“Celtic, yer a joke!#scum” AND “Woke up beside half a can of Tennents and a full pizza and more money than I came out with. I call that a success!”

Perhaps a reality TV or pop star? Well, many were surprised when it turned out to be Britain’s youngest MP in over 350 years.

Mhairi Black, now 20 years old, posted the tweets as an anonymous teenager and probably never expected them to resurface when she beat shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander in Paisley and Renfrewshire South to become the country’s youngest MP since 1667.

Despite making history for the right reasons, it’s evident that she, like many others are not exempt from the now common practice of the media trawling through historic social media posts and looking for slip ups to publish in order to humiliate their authors.

The media found plenty of colourful tweets, many of which contained expletives, and in hindsight, the young politician probably regrets ever publishing them.

Luckily for her on this occasion, the tweets weren’t taken too seriously, and her career is not in jeopardy. However, it does highlight the growing trend of social media becoming a ripe hunting ground for employers looking to vet the quality of candidates.

Employers are increasingly seeing the value of the social media when it comes to vetting potential employees. In particular Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn can give you a really good feel of a candidate’s past, personality and suitability before you invite them to interview.

Social media can be a great asset when searching for talent and future rising stars. It can show you whether candidates have a genuine interest in a sector, reinforcing their commitment to a potential career. However, if tweets are punctuated with foul language and or offensive opinions, it’s probably wise to approach that candidate with caution, particularly if they will have a client facing role.

A recent survey found that 74 per cent of UK managers regularly look at candidates’ Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn profiles to see if they display behaviour that is unsuitable for jobs. Notably, 68% had rejected a candidate based on social media postings.

There is of course huge scope for misusing social media profiles and, in many situations, there’s a blurred line between what constitutes a person’s right to express themself as an individual, and what could be perceived as rude, derogatory or even defamatory.. The type of off-the-wall humour some might get away with down the pub can open your organisations’ reputation up to serious risks when posted online.

My advice?

Social media presents many opportunities and can be very useful for business owners when it comes to finding talent. The best candidates will combine relevant posts about the industry they work in or wish to enter, interact with potential employers and show off a bit of personality through day-to-day musings.

It could be that a candidate has a glowing CV, impressive recommendations and extra curricular activities, but a not-so-professional social media account should sound a note of caution. As a business owner, you must consider your employees’ social media personas as ultimately it could negatively affect your business.

Social media has become a bit of a minefield but it isn’t going away. My advice is, if you’re shocked or offended by a tweet by a prospective candidate, trust your gut instinct.

I wish good luck to new MP Mhairi in her role, but let’s hope her case serves as a warning to others. Nobody, especially prospective employers, want to read your drunken and offensive opinions.

The golden rule of social media use for everybody should be: don’t post anything unless you would be happy for your mother or future employer to read it.

For employers, I highly recommend taking the time ahead of any formal interviewing process to review candidates’ social accounts and answer the following question – would you hire that individual based on their current social presence?

Social media vetting is fast becoming another stage of the recruitment process, and can probably save you time and money in the long run – or at least help you avoid making costly mistakes to your company’s reputation.

Read more:
Could social media vetting become just another stage of the recruitment process for SMEs?

I don’t usually allude to boy bands and broken teenage hearts in employment law, but the recent events surrounding Zayn Malik’s departure from One Direction and the subsequent leak of his mystery ‘solo single’ have got me thinking about restrictive clauses.

Firstly, it was widely reported that Mr. Malik’s main intention for leaving One Direction was to live the life of a normal 22-year-old, which might have raised some questions among his fans and ex-band mates if the leaked track turned out to be genuine. But more importantly, his actions could have potentially harmed the identity and integrity of One Direction as a brand.

When an employee moves on from a company and continues to work in the industry, the same risk applies. There are a number of considerations a business can make in order to protect their commercial interests from competing ex-employees – but how far can you go to ensure these are effective?

Imposing restrictive clauses in employment contracts
The most common way of preventing ex-employees from poaching clients is by imposing post-termination restrictive clauses within contracts at the start of employment. These prohibit ex-employees from directly competing against the interests of the company after he or she leaves. There are several variations in restrictive clauses, but employers must first consider a number of factors in order to make sure they are legitimately enforceable.

Factors to consider when imposing an enforceable restrictive clause:

• What position does the employee hold within the company? Restrictive clauses are particularly relevant for highly skilled staff or senior roles, but they may not be necessary for very junior employees. Think realistically about the competitive risk of that particular person, and whether it’s actually worth putting post-termination restrictions on them. 

• What exactly is being restricted? Preventing ex-employees from stealing clients is one thing, but putting contractual limitations on them working with any of your business contacts, including suppliers, might be unrealistic. Unless you can justify legitimate business interests, the clause may not stand up in court.

• Length of restriction Three to six months is the usual length of time to impose post-termination restrictions, although 12 months may be appropriate for senior employees with extensive knowledge of the business and sensitive information. Any longer than this period may be considered legally unreasonable, and could deem your clause unenforceable.

What about social media?

A notorious legal grey area, social media presents a whole new set of considerations for business owners to make when it comes to protecting commercial interests.

Employees, particularly those with client-facing roles, may make numerous valuable contacts through LinkedIn during their time with your company, and this might leave you feeling vulnerable to their actions with these contacts after they leave. The tricky thing is, LinkedIn is of course an independent platform, and the ownership of personal profiles is debatable.

