaver or a bot who was DM’ing Bridget?
In this new season, Simon and Jack discuss the film, Love Actually. How many red flags can you spot in Si’s favourite Christmas film? Is this the ultimate Christmas film or is it a spiritless, insincere cheese fest which should be hurled in the compost bin with your leftover brussels sprouts? What the team fail to spot IMHO is the stalker(ish) behaviour by Andrew Lincoln. I mean, seriously..… who makes a film of your best man, featuring close ups of Keira Knightley’s teeth?
In the final episode of Season 8, Jack and Simon discuss the case of https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fmedia%2F62860575d3bf7f1f422c880a%2FDr_Leary-Owhin_v_London_South_Bank_University_2300282-2020_16_May_2022.pdf&data=05%7C01%7Clesley.rorrison%40blackadders.co.uk%7C5280a65ffb7a498a744208daa7a21c9a%7C5f2920b6e5664d30acc8e2f416135f09%7C0%7C0%7C638006611972739149%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JC%2FObHxXuBDSDNilBtaETPFHgru7rBeKlFwopGyNtWI%3D&reserved=0 (Leary-Owhin v London South Bank University) - an overview of a discrimination case relating to race. Was it harassment for the employer to suggest that Dr Leary-Owhin was “playing the race card”? Will Simon find an opportunity to sing? Will Jack manage to hold back the tears? Brace yourselves, listeners. It’s going to get emotional.
After Soares-gate, EmploymentLawyerInYourPodcast-gate and JohnCReilly-gate, season 8 episode 9 starting with “Take 3” doesn’t bode well. But Simon and Jack are joined by Stephen and they (eventually!!) do get around to discussing a really important topic which is becoming of ever-increasing relevance to employers- menopause. They look at the case of https://bit.ly/3C15ov0 (Rooney v Leicester City Council), where an employee sought to establish her menopause amounted to a disability and then look at whether other protected characteristics could be relied upon to provide protections to individuals who are struggling at work due to the symptoms of menopause. And on behalf of Shownotes Simon… Ahmed v Metroline - https://bit.ly/3dRKzdb (https://bit.ly/3dRKzdb) Harassed into making reasonable adjustments - https://bit.ly/3LRcA10 (https://bit.ly/3LRcA10)
Butch and Sundance return for Ep 8. They discuss whether supporting https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/631207718fa8f5578bc96ae2/Mr_E_McClung_v_Doosan_Babock___others_-_4110538.2019_-_Preliminary.pdf (Rangers) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/631207718fa8f5578bc96ae2/Mr_E_McClung_v_Doosan_Babock___others_-_4110538.2019_-_Preliminary.pdf (FC) amounts to a philosophical belief in terms of the Equality Act. They also discuss the five part “Grainger” test as to what qualifies as a “belief”. And lastly, they have cause to mention the American, award-winning actor/comedian, John C Reilly. (They may have confused their J Reillys)
Simon welcomes Blair back to the podcast to discuss the case of https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.uk%2Femployment-tribunal-decisions%2Fmr-r-soares-v-office-of-gas-and-electricity-markets-ofgem-3201744-slash-2020&data=05%7C01%7Clesley.rorrison%40blackadders.co.uk%7C7f81791eaa2543e8ebcc08da9190a083%7C5f2920b6e5664d30acc8e2f416135f09%7C0%7C0%7C637982347600600778%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8S%2FZkqeO2rf%2Fp%2FspUPoZCh0HGQ%2B40vssLSWvuivAnfM%3D&reserved=0 (Soares v Ofgem). Did the comment, “let’s play it by ear” to an employee with an ear infection amount to harassment? Was it reasonable for that comment to have offended Mr Soares? Has Simon pronounced Mr Flucker’s name correctly? And is Blair replacing JB on the podcast in the future? Buckle up, listeners. This podcast is a goodie.
