SPECIAL NUMBER ONE 2014

Welcome WELCOME to Con-ference Chambers' Spe-cial newsletter, pertain-ing to human resources. Whichever human re-source management strategy an organisation adopts or implements (whether deliberately or not) – be it Universalist ‘best practice’, Fit/Contingency, Resource-based or any other – it must work in accordance with employment law (Domestic and European). It is fair to say that most (not just many) breaches of em-ployment law by employers are avoidable with good HRM structures in place – internal and/or external reli-ance. Conference Chambers assists organisations on two main levels.

Corporate level FIRST is at ‘corporate’ level (whether or not the organisation has existing human resource man-agement), advising on human resource manage-ment strategy and, having undertaken an audit of the organisation’s contracts of employment and, where applicable, staff/employee handbooks advise on suitable updates where applicable.

© 2014 Conference Chambers !1

Responsibility Chain Many organisations either have their own human re-source management or have access to external assistance. In Conference Chambers' newsletter No.3, we referred to the case of Gallop v Newport City Council where the Court of Appeal held, "the employer must not forget that it is still [it], the employer, who has to make the factual judgment as to whether the employee is or is not disabled: [it] cannot simply rubber stamp the ad-viser's opinion that [s/he] is not." Also, in newsletter No. 4, we referred to the case of Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd & Others where, allowing an appeal, the EAT held, "it may be said that discrimination has been made out, even if the person who makes the actual decision has not acted for that reason if one examines only the mental processes of that person."

Delegation REPRESENTATIVES give advice on which their clients may or may not act. Whichever de-cision the employer makes and action it adopts, it stands or falls by them. It remains li-able for its decisions/actions.

CONFERENCE CHAMBERS HUMAN RESOURCES

SPECIAL NUMBER ONE 2014

Employee relations SECOND is, where an organisation has existing human resource management, working with HRM in order to provide it with regular key updates on employment law and to provide, where specifical-ly requested, training on various practices such as staff recruitment, staff retention, dealing with staff grievances or disciplinary, redundancies and gen-eral awareness such as anti-discriminatory prac-tices. AS EXPECTED, the former is undertaken at the organisation’s premises (which may well be at more than one location). However, the latter is in-variably undertaken at the organisation’s premises also. To instruct THE ABOVE SERVICES are provided to organi-sations of various sizes. If you are interested in the above services or simply wish to enquire whether Conference Chambers could assist you, please contact Carole to discuss your requirements. Nat-urally, as organisations are of all sizes and in all locations, any work agreed to be undertaken will be bespoke and, hence, any fee to be agreed will be unique to the work to be undertaken. All fees for initial and, where/if applicable, subsequent work are agreed with organisations and fixed in advance. Therefore, our clients are able to plan and budget efficiently and effectively. Conference Chambers 272 Field End Road Eastcote Middlesex HA4 9NA Tel: 020 8582 0500 Fax: 0800 2425323 carole@conferencechambers.com www.ConferenceChambers.com

© 2014 Conference Chambers !2

GM Packaging v S Haslem SQUARE the above with the case of GM Packaging (UK) Ltd v S Haslem UKEAT/0259/13/LA that dealt with a matter where conduct of the discip-linary process had been delegated to an external HR consultant. The employer had retained external HR consultants (HRC). For reasons we need not repeat SH was the subject of disciplinary measures and, after receiving authorisation from the employer's managing director (GM) to do so, HRC summarily dismissed him. SH appealed his dismissal and that appeal was heard by another member of HRC who, after hearing the appeal, also sought and ob-tained GM's authority to dismiss the appeal. The matter went to the ET and EAT

Authorisations by GM AS GM had given his 'authorisation' for the decisions, the ET considered whether, in essence, GM had been both the dismissing and appeal of-ficer. Had that been the case the procedure would surely have been unfair. Notwithstanding that the ET found that the seeking of the per-mission to implement HRC's de-cision did no more than, "reflect the reality of the situation," and, "the actions taken to deal with the dis-ciplinary proceedings...were reas-onable," it nonetheless found SH to have been unfairly dismissed based on the 'mind' of GM because GM had the last word (authorisation).

EAT ALLOWING the appeal on various grounds, the EAT held, amongst other things, that the ET had failed to consider the reasons given by 'HRC' (as opposed to GM) for its decision and held that SH had been fairly dismissed.