So how do you prevent your ex-employees from using all those contacts to steal clients and competition from your company? Demanding a handover, or suggesting your ex-employee should delete their profile could be fruitless. However, including a clear social media policy in contracts at the start of employment, and ensuring it relates to all contacts made during employment, could help you retain some peace of mind.

If you want to protect your commercial interests from competitive ex-employees, you need to make sure your contractual agreements are watertight from the start. Post-termination restrictive clauses and are good way of limiting the movement of sensitive information and contacts, but in order to be enforceable your policies must be clear, fair, and relevant to legitimate business interests only.

It’s hard to say whether Zayn Malik’s contract was subject to any restrictive clauses, but rumours of his so-called solo track have since significantly changed direction, so to speak.

Read more:
How far can you go to protect your business from ex-employees?

Unlike the film’s discreet encounters behind closed doors, news of this office-based copulation went global when it was filmed and viewed widely on social media, making a private moment between two people worldwide news.

The pair’s employer said it was treating the incident “very seriously” but employment lawyers claimed it was disputable whether the couple’s out-of-hours activity on company property constituted justifiable grounds for dismissal.

The big question is: is it fair for employers to dismiss employees for engaging in intimate liaisons at their place of work?

Before answering this, it’s important to note that sexual behaviour can be considered gross misconduct and the devil is in the detail of an organisation’s disciplinary policy.

Sexual behaviour as gross misconduct

In a nutshell, gross misconduct means behaviour, which is so bad that it destroys the employer/employee relationship and merits instant dismissal without notice or serious disciplinary action. Most employers will have a generic list of what constitutes gross misconduct including drinking on the job, taking drugs or behaving in a dishonest or aggressive way towards others. But can sexual behaviour specifically be included within company policies?

The answer is yes; at an employer’s discretion, sexual behaviour as well as other covenants can be included in the definition of gross misconduct, but must be communicated and demonstrated clearly to employees through staff handbooks and company-wide literature. Employees should know the types of behaviours that are likely to be considered gross misconduct and if sexual behaviour warrants action then you must be clear about the boundaries and how you expect employees to behave within a company.

In the case of GM Packaging v Haslem in Newcastle, 2014, sexual behaviour had been included within its policies but even at a legal level, it proved to be a grey area. This particular tribunal found that dismissing an employee who had engaged in sexual activity with another employee on work premises was unfair but the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) subsequently ruled otherwise.

Regardless of company size, the EAT ruled that consenting sexual activity in the workplace can indeed justify a finding of gross misconduct.

So I’ve caught employees in the act, how do I follow correct procedure and discipline accordingly?

If faced with this situation, employees must be spoken to immediately and the policies they agreed to when starting the role at your organisation must be reviewed. Depending on the severity of the situation, it should be clearly communicated what sanctions will be enforced.

If your decision leans towards dismissal, be sure to seek guidance from your HR and legal team to ensure that correct procedures are followed. It might also be a good opportunity to communicate your company policies to the rest of the team to ensure there is no confusion surrounding behavioural expectations and subsequent company decisions.

As an employer, you must be fair, reasonable and consistent. There is an ACAS Code of Practice that provides practical guidance and principles to help you, setting out the basic requirements of fairness and, for most cases, providing a minimum standard of reasonable behaviour.

As a guideline, ask yourselves the following questions when faced with the decision:

• Was the offence gross misconduct – that is, was it enough to destroy the contractual relationship?
• Were correct procedures used? Take into consideration the law, resources and size of your company.
• Have you considered the range of sanctions – transfer, demotion, suspension and dismissal?
• Are there any mitigating factors to take into account such as past history, age, length of service and previous warnings?

In the case of the Marsh Ltd employees in New Zealand, it has not been reported whether or not the couple in question were subsequently dismissed, and without knowing the facts surrounding the case I can’t comment on whether the employees should face dismissal.

My advice to other companies is to ensure you detail the boundaries of sexual behaviour within your company policies. These should then be regularly communicated and understood by all employees so that if you are faced with a similar situation, it can be dealt with swiftly.

Work-based liaisons can be perceived as exciting but they don’t always turn out the way employees imagine. These days, with the heightened use of social media as highlighted in the Marsh Ltd case, employers should rightly take prompt action to avoid any negative impact on business reputation.

The clearer your policies are, the easier the decision will be as to whether to dismiss or not. The onus is on the employer to ensure policies are clear from the outset and are communicated effectively to all staff. The will mean that if any of your team are caught in the act, the situation is black or white, not 50 Shades of Grey.

Read more:
Can you dismiss employees for improper conduct out of working hours?

Earlier this year, the former Immigration Minister Mark Harper resigned from the government after it emerged the cleaner he employed did not have the legal right to work in the UK. Only months before the story surfaced, Harper had taken the Immigration Bill through Parliament and emphasised the importance of checking applicants’ personal information. Harper admitted that he had not adhered to the protocol when hiring Isabella Acevedo, who originated from Columbia.

His mistake serves as a warning to individuals and SMEs looking to employ non-UK workers. If the proper checks are not carried out, employers could unwittingly hire illegal immigrants – an illegal practice – and find themselves in serious legal trouble. Below are some key facts for employers to be aware of when hiring new staff.

What is an illegal worker?