In Episode 6 of Season 8, Jack and Ethan discuss the case of https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fmedia%2F6304c4f08fa8f5536d9e9538%2FMs_H_Sommer__vs_Swiss_Re_Corporate_Solutions_Services_Limited.pdf&data=05%7C01%7Clesley.rorrison%40blackadders.co.uk%7C41de6aa4f30949a268dd08da8c0748e5%7C5f2920b6e5664d30acc8e2f416135f09%7C0%7C0%7C637976260182484466%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=id3RwsphB31LPIoUkmPqnz9m7AVaJBxYxq%2FBa6J6S%2F8%3D&reserved=0 (Sommer v Swiss Re Corporate Solution Services Ltd). Can an employer defend comments made by one employee to another about her breasts? Is redundancy a safe bet after said female has complained about these allegations and taken a period of maternity leave? Hear all about how not to conduct yourself in the spirt of an equality and diversity policy, here…”
In Episode 5, Simon and Jack discuss the case of https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fmedia%2F62f11331d3bf7f75b50d4fd5%2FMr_H_Drummond_v_Commissioners_for_Her_Majesty_s_Revenue_and_Customs_-_4109218.2021_-_Final.pdf&data=05%7C01%7Clesley.rorrison%40blackadders.co.uk%7C7ff164ffcbfb4c2ae87908da85fe3fe1%7C5f2920b6e5664d30acc8e2f416135f09%7C0%7C0%7C637969624294624764%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xZ%2FlQny%2FzvRPEsa7eNQ24Qpu9z4k4S5ZzGCA9kr0yIY%3D&reserved=0 (Drummond v HMRC) where the employer required to resist a claim for discrimination arising from disability (a section 15 claim). Did HMRC have a legitimate aim in place? Was this aim exercised proportionately? Who wants to hear about the time Simon fainted when giving blood? And why have you not yet left a review?
It’s Episode 4, and Simon and Jack are joined by Ethan to discuss the case of https://bit.ly/3w4BzY7 (Bradbury v Sky In-home Services Ltd), where the focus is on race discrimination. Was a comment made to Ms Bradbury by a fellow Sky Inclusion Advocate discriminatory?” Did the Judgment leave her on cloud 9? Have a listen to find out!
Brace yourselves, listeners. Simon and Jack discuss the case of https://bit.ly/3QdJtqg (Finn v The British Bung Manufacturing Company Limited) where a colleague is referred to as a “stupid, old, bald ****” Was it sex-related harassment? Or was it sexual harassment? And can you guess which of these two require to be bleeped out, when they mistakenly use that word?...
In Episode 2 of Season 8, two become three as Simon, Jack and Ethan discuss the case of https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fmedia%2F60a375d3d3bf7f2888d19089%2FMrs_A_Thompson__vs__Scancrown_Ltd_trading_as_Manors.pdf&data=05%7C01%7Clesley.rorrison%40blackadders.co.uk%7C0cbf99f855ad4d62234308da7556a3ae%7C5f2920b6e5664d30acc8e2f416135f09%7C0%7C0%7C637951312247908260%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=o6%2FT8%2F0%2FFZUJmRPxtwkOpEwrxPNBWu1Ndi66UJX80gc%3D&reserved=0 (Thompson v Scancrown Limited). Can an employer refuse a flexible working request from a pregnant employee in the name of business needs? Does such a refusal discriminate against female employees? Hear all about Mr Sellar’s expensive maternity leave slip-up here…”
In the first episode of season 8, Simon and Jack discuss the case of https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cfe3e9c40f0b609601d0fce/Mr_S_Knox_v_Chief_Constable_of_Merseyside_Police_-_2404042_2018_-_Reserved_Judgment.pdf (Knox v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police). Can an employee lodge a claim for harassment on the basis of his colleague whistling Dolly Parton’s 9 to 5 at him? How about the fact that he stuck a photo of Dolly up, beside his work station? And have Simon and Jack’s singing voices suitably recovered from covid to allow them to warble in key? Listen now to find out…
Due to popular demand (one listener), Simon returns for the final episode of Season 7. He is joined by Jack and Blair and they discuss three Christmas party employment tribunal claims. One case involves a fight on the dancefloor (Westlake v ZSL London Zoo). The second involves a Christmas party promise (Judge v Crown Leisure Limited). And the third involves a Christmas party fling (Nixon v Ross Coates Solicitors)! With apologies in advance from the team for the puns in our takeaway tips. We hope that you have a peaceful Christmas and we hope to return in 2022.
