Arriving at the age of 59 gives you a certain perspective. So in my year moving towards a more significant milestone, I thought I would add my personal perspective to the issues of the day through my ‘Whittaker’s Whimsies’ monthy blog feature.
So here goes…
Tattoo or not to tattoo? That is the question!
If the statistics are correct, one in five adults in the UK now has a tattoo. But what if we surveyed those over 30 and those under? I am sure those statistics would show a dramatic change . Currently, employers will generally be of an older generation and have a different perspective of tattoos.
So what employment law issues do tattoos create?
Obviously employers cannot dictate to employees whether they have a tattoo or not. It is nearly always a question of whether or not those tattoos are visible which causes concern. Employers would usually be free to introduce a policy making sure that all tattoos are covered up during the working day. But is this always reasonable?
It may well be appropriate for somebody working in a professional office but is it necessary for someone who is digging holes in the road or working in a factory where they do not come into contact with customers? As usual with employment law everything revolves around what is reasonable. The usual dollop of common sense should be applied to any policies and procedures. Just because something is not to your personal taste does not mean that as an employer you can dictate to your employees what they can and cannot do. This becomes increasingly important the older you get!
Statistics and bizarre conclusions
I read a headline recently, which said that more than a third of Greater Manchester’s workers have faced bullying in the work place. How long did it take to interview all those people I wonder – or did they interview 100 people and then just get a calculator out? No mention anywhere of the numbers surveyed. We all know what happened with that approach at the General Election! The article then goes on to tell us the levels of each ‘type’ of bullying. It amuses me to read the small print on TV adverts when they say that their claims are based on what 100 people say which suddenly becomes a percentage of the global population. Really?!
Imagine if solicitors gave advice on the basis of that level of information. How easy life would be.
What? I am getting sacked for something I said two years ago? Are you mad?!
Well as it turns out the employer is not mad actually. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has very recently ruled that when an employee posted something on Facebook in 2011 relating to drinking alcohol while on standby duty, when he was subsequently dismissed due to this in 2013, some two years later, that it was a fair dismissal. The tribunal said that even though the employer had done nothing about it at the time that they had not necessarily lost the opportunity to take action at a later date. Even though what had happened was two years ago and the employer had known about it for a considerable part of that time, the EAT still did not criticise the employer for relying on it to dismiss the employee.
It would be dangerous however to think that employers would always be safe in behaving in this way. The best advice would always be to make sure that when something happens between an employer and an employee that if the employer wants to do something about it that they take action there and then. This case cannot be taken by employers to be a wide ranging permission to put things off for two years! The reason perhaps why the EAT thought it was reasonable in this case was because the employee himself had brought a number of grievances against his employer. The misconduct of the employee therefore became relevant to the issues which the employee himself had raised during those grievances. The facts therefore are more complicated than at first they appear. Isn’t that nearly always the case?!
Employment law does apply to the football industry: even though most people in that industry think it doesn’t!
Dr Carneiro, the former Chelsea football team doctor, is suing Chelsea FC and Jose Mourinho himself for unfair/constructive dismissal. We all know the background to this case as it has been played out in public and unless there is something we have not been told then she has a very good case. Football managers come and go and the merry-go-round turns throughout the season. The money they earn and the terms of their own contracts mean that the compensation they receive when they are sacked is fixed in advance. But just because you are the manager does not entitle you to belittle other professionals and ignore their experience and expertise. A public hearing in an Employment Tribunal would be extremely embarrassing although how many football fans, who do not support Chelsea, would love to see Mr Mourinho in the witness box? Anyone fancy a bet with me that this case settles behind the scenes on confidential terms?!
Share your comments and thoughts on my blog on Twitter @sasdanielsllp @jmw8856.
Look out for more Whittaker’s Whimsies next month, Jonathan