An illegal worker is defined as someone aged 16 or over who is subject to immigration control, and is not allowed to work in the UK. This is because their leave – granted before they emigrate from their home country – is no longer valid, or because a legally binding restriction forbids them from working. They include students whose visas have expired and people who work on a visitor’s visa.

What are the pitfalls of hiring illegal workers? Are they serious?

Hiring illegal immigrants could have significant consequences for firms of all sizes. For each illegal worker employed, a company can be fined up to £20,000. In some cases, employers can be sent to prison for up to two years and be forced to pay unlimited fines. If a key member of a small business is imprisoned, or if a small business has to pay out thousands of pounds to cover legal fines, the sudden loss in funds and senior staff could be detrimental beyond return.

What should an employer do to check their potential employees’ eligibility?

There are three steps outlined by the Government that all employers should carry out when looking into hiring job applicants. More advice on the below can be found here.

– Stage One: Obtain documents

The employer must obtain original documents that fall under the acceptable documents listed by the Government – these include passports, birth certificates and other official registration documents.

– Stage Two: Check the documents

The employer must check the documents they are presented with are genuine and that they belong to the prospective employee. They also need to ensure that the person is the rightful owner of the documents and that they are allowed to work in the job role they are applying for. The employer must:

1) Cross check names, photographs and dates of birth for consistency across documents

2) Check all of the expiry dates for permission to be in the UK are still valid, and that the documents are genuine and have not been tampered with

3) Check for any work restrictions to determine if they are allowed to do the type of work that is being offered (there are further checks for students, which the employer will need to check online)

– Step Three: Make copies

The employer must make a clear copy of every document in a format which cannot later be changed or tampered with. The copies must be stored securely, either electronically or in a hard copy, for up to two years after the employee ends their employment. The employer must date and keep copies of:

1) Various pages of passports – these include, but are not limited to, any page with the document expiry date, details of the holder’s date of birth, nationality, signature, biometric details, photograph and date at which their leave expires

2) Any other documents in full, such as a Residence Permit

The importance of hiring responsibly and legally cannot be overstated. The positives that illegal workers may bring to a business may be all too tempting to capitalise on, but the consequence of doing so could be detrimental to the entire company and should be avoided at all costs.

Image: UK visa via Shutterstock

Read more:
Avoid the pitfalls of hiring illegal workers

The controversial undervaluation of the Royal Mail last year cost British taxpayers over £750 million. It also severely dented the reputation of Business Secretary Vince Cable.

Cable valued shares in the 500-year-old national institution for 260-330 pence each, but their market value rose soon after purchase. At one point they even reached 615p, nearly double Cable’s pricing.

A report by the National Audit Office in April stated that while the Government achieved its primary objective, selling the Royal Mail, it could have attained a considerably better deal for taxpayers if they had not rushed into selling the shares at a cautious low price.

On the back of this, the importance of getting the right valuation for your company could not be clearer, especially if you are considering venture capital investment or selling on. Here are my five tips for getting the right valuation for your firm.

Research the likely asking price

Gather the sales prices of any similar businesses in your locality. This will give you a rough figure of what you could receive for your business. The more you find out, the better idea you will have, so aim to look through sales from the past year to take account of trends and changes. If you cannot find out the information yourself, politely ask your contacts if they can help you by sharing anything they may have on their own businesses. You would be surprised what you can find out by just asking.

Get your financial and legal records in order

It is a time-consuming task, but making sure that your finances and contractual arrangements are in order is vital if you want a fair valuation. In some cases it will add to the ultimate worth of the business. Comb through your account books and check that every outgoing has been noted. Things that are often forgotten include loan repayments and money allocated for flexible or part-time wages, so make sure you have covered them.

You should also speak to corporate finance specialists who will have a good idea of the type of multiples to apply for the purposes of valuing your business.

Know your assets

There are two types of assets to bear in mind – tangible and intangible.

Tangible assets, or hard assets, are physical items that the company owns. This includes all company infrastructure like buildings, furniture, technology and virtually anything you can touch that has a cash value. This is especially important if you are liquidating your company.

On the other hand, intangible assets are the invisible things that form part of your business’ value. These include your ‘brand value’, the size of and information about your client or customer bases, your industry knowledge, your reputation and your position within the market. It also includes expenses, operating costs, exclusivity rights such as copyrights or trademarks, ongoing contracts and any endorsements or attachments that you have (for example, if you are part of a franchise).

Consider the types of sale you may have

You need to be prepared for the different types of offer you may receive. Cash sales tend to have a lower figure than sales on credit or longer-term repayment. Make sure that if someone offers to pay you back over a period of time, they realise that paying a larger lump sum at the start of the deal will result in smaller monthly repayments and therefore a higher monthly net profit, and vice versa. 

Finally – make things easier for yourself and get the right advisors involved

Plan well in advance; rushing into deals is highly unadvisable, as displayed by the Royal Mail fiasco. Be realistic about your value and record each step you take towards working it out so that you have the calculations to share with potential buyers. If the task of valuating your business seems too difficult or you would rather hand it over to someone else, hire experts with relevant field knowledge and resources to get you the accurate figures you need.

If you engage the services of legal and financial experts, who’s day job is to deal with such matters, the process will prove much more controlled and cost effective. It may actually save you money rather than cost you in fees when you consider what such professionals add to the process.