In the last episode of season 7, we reach the end of the “Long and Winding (Newbie) Road”. Employment lawyers Jack, Blair and Stephen discuss how “We Can Work It Out” when taking a new recruit through a probationary period and induction process. Blair gives some valuable tips on how “To Hold the Hand” of new starts; Jack offers advice on sorting out who within the organisation should “Carry That Weight” of overseeing the process; and Stephen discusses how slow starters should be given the chance at “Getting Better” where they need some “Help”. We also offer our views on how to tell a new start to “get back to where they once belonged” when it subsequently comes to light they have told lies in their job application. While this is the final episode of our “Newbie Road” season, the team decide to do a bonus Christmas special episode to look out for next week before we say “Goodbye” for the year.
Employment Lawyers Stephen, Blair and Jack discuss the do’s and don’ts of pre-employment health questions. In addition to lots of useful tips about how to avoid exposing your business to a discrimination risk, we also learn which member of the team is a demon on the dancefloor. Blair shines in the mini quiz. Stephen is getting into the spirit of festive party season and urges listeners to sign up to our https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.blackadders.co.uk%2Fnews-and-legal%2F&data=04%7C01%7Clesley.rorrison%40blackadders.co.uk%7C22f8abe1015f40c3d64a08d9ba31fd28%7C5f2920b6e5664d30acc8e2f416135f09%7C0%7C0%7C637745546154148742%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=ZNxPT1dyCVLO0ppTUq4CsNDw%2F6%2BdCZJn6Y%2B2PWXBBzc%3D&reserved=0 (mailing list)
The Newbies well and truly take over this week as Stephen is joined by Paul Nash of Blackadders Corporate team with a focus on all things data protection. We look at why it is important for employers to be aware of their data protection obligations from the outset and throughout a recruitment process and offer our top tips on the main areas which can give rise to problems. We also find out about the first album Paul owned and Stephen partly reveals his one true claim to fame, as they process some of their own personal data!
In Episode 5 of Season 7, Simon returns and is joined by Jack and Blair to discuss confidentiality and restrictive covenants. They highlight top tips when drafting confidentiality clauses in employment contracts and how make sure that restrictive covenants are enforceable. We also find out which song one of Simon’s clients performed when giving evidence at a tribunal. ‘I gotta feeling’ that it’s going to be a good episode….
Season 7 is ‘The Newbies’ series of podcasts. The ELiYP team will be looking at the ins and outs of recruiting and integrating new employees into the business, together with identifying some legal pitfalls. In this episode: Employment Lawyers Stephen, Blair and Jack discuss the all important employment contract and job offer letter. In addition to lots of useful tips about the documentation to be issued before a new employee starts work and whether a job offer can be withdrawn, we also learn which member of the team has already started Christmas shopping. Jack reminisces about the circumstances of him joining Blackadders. Stephen remains tight lipped about his own contract negotiations.
Season 7 is ‘The Newbies’ series of podcasts. The ELiYP team will be looking at the ins and outs of recruiting and integrating new employees into the business, together with identifying some legal pitfalls. In this episode: Stephen, Jack and Blair discuss the important checks that need to be carried out before formally employing any successful applicant. They talk about Right to Work Checks, previous cases and provide their favourite referees of all time. You won’t believe Stephen’s choice of referee (or Blair’s impression of this referee) …
In Season 7 Episode 2, Employment Lawyers Simon, Jack and (newbie) Blair discuss the selection process which may involve shortlisting applicants, interviews and reasonable adjustments for suitable candidates. They also give some examples of questions not to ask during an interview process and there’s a niche Trainspotting reference thrown in. But, will we ever hear about the circumstances surrounding Jack’s p-leather jacket?
Season 7 is 'The Newbies' series of podcasts. The ELiYP team will be looking at the ins and outs of recruiting and integrating new employees into the business, together with identifying some legal pitfalls. In this first episode, Employment Lawyers Simon Allison and Jack Boyle welcome a new colleague to engage in a discussion about the initial stages of a recruitment process, focusing on the application stage. They give some guidance on how to avoid discrimination and also some top tips around processing personal data. And in this episode, we discover who Jack doesn’t think could successfully apply for the job of Office Ninja (with apologies to Si’s Dad)…
Given the massive demand for more podcasts before Autumn, Simon and Jack have relented and released their final (bonus) podcast in The Law Behind The Headlines season. Season 6: 'The Law Behind the Headlines' series of podcasts. We take a look at the stories making the headlines and ask, “Is this case for real? How did the employer get away with that? And what is the law behind the headlines?” In the final (bonus) episode: Simon and Jack discuss the case O’Brien v Bloom Perfumery where Mr O’Brien’s employer offers him furlough or dismissal on notice. He picks furlough but his employer dismisses him with notice. Then, less than a fortnight later, dismisses him on the basis of gross misconduct. Was this dismissal fair? Is the team’s suggested headline better than the actual headline? Does the marketing team need to spend their remaining budget on a dialect coach for Si & JB? (the answer to each question is a resounding “no”) Employment Lawyer In Your Pocket podcast will return in the Autumn.
In this season, we take a look at the stories making the headlines and ask, “Is this case for real? How did the employer get away with that? And what is the law behind the headlines?” In the finale of Season 6: Simon and Jack discuss the headline “Scots Costa Worker wins £14k payout after being sacked for grabbing jacket during fire alarm”. The Employment Lawyers brew over the facts of the case of Dudenko V Costa Limited, consider points in the tribunal hearing and provide their 3 Takeaway Tips for employers. But were their coffee puns the perfect blend? We hope you enjoyed Season 6!
In this season, we take a look at the stories making the headlines and ask, “Is this case for real? How did the employer get away with that? And what is the law behind the headlines?” In this episode, Michelin-starred chef is dismissed for letting his two young boys play football in his restaurant during a private party for friends and family. Simon and Jack discuss the case of Williams v The Westbury Hotel Limited. Mr William’s sons kick a ball around the restaurant in a make-shift football pitch, wrestle with each other and drink tabasco sauce from the bottle. But was the dismissal fair? Listen to this podcast to find out. We also hear a few food-related puns, some Tony Soprano impressions and a (really old) knock knock joke.
Season 6: 'The Law Behind the Headlines' series of podcasts. The ELiYP team tell a story, week by week, about a situation which the team has encountered. The team then discuss the law relating to that situation. In this episode: Simon and Jack discuss the headline “Care worker sacked over Facebook post, saying there were no decent, honest Muslims”. Linda Henderson wins her unfair dismissal claim against Ashgill Care Home. However the Employment Judge reduces her compensation to zero partly based on her contributory conduct. We also get to hear Jack’s infamous crisp joke although there isn’t enough time to discuss his piercing….(fortunately)
Season 6: 'The Law Behind the Headlines' series of podcasts. The ELiYP team tell a story, week by week, about a situation which the team has encountered. The team then discuss the law relating to that situation. In this episode: Lidl caretaker is dismissed for showing colleagues his swastika tattoo. He lodges race discrimination and unfair dismissal claims and wins compensation. Simon and Jack discuss the case of Horvarth v Lidl GB Limited along with the tests for harassment and unfair dismissal applied by the Employment Judge. They argue over the correct pronunciation of the word “Lidl” and listeners avoid hearing Jack’s terrible crisp joke. (Listeners will regrettably hear Simon sing/speak a rock song, which he believes is relevant to this case)
Season 6: 'The Law Behind the Headlines' series of podcasts. The ELiYP team tell a story, week by week, about a situation which the team has encountered. The team then discuss the law relating to that situation. In this episode: Simon, Jack and Ruth discuss the headline, “Gym trainer with fear of sweat wins disability claim after refusing to pick up dirty towels”. Ms Burton lodges various claims of discrimination against Nuffield Health, including a claim for harassment. The team talk about the acts of harassment which Ms Burton suffered, the issue of disability and the tribunals findings. They also avoid telling Jack the identity of H (Line of Duty) and come up with their own (snappier) headlines.