Image: growth concept via Shutterstock

Read more:
How to get the right valuation for your company

Previously ten million people had the right to request flexible working practices, which has now been increased to twenty million people.

While some businesses have complained that this increase in the right to request flexible hours will be detrimental to productivity, this change to the law also presents opportunities for businesses. Small companies in particular could benefit from this if, for example, they want to extend their opening hours without increasing costs.

However, as with any change in employment legislation, there are understandable concerns about the situations that employers may now face. Here are some examples of how best to resolve any issues that arise in the workplace as a result of today’s change in law.

The business does not have the budget for a proposed job-share arrangement

Two colleagues of the same level would like to apply for a job share, which you as a manager are open to. When looking over their applications, you discover that they both want to work three days a week, which isn’t possible on your current payroll. The contract they are proposing would create a burden of additional costs, and is unfeasible. In this position, you must be seen to consider alternatives. You could offer them each a 2.5 day week, or they could split the five days a different way between them. If an agreement cannot be reached, the employer would be allowed to turn down the application.

Current staff are unable to cope with workload caused by flexible working

A more experienced employee wants to work flexibly, but other junior members of the team are still being trained. It would not be possible for the employer to grant the request at this stage, as others team members will not be able to cope with the workload and responsibility, so customers or clients would suffer. In this instance, it is best to explain the business case behind turning down the request but offer a review of the request during an agreed time period when training has been completed and the rest of the team are more capable of picking up the slack.

A client or customer-facing employee requests compressed hours

An employee who liaises with clients or customers proposes to work longer hours four days a week in order to have one day off. This presents a problem as it restricts when meetings can be arranged. This situation would call for a trial period, after which you as a manager can ask the other members of the team how they thought it went, as well as asking customers how they felt about the arrangement. You may find that it works better for customers, as they were able to have meetings outside of their own working hours. Only on completion of the trial period should a permanent arrangement be agreed. The key in this situation is to be upfront with customers about the employee in question’s working patterns in order to manage expectations and avoid conflict or difficult questions.

Further advice

In small business in particular, the process of considering proposals for flexible working contracts can take its toll, especially when you have to reject some while accepting others.

To ease the process along, my advice is:

· Make sure employees take into account the effect their proposal may have on the business. This has to be set out in their proposal, and assists them in seeing things from your perspective.

· You, as an employer, must be seen to be exploring all options when considering a proposal, this can include trial periods and agreeing to reassess the contract at a later date.

· In order to avoid confusion, make sure any agreements are laid out in writing and the employee can, if they choose, have a witness present at any meetings.

· Most importantly, take into account the Equality Act when considering applications to avoid any possible discrimination issues that may arise.

Throughout the process, it is important to maintain effective communication to ensure employees know that they are being taken seriously and their proposals are being considered fairly and on an equal footing.

Read more:
Advice on handling new flexible working scenarios

On National Happiness Day, I provide my advice for businesses to help boost the happiness of their teams.

Ensuring your business is a happy place for employees is key to boosting productivity and achieving success. Research from Warwick Business School suggests that happier workers are 12% more productive and the performance of unhappier workers actually slumps by 10%. This month, I share tips on how to help your team maximise its potential by injecting some shiny happy thinking into your workplace.

In a happy place?  

Each year, the Sunday Times publishes its Top 100 Best Companies to Work For, judging firms on aspects such as how employees feel about senior staff, whether companies give back to the community and whether or not they get a fair deal with their pay and benefits.

Companies like Save Britain Money Group, from BBC Three’s The Call Centre, feature regularly on the list. Although many viewers question its working practices – dismissing the mandatory ice-breaker karaoke session for new starters as cringeworthy – the fact the firm has been in the top five of the Sunday Times list for two years straight suggests it must be doing something right.

So, how could you boost that feel-good factor in your place of work? I share my top tips below.

Appreciation

Show your employees that you recognise their achievements both big and small. Thank them for their hard work and don’t wait until appraisals to show praise. It sounds so simple but employers often forget the impact a ‘thank you’ or ‘well done’ can make. It shows employees that their hard work doesn’t go unnoticed and their contributions are valued. You could also promote positive news as widely as possible, on a staff noticeboard, for example, or in internal newsletters.

Lead by example

Good moods are contagious, so be happy around your team. Smile, say hello and try to encourage good humour as part of your daily routine.  Encourage others to do the same, especially senior staff, as this will build a sense of community in the workplace.

Get involved

Take an interest in your staff. Ask questions! Find out about their families and interests. By getting to know your employees better, you will have a better understanding of their characters and personalities. This will help you identify individual strengths and opportunities for development, allowing you to coach staff to play to their strengths.

Get staff involved

You can help staff feel involved in the company, by asking them for ideas and their thoughts on projects. This could be achieved by holding regular brainstorming sessions, and by seeking suggestions to improve the way things are done. Great ideas can come from everybody in an organisation. If staff feel included in decision-making, they feel valuable to the company, resulting in increased commitment. By giving staff the freedom to contribute to decision-making, you can foster a more motivated, empowered workforce.

Empowerment

If an employee feels trapped in their role with no room for growth, they can become demotivated and productivity suffers. Make your staff aware of the progression opportunities available to them. Continuous development, through training programmes and skills workshops, should be encouraged. Employees will gain new knowledge and abilities, making them feel challenged and stimulated in the workplace. The result is lower turnover and a more engaged workforce.

Healthy Environment

Half the battle for creating a happy team is to create a healthy and welcoming working environment, a place where workers want to go in the mornings. To do this, offices should offer good lighting, natural sunlight where possible, comfortable furniture, fresh water, plants and colour.  Health promotion should also be encouraged through stress management courses, nutritional advice and exercise promotion.

Work-Life Balance 

Many employees may feel unhappy because the balance between their work and home life leans too much in the wrong direction. If workers feel their home life is suffering, then their professional life can also suffer as a result of this stress. To combat this, employers should offer flexible working options, wherever possible and practicable, so employees can balance their professional and home lives more easily. Also, employers can benefit from actively persuading over-dedicated staff to take time off work to relax and recharge.

Socialising

Encouraging staff to get out of their work routine is a good thing. Plan fun events for staff to take part in outside of office hours, and make a social budget available for valuable team-building activities. If friendships are formed at work, it can make staff look forward to their working day and it makes for closer, more productive teams.

As an employer, we have benefited from following these rules every day, with a number of team members staying with us for over 20 years – we even have one associate still working with us in his 90s! All this evidence shows that maintaining a healthy and happy workplace boosts motivation and results in increased productivity. Taking the time to incorporate some of these suggestions into your everyday working life, and investing in the well-being of your team, doesn’t just feed good; it pays dividends.

Read more:
How to foster a happy and harmonious workplace

Former professional footballer Stan Collymore, who has been the victim of racial abuse on social networks on numerous occasions, has accused Twitter of not doing enough to combat abusive messages after he was again targeted by internet ‘trolls’.

Police have confirmed they are investigating a series of offensive messages directed at the ex-England striker, which were sent after he suggested Liverpool striker Luis Suarez cheated by diving during a recent match against Aston Villa.

Collymore retweeted some of the abuse he has received since the match to his half a million followers, as he called on Twitter to take action.

The 42-year-old, who was racially abused by two students a couple of years ago, wrote: “In the last 24 hours I’ve been threatened with murder several times, demeaned on my race, and many of these accounts are still active. Why?

“I accuse Twitter directly of not doing enough to combat racist/homophobic/sexist hate messages, all of which are illegal in the UK.”

Speaking on Radio 4’s Today programme he blasted Twitter, claiming that the site appeared to be more interested in making money than protecting its users

He said: “I just wonder whether a couple of months after a stock market flotation on the New York Stock Exchange that monetises the amount of users, that this is Twitter looking at the number of pounds or dollars rather than its social responsibility.”

He added: “There have been people that I know who have reported individual accounts and have reported to the Met police and various police stations around the country, and racist abuse has stayed on people’s timelines for months. We’re not talking days, we’re talking months.”

Mr Collymore is not the only high profile figure to have allegedly received abuse over Twitter. Feminist campaigner, Caroline Criado-Perez, received abuse after her campaign for a woman to appear on a bank note resulted in Jane Austen being selected for the £10 note.

Prosecuting Allison Morgan stated that Ms Criado-Perez had received abusive messages from 86 Twitter accounts, including death threats from both Isabella Sorley and John Nimmo, the two people convicted of posting abusive messages this month.

“Caroline Criado-Perez has suffered life-changing psychological effects from the abuse which she received on Twitter,” she told the court.

“In particular, the menacing nature of the tweets sent by both defendants caused her significant fear that they would find her and carry out their threats.”

Those convicted for sending electronic messages that are ‘grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character’ violate Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, a crime which is on the rise. In the past two years, nearly 2,500 people have been convicted of such abuse. This figure has risen from just 143 convictions in 2004, and shows no sign of decreasing.

Given that this is an offense punishable by up to six months in prison, we have to ask whether social networks themselves are doing enough to prevent this type of behaviour.

Twitter has introduced a ‘report’ feature within web browsers and on its apps, allowing users to flag abusive or offensive tweets to moderators. But is this enough to discourage such torrid behaviour?

While this feature helps to condemn those purposely abusing others for their own amusement, it doesn’t help to educate most people regarding the significance of their 140-character statements.

As high-profile investigations trigger the debate, it is unsurprising that an array of civil cases come into the public fold. Microblogging site Tumblr has received criticism, following the tragic case of Tallulah Wilson. The gifted 15-year-old ballerina threw herself under a train in October 2012. Her mother condemned the “toxic digital world” for contributing to her death, by allowing young people to share explicit images of self-harming. The jury concluded that Tallulah took her own life and that Tumblr was both a comfort to her and the source of inappropriate images of self-inflicted injuries. The judge shared: “This case has highlighted the importance of online life for young people. We all have a responsibility to gain better understanding of this.”

Despite these very public cases, many people are still seemingly unaware of the dangers of posting content online. Tweets are not private and by no means disappear like words in conversation. In legal terms, every comment posted online is considered as published, and ‘retweets’ and ‘shares’ only increase the impact of a person’s words – and the potential repercussions.

Social media sites, such as Twitter and Facebook, should warn their users about posting comments online, as they could be in breach of laws beyond the Communications Act.

Here in Wales, nine people were forced to pay £624 to a woman raped by footballer Ched Evans after they admitted naming her on Twitter and Facebook.