In this season, we take a look at the stories making the headlines and ask, “Is this case for real? How did the employer get away with that? And what is the law behind the headlines?” In this episode, Simon and Jack discuss the headline, “What?????? University Lecturer wins £15k for using too many question marks in texts – but Judge rules excessive punctuation IS unnecessary aggressive”. They consider the employment tribunal case of Sobnack v Loughborough University where, although the tribunal found Dr Sobnack’s dismissal to have been unfair, it reduced the award on the basis of his blameworthy conduct. Simon also sings all the Leicester City Football Club songs he knows. (It’s fortunately just the one. Sung twice)
Season 6.4: The Law Behind The Headlines | Half A Man In this season, we take a look at the stories making the headlines and ask, “Is this case for real? How did the employer get away with that? And what is the law behind the headlines?” In this episode, Simon and Jack discuss the case of Staines v North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service. This case made the headlines since it involved a Yorkshire fireman who referred to his gay colleague as “Arthur” or “half a man”, was dismissed, lost his unfair dismissal claim but still won over £12k in compensation against his ex-employer. Simon and Jack sprinkle some Yorkshire phrases into this podcast (I blame Google) and, if you listen carefully, you can “enjoy” the historic “banter” JB had with Si’s mother-in-law.
In this season, we take a look at the stories making the headlines and ask, “Is this case for real? How did the employer get away with that? And what is the law behind the headlines?” In this episode, Simon, Jack and Ruth discuss a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal case against Victoria Whelan with the headline, “Junior solicitor suspended over email sent in “moment of blind panic”. They discuss the employment points, data protection issues and data breach implications for employers. Listen to the end to see if they finally get a better headline….…
In this season, we take a look at the stories making the headlines and ask, “Is this case for real? How did the employer get away with that? And what is the law behind the headlines?” In this episode, Simon and Jack discuss the Daily Mail headline, “Officer sacked for calling black colleague ‘King of the Jungle’ wins £16,000 payout as Judge rules his remark wasn’t racist.” They discuss the reasons why the Employment Judge found that there had been an unfair dismissal. And they also get a bit excitable with their cockney (Blairgowrie) rhyming slang…
Season 6, Episode 1: In this season, we take a look at the stories making the headlines and ask, “Is this case for real? How did the employer get away with that? And what is the law behind the headlines?” In this episode, Simon and Jack discuss the landmark case of Kubilius v Kent Food Limited which is the first reported case that determined the wearing of face masks on site. The driver was sacked by his employer for refusing to wear a mask whilst within in the cab of his lorry on a client’s site. An Employment Judge determined the fairness of his dismissal. And if you listen to the end, you’ll hear what Jack thinks the headline should be have been…
In this podcast, Simon, Jack and Duncan recap the previous season and give their respective views as to whether the employer was correct in its actions against Bruce.
During Bruce’s appeal hearing, he alleges that the chemicals used to make up the pills were not properly labelled, in breach of health and safety legislation. Bruce states that it was only a matter of time before somebody else made his mistake.
Does Bruce’s statement make him a “whistle blower”? If so, does Bruce have a claim for detriment against his employer? What should the appeal officer (J.A.R.V.I.S.) do to avoid a claim by Bruce?
So Bruce has been dismissed. However, he has appealed the decision to dismiss him. His letter states that he has rheumatoid arthritis and this causes him to have sore fists.
Does Bruce’s condition amount to a disability?
If so, what investigation, does his employer need to carry out at the appeal stage about his “disability”?