They were all charged with publishing material likely to lead members of the public to identify the complainant in a rape case, contrary to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.

All nine of those who pleaded guilty claimed they didn’t know that naming a rape victim was itself a crime, yet ignorance of the law is no defence.

While social media sites have legal status as an intermediary and can’t tell us what we can or can’t post online, I believe there is a line that can be crossed and certainly an increasing sense of responsibility for them to warn us of the potential significance of our posts. Too many people are unaware of the risks associated with making controversial statements online and it is certainly an issue that social media sites should seriously consider if they want to reduce the number of offensive statements posted on them. After all, prevention is always better than the cure.

Read more:
After Stan Collymore affair should social networks do more to police themselves?

The office Christmas party is a great opportunity to reward staff for their hard work throughout the year and boost morale.

It also provides an occasion for staff and managers to bond and mix in a relaxed setting away from the office. However, it can also be a source of pitfalls for the ill prepared employer.

Here’s my quick-fire advice on making the most of your Christmas party and avoiding a legal hangover once it is over.

Before the party

Even when a party takes place somewhere other than in the workplace, it’s important to remember that employment laws still apply and employers may be liable for incidents that take place at official work-related social events.

Drink-fuelled behaviour is the root cause of many tribunal claims each year, and without risking being seen as party-poopers, employers should consider reminding staff of what constitutes unacceptable behaviour at staff social events – as well as highlighting the likely consequences of such behaviour.

Think about your staff

Make the event as inclusive as possible. Not all staff will celebrate Christmas because of their religious beliefs. Some may not drink alcohol and others may not be able to eat certain foods. Take this into account and not only are you more likely to avoid a complaint but your staff will be able to see how much you value them.

If you are hiring an entertainer then make sure they are appropriate and brief them to ensure that they do not have potentially offensive material.

Secret Santa

By its very nature a ‘secret Santa’ allows anonymity to the gift giver. Staff may feel they have carte blanche to give humorous or adult gifts. However, what is funny for one person could be offensive to another and may open the employer to accusations of harassment or bullying. Make it clear to your staff what is acceptable and what will not be tolerated before anything happens to upset an employee.

Limit the amount of alcohol

You can’t necessarily prevent your staff from over-indulging at the Christmas party but you can reduce the risk by limiting the amount of alcohol available. If you have an open bar, give your staff vouchers for a set number of drinks and always make sure there are non-alcoholic options available.

Avoid talking about work

It’s the Christmas party after all, you want to enjoy yourself and celebrate with your staff. However, there is more to this than just having a good time. As the drink flows, tongues start to wag. If you start talking about the latest promotions, bonuses or salary rises, something could be said that could backfire at a later date. The best way to avoid this is by not talking about work at all, although this is easier said than done.

The day after

If you are able to do so, book your Christmas party for a day at the end of your working week. That way you will be safe in the knowledge that your staff won’t be arriving to work worse for wear. If you must have your party during the working week (or if your company operates seven days) let staff know what is expected of them the following day.

If your staff will be driving or operating machinery the day after, be aware that alcohol can remain in the body the following morning. Think about safety of your staff and customers at all times.

By following these simple instructions, and adhering to common-sense principles, you and you team can avoid a legal hangover the next morning

Read more:
How to avoid a legal hangover at the office Christmas party

Employment legislation is certainly an area of debate at the moment among business owners, with yet more changes coming into affect at the latter part of last month, following previous amendments that the UK Government made earlier this year.

The new changes specifically relate to unfair dismissal claims and the procedures that staff members should take when considering making such a claim.

The median compensation claim for unfair dismissal costs each business £4,560. Now this might not sound like a large amount for multimillion-pound profit-making companies, but for the most SMEs, this could represent a significant outlay.

Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service – the agency that is responsible for the administration of the courts of England and Wales – also highlighted a 44 per cent rise in unfair dismissal claims before the new rules took effect, with some 15,300 claims made in the quarter to September 2012. This was compared to 10,600 in the three months leading up to June.

Therefore, with unfair dismissal claims seemingly on the up, and rule-changes occurring so frequently, this piece summarises the latest amendments and advise you on exactly what you need to be aware of to reduce the likelihood of a claim being made against your business.

Tribunal Fees
Employers should be aware that employees who now wish to issue a claim against their company will now be required to pay a fee. The amount of each fee will depend on the type of claim. More straightforward claims are allocated to the ‘Level 1’ category, referring to claims that require very little or no case management work, such as claims for unlawful deductions from wages and redundancy payments. All other claims fall in the ‘Level 2’ category and involve more complex issues, such as claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination, equal pay and whistleblowing.

Tribunal Procedure
The previous system of case management discussions and pre-hearing reviews will now be combined into one ‘preliminary hearing.’ A more rigorous paper sifting stage will take place to ensure that weaker cases do not proceed through the system, and tribunals will now encourage parties to go through the process of mediation.

Interest
The interest on unpaid tribunal awards will run from the day following the date the judgement is sent to the parties, and no interest will be payable if the amount is paid within 14 days. Interest on discrimination awards will increase to 8%, up from 0.5%.

Compensation
Payouts for successful claims will be capped at one year’s salary or £74,200 (whichever is lower) and does not include pension contributions, benefits in kind or discretionary bonuses.