Is Bruce’s dismissal discriminatory even if the decision to dismiss him was reached before the employer knew about his disability?
And how exactly do you pronounce the claimant’s name in the case of “Baldeh” versus Churches Housing Association of Dudley and District Limited?
Donna has all the answers…
Following his dismissal, Bruce is annoyed with SHIELD and phones HR. During the call he is upset and complaining about the way he has been treated and mentions he wants to see information that supports the allegations made. He finishes the call by vowing to “make SHIELD sorry” for messing with him (with flecks of green appearing in his eyes)! The next day, an email is received from Betty Ross on behalf of Mr Banner requesting copies of his personnel files relating to the disciplinary offence.
Simon and Jack discuss Bruce’s circumstances. Bruce has requested an adjournment of the disciplinary hearing. Ms Potts, the employer’s HR Manager, allows Bruce’s request and tells Bruce that the meeting will instead take place the following week. The day before the adjourned hearing, Bruce submits a fit note, stating that he has sore fists and is unable to attend the meeting. The meeting takes place in his absence and Bruce is dismissed.
Simon, Jack and Duncan discuss Bruce’s situation. Bruce is employed as a scientist. His employer receives an anonymous complaint. Tony, the Managing Director, chooses to investigate the complaint and then instructs his HR Manager to dismiss Bruce.
Simon, Donna and Jack discuss Bruce. Bruce is employed as a scientist. He makes a serious error in his job and his employers are considering whether or not that error amounts to gross misconduct. Ultimately Bruce’s employers choose to do nothing with him on the basis of his early admission, his reflection and his remorse. However the following week, an anonymous complaint is received by his employers. The complaint is alleged to have been received from Bruce’s colleagues. The complaint alleges that Bruce has knowingly made errors in the past. The complaints ends by stating, “Speak to Rick. He will back up what we say”. What should the Managing Director, Tony do?
In this episode, Simon and Jack discuss Bruce. Bruce is a scientist. He has been employed for 19 years. Clean disciplinary record. His job involves dispensing drugs for his employer. One day, Bruce makes an error and mistakenly mixes up the drug dosages. Fortunately, Bruce’s employer picks up this mistake and the pills are not sent out. However, Bruce’s employer is angry that this mistake has been made. So the legal question is, can the employer discipline – and even dismiss – Bruce for this?
Happy New Year for 2019! In the final episode of season four sobs uncontrollably, Simon and Jack review last year’s highlights and discuss what to look out for in 2019, including the Ali and Hextall appeals and The Taylor Review. Although this has clearly been recorded last year, see if you can spot the team’s fibs about their respective Christmas and Hogmanay celebrations! And we look forward to seeing if Simon and Jack stick to their New Year’s resolutions. For what it is worth, we give them a week….
Simon, Jack and Donna unwrap in "The One With All The Christmas Films". The employment lawyers cover acts of harassment, potential defences to discrimination and their favourite "Christmas" movies. Not sure if James Bond counts as one but we're willing to score it 007 because we're feeling extra "Santa-mental"... Simon gives us his Three Takeaway Tips and "The World Is Not Enough" without another impersonation from Jack. Your "presents" are required after the credits for Donna's joke... Hold on for "deer" life!
Does travelling to work or being on call count as working time? Listen to ELiYP Season 4 Ep 6 to find out!
Simon and Jack are secured by Ruth in "The One With The Potential Data Breach". The employment lawyers cover what constitutes a data breach, examples of employee breaches and what you can do to prevent one. Simon gives out his password slaps face As does Jack slaps another face And there are some dodgy pronunciations - DATa or data, PRIVacy or privacy. Finally, Ruth gives her Three Takeaway Tips... well three and a half (just to be on the safe side obviously).
Simon and Jack are joined by Diva Donna in "The One With the glitterball and fake tan". The employment lawyers discuss bullying at work. They cover examples of harassment, the legislation and Donna Cha Cha Challenges Simon on protected characteristics. Jack makes a few jives and Donna 'taps' out her Three Takeaway Tips.