Pre-termination Negotiations
Employers are able to engage in ‘pre-termination negotiations’ with an employee, even where no formal dispute has yet arisen. Under the new law, employers can enter into termination discussions at any time with their staff without fear of the discussions being used against them.

Compromise Agreements
Compromise Agreements have now been renamed ‘settlement agreements’ and are designed to make it easier for employers to agree departing terms with employees. Despite the change of name, it remains a legally binding document, and once signed, an employee cannot bring a claim against their employer. The offers and discussions of a proposed settlement instigated by an employer also cannot be used to influence unfair dismissal claims at an employment tribunal.

Beware
Now is a particularly important time for employers ensure they are up to speed with the ongoing changes to UK employment law, especially as more amendments are now taking place in areas such as employee-shareholders and the Equality Act. Nobody wants to get caught out by these changes, so watch this space!

Read more:
Unfair dismissal: Keeping businesses up to speed

This year has seen changes to redundancy terms for employers, with the government halving the time a company needs to consult with staff before making large-scale redundancies.

The change is part of the UK Government’s wider review of employment law, which has already seen the doubling of the number of years an employee needs to work at a company before being able to make an unfair dismissal claim.

As of this year, businesses considering laying off 100 or more staff have to undertake a minimum consultancy period of 45 days, during which time they are expected to talk to staff and unions before deciding how many and which jobs will be lost. Under the old rules on collective redundancy, the minimum period was 90 days.

Firms that want to make between 20 and 100 posts redundant will have to consult with staff for a minimum of 30 days, as previously.

The new rules, which do not apply in Northern Ireland, exclude fixed-term contracts, which means anyone who has an end date written into their contract will not need to be consulted about what happens to them afterwards. Employers will, however, have to consult fixed-term staff if they want to make their positions redundant early.

So how can firms protect themselves in the context of the new employment law terms?

Is it a genuine redundancy?

Make sure that an authentic redundancy situation exists. There are generally three types of redundancy situations such as closure of business as a whole; closure of a particular workplace where the employee was employed; or the reduction in the size of the workforce.

Employees cannot challenge whether the employer acted reasonably in identifying the redundancy situation. However, an Employment Tribunal can investigate whether the redundancy is genuine, i.e. the real reason for dismissal.

Explain the need for the restructure

While employees may not like what they hear, they will be more likely to accept it if they understand the reason.  If your firm is going through a tough time and needs to downsize, this is likely to be apparent to your team before any formal restructure is announced.  Inform employees what the restructuring will do for the firm – you must give hope to those who will remain.

Ensure that you follow your own redundancy procedures

If you have a company redundancy procedure, make sure you follow it.  If you don’t, you put your firm at risk of complaints of an unfair dismissal at an Employment Tribunal. By following the process, you will ensure that you provide your employees with the relevant information at the appropriate time.

Ensure selection criteria for redundancy is fair and objective

Devise a redundancy matrix to select who may be made redundant using selection criteria. Ensure that this is capable of being measured or you could be at risk of being considered discriminatory. Reflect the needs of the business when selecting who may be made redundant.

Selection criteria can include skills, experience and performance, but again, these must be quantified.  Sickness absence can be taken into consideration but be careful in case there may be a disability discrimination viewpoint on that.

Consult with staff from the outset

Once you have identified which employees are at risk of redundancy, they should be advised of this and told the length of the consultation period. This will vary depending on the proposed number of employees possibly being made redundant. Be sure to stay up-to-date as these periods are subject to change!

All employee consultation meetings should be face-to-face and feedback opportunities must be provided.

Look at suitable alternative employment

With each employee at risk of being made redundant, if possible, try and look for alternative employment elsewhere within the company. If you find a suitable opportunity and the employee refuses to accept it, they may lose the right to redundancy compensation.

Set up a dismissal meeting and provide the right to appeal

If compulsory redundancy cannot be avoided, you must organise a dismissal meeting and confirm in writing giving the right to be accompanied.  Confirm the decision to terminate employment during the meeting.

The termination letter should set out the terms of appeal to a more senior manager providing the right to be accompanied.

Nobody wants to enforce redundancies on their staff, but by following these steps, your business will put itself in a strong position should any legal action be taken.

Read more:
Redundancy: My top tips for employers

Social media has many benefits, especially for small businesses. It can allow them to increase their reach in a fairly short amount of time, and at a fraction of the cost of advertising. It can also help a business to express a less corporate ‘face’ and to build a strong brand identity.

However, alongside this potential, there are of course pitfalls; often occurring when members of your team voice their opinions on sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Disclaimers such as ‘views are my own’ – frequently used in people’s Twitter bylines – may appear to protect their employer, however their opinions may be viewed negatively by customers or potential clients, and these associations can have long term repercussions.

To many, social media posts sent during an employee’s working hours – and through their working networks – will be seen as authorised or approved by the employer, even if that is not actually the case. This can represent a risk to businesses, as the principles of vicarious liability – in which an employer can be found liable for the acts or omissions of its employees – can be applied to posts online.

Social media (mis)use can also affect an employee’s career, as well as a company’s corporate reputation.

Paris Brown, the UK’s first Youth Police and Crime Commissioner, was hired aged just 17 to provide a link between the police and young people.

Within days of her appointment, offensive tweets she had posted previously – some of which had racist and homophobic undertones – were uncovered by the media, leading to her swift resignation from the post. Her employer was widely – and rightly – lambasted for not conducting cursory research on Miss Brown’s social media activity before offering her the high-profile role.

As a prospective employer, there is nothing to stop you using a search engine to assess a candidate’s credentials and digital footprint.

In fact, it’s difficult to complain when an employee does something online that could bring your business into disrepute, if you have neglected to do your homework.

When clients ask us for advice in this area, we suggest that employers conduct a social media ‘audit’ on every potential candidate to protect themselves.

And if you thought it was only personal accounts that can get people into hot water, think again. Oddbins – a high street alcohol trader – suspended a manager of a local branch, after its Crouch End branch Twitter feed came up with an unusual way to market itself following the death of Margaret Thatcher: offering money off champagne.

The now-deleted tweet said that the store was offering money off Taittinger branded champagne, in case ‘anyone feels like celebrating’.

Your opinions of this unorthodox marketing method will no doubt vary, but the fact is this tweet resulted in disciplinary action against the author, and once again underlines the care people should take; whether acting as themselves or representing their company directly.

So what should employers do?
Firstly, to protect your business you should introduce effective policies and procedures that set out acceptable (and unacceptable) social media practices, and to manage any potential issues in a clear and consistent way.

A social media policy is crucial for most firms. Policies should give clear examples of unacceptable practices, such as not using Facebook and Twitter during work hours, posting anything that may cause reputational damage to yours and your clients’ businesses, disclosure of confidential information and harassment of colleagues.

Companies should also routinely evaluate every new candidate’s social media posts as a part of the recruitment process. Prevention is always the best cure, and if you spot posts that you believe could potentially jeopardise the reputation of your firm, this process could be priceless.

Meanwhile, employees should always consider the implications for the company, but also for themselves, when posting anything on social media. Comments about another person or business could be considered as libelous and legal action could be taken.

We should all express caution regarding our posts on social media. We may believe that an angry tweet is less likely to be considered defamatory than a published article, but in legal terms this is not the case. For that reason we should be wary every time we publish material in the public domain, no matter how trivial it may seem.

Read more:
Social not-working: Be careful what your employees tweet

Issues such as delayed or reduced payment have been embedded within construction disputes since time immemorial.  However, new data highlights the sheer scale of the problems.  A survey by StreetwiseSubbie.com suggests nearly 90% of subcontractors have suffered from late payments, non-payment or tactics designed to lower the sums paid to them in the past 12 months.

In addition, figures from the Federation of Master Builders suggest that 70% of SMEs surveyed believe material costs will rise in the next 6 months, whilst just 20% consider they will be in a position to raise output prices.

The inevitable result is a continuing squeeze on margins at both ends.  The need to prioritise cashflow remains essential, while also ensuring proper payment is made for the work undertaken.  Managing this often means avoiding debates over payment entitlements wherever possible.

Attempts have been made by government to limit such difficulties. Changes twelve months ago to the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 were designed to improve cashflow, remove onerous contract conditions and promote Adjudication as a fast track dispute resolution process.  However the latest statistics prove that difficulties over payments continue. So enough of the negative, what can you do to place yourself in the best position to avoid such difficulties? Here are some tips.

Dictate your own terms
If you are in the enviable position of being able to retain your own contract terms, take advantage of this by ensuring they are worded in your favour.

Knowledge is power
I am always amazed at how often I encounter entities, who have signed a contract without understanding its content.  When problems start, the contract is always the first place to look. Knowing your terms in advance is the key. Often in construction contracts there are conditions which require set actions within specific timetables. Compliance with such terms is essential and should be implemented as good practice throughout your organisation.

Understand your client
Ultimately good relationships tend to translate into better cashflow.  By understanding what it is your client is looking to achieve and their own difficulties, you will not only help them avoid issues, but also be able to see the warning signs.

Spot the danger
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it identifies decision-making or omissions which contributed to disputes.  Take the time to step back and view your position from an objective standpoint and avoid falling into the trap of complacency.

Record, records, records
Accurate records are often the difference between success and failure when a dispute arises.  Steps such as a daily contract record or photographic diary can make the difference, especially where issues arise regarding the nature and scope of work carried out.  The aforementioned changes to legislation allowing oral construction contracts to be referred to Adjudication reinforces the need for a reliable evidential record.  Any oral discussions or agreements must be followed up in accordance with the written contract terms.

It is impossible to exclude every issue with non or delayed payment.  However the above practical steps should limit their occurrence  and make them easier to resolve.  When faced with well-documented contract compliance and supporting evidence, the commercial balance between not paying and entertaining a formal dispute with the significant danger (and cost) of losing often shifts the balance in favour of paying up.

The above advice also applies to employers and main contractors.  Serious consideration should be given to the risk and reward to be gained from driving down price.  There is no doubt competitive pricing is achievable, but care needs to be taken not to move past the tipping point.  Achieving the desired quality can be risked by consistent non or reduced payment, alongside the damaging scenario of a half built construction project with an insolvent contractor.

Read more:
Prevention is better than the cure: Managing cashflow in construction contracts

Recent research has found that nearly two thirds of workers eat their lunch at their desk every day, with many admitting they would feel ‘guilty’ if they left the office for their allocated hour.

Many workers are no longer paid for their lunch breaks, and therefore have every legal right to leave the premises for a full 60 minutes each and every day.

So why are we rushing out to pick up a quick meal