Season 4, episode 3: Simon and Jack get lit in "The One With the drunken Christmas party". The employment lawyers discuss the case of Bellman against Northampton Recruitment Ltd. They cover vicarious liability, the court of appeal outcome and Jack 'sleighs' his impersonations. Simon's Three Takeaway Tips are Snow joke. Ps. Don't forget to listen after the jingle!
Jack and Simon take the plunge and ask Blair to join them in "The One With The Pimlico Plumbers". The employment lawyers discuss the difference between being able to classify a worker as self-employed or an employee. They 'unblock' contracts, entitlements and the case of Mr Smith and the plumbing & heating engineers.
The award-winning Employment Team are back with their first episode of Season 4 - could we BE anymore excited? "The One With The Bert & Ernie Cake" sees Jack and Simon talking about the case between a same-sex couple and a couple of bakers who accepted (then refused) their cake order. They cover discrimination law, Supreme Court decisions and just how much Jack is willing to spend on a cake! Don't forget to tune in for their three take away tips at the end.
The foursome are back for the finale of Season 3! Duncan, Jack, Ruth and Simon all answer a question from Bruce Clark Printers "How do I stop employees from swearing?"...
Simon, Jack and Duncan are in "high spirits" as they answer a question from DM Roofing "Tell me how you deal with an employee who prefers gin to their job?". The employment lawyers discuss what an employer should do and how to differentiate between sickness and misconduct. They use real case examples and give their 3 essential take away tips.
Season 3, episode 6: Ruth joins Simon & Jack to answer a question from Dundee & Angus Chamber of Commerce "Tell me what consequences there are for an employer when an employee leaks personal information". The team cover data protection rules, vicarious liability and a real case. Thrown into the mix is some interesting catchphrases. Remember to listen out for their 3 take away tips at the end - they’re GR-R-R-reat!!
Simon & Jack answer a question from Lynn Polkey "what's the storey with Polkey? The employment lawyers cover the Polkey case and redundancy procedures. As well as this they talk about the Polkey exception and Polkey reduction. Simon gives us his 3 take away tips and Jacks got a jammy joke!
Simon, Jack & Duncan answer a question "tell me how to deal with a part-time employee (5hrs/week) that doesn't want to take any holidays?". They cover holiday entitlement, holiday notice and overtime.
Does GDPR stand for the Great Dead Pool Release this week? Or is it something else? In this week’s podcast, the Employment Lawyers answer the question “Tell Me How To Process Employee Information". They also discuss how to pronounce the word “data” and “privacy” And if you listen to the end, you will hear Jack’s terrible superhero joke...
Simon and Jack answer a question from Jason Condie of Condies Accountants & Advisers, “Tell me how to ensure that a conversation between employer and employee remains without prejudice & can’t be relied on by either side?”. The two discuss “without prejudice” discussions which require an existing dispute between employer and employee and the newer pre-termination negotiations. There is also some French and German conversation thrown into the mix for our more discerning multicultural listeners.
Simon, Jack and Duncan answer a question from Calum Anderson, Influx Recruitment,“What questions can be asked during an interview? And what questions should be avoided?”. The employment lawyers cover discrimination, criminal convictions and the ACAS Guide. There may or may not be impressions of Yoda. And
Simon, Jack and Richard all join up for the last episode of season 2. The guys answer a tweet from Vital Hike 'how to keep control over your employee?'. They cover Christmas parties, work trips and give example of real cases. As well as this Jacks give us his top 3 take away tips. Remember to listen after the music to see if you can work out what Richards theme tune is...we can't!
Simon, Jack and Ruth answer a tweet from Avian 'do I need to appoint a data protection officer (DPO)?' . They cover who needs it, who can be a DPO and give examples of cases. There's also some interesting theme tunes and a bit of the Simpsons banter thrown in!
Simon & Richard answer a tweet from Big Man Talking 'should you record a formal meeting with a manager on your mobile phone?'. They cover legislation, real cases and Richard gives us his top 3 tips. As well as this Richard does an impression of J. Boyle...(if you can work out who that is?) and tries to get his twitter followers up. Also why does Simon have an Australian Siri?
Simon & Jack answer a tweet from Henderson Loggie Chartered Accountants 'Do apprentices have different rights to employees? If so what's the difference?' . Jack gives us his top 3 tips whilst Simon reveals his favourite ...and worst apprentice!!
We would be delighted if you would be able to provide us with some feedback by leaving a comment at the bottom of our podcast page. Thanks for listening!
Simon & Richard respond to a tweet by Elevator asking 'do you encourage your employees to use social media?'. They discuss a cautionary case and Richards top tips are definitely worth noting down. Simon's hashtags (#'s) are a bit dubious... but they will definitely give you a few laughs!!
We would be delighted if you would be able to provide us with some feedback by leaving a comment at the bottom of our podcast page. Thanks for listening!
Simon and Jack are joined by Blackadders, Senior Solicitor in Corporate & Commercial law, Ruth Weir. They respond to an email by the BIG Partnership 'Who owns intellectual property created during employment?'. They cover Copyright, Trademarks and Rights to IP. In addition to this Ruth gives her Top Tips. Which "poem" did you like best and do you think Ruth will ever return to ELiYP?
Simon & Jack answer a tweet from Insights 'Can employers insist on male employees being clean shaven? What about tattoos?'. They don't hold back addressing both issues as well as giving examples of previous cases of discrimination. In addition to this there is a few dodgy impersonations to keep you amused! Can you guess the Harry Potter character that Jack couldn't?
Simon & Richard answer a tweet from Condies Accountants & Advisors 'What advice would you give to employers if asked by an ex employee for a reference?'. They give examples of accurate, inaccurate and misleading references. If that isn't enough for you there's also a bit of singing and James Bond to keep you entertained!!
Simon and the Jack answer a tweet from Fairways HR 'How to be a good witness?' What makes a credible & reliable witness? Can you guess the Family Guy witness? Listen to find out more on how to be a good witness.
In the final episode of this podcast series Jack and Andrew discuss the essential steps for handling an appeal hearing. How significant are these hearings? Who should hear them? Can appeal hearings be used to the employer's advantage? What led to a witness breaking into a Black Eyed Peas track whilst giving evidence in a tribunal? Listen to find out more on how to conduct a disciplinary process to an end.
What happens if an employee fails to attend a disciplinary hearing? Jack and Andrew discuss how to handle to problematic situation of an employee failing to attend a disciplinary hearing. Is that the end of the process? Can you assume the employee does not want to face the inevitable? How many chances do you have to give them? And what is the best excuse you have ever heard for someone failing to attend a disciplinary hearing? Listen to find out more on how to handle this type of scenario.
Simon and Jack discuss the essential steps to communicate a fair dismissal. What should you say and what shouldn't you say? How to say it and when? Can you do a Lord Sugar? Listen to find our more on how to navigate the pitfalls.
Simon and Andy discuss the role of HR during a disciplinary meeting and the extent of the support they can provide to the person chairing the meeting. Who is the decision maker? What information can HR provide? And who needs to take responsibility for the name of Simon’s dog...?
Simon and Jack discuss how to conduct a disciplinary meeting. Do you know what to say? Do you understand the role of the companion? What should you do about any witnesses to the allegations of misconduct or bad behaviour? Forget Lord of the Rings.
Simon and Andy discuss how to prepare for a disciplinary meeting, addressing who should chair the meeting, the timescales recommended for such a meeting and the content of the letter inviting the employee in the meeting.
Simon and Jack discuss how to conduct an investigation meeting at work. What steps should you take before conducting an investigation meeting? Who should conduct the investigation meeting? When it is appropriate to suspend an employee?
Simon and Andrew discuss the first steps a manager or employer should take before taking formal disciplinary action. Why does it matter for a business to get the correct procedure? Is it a performance issue? Is it improper behaviour? It is gross misconduct? Is it conduct or is it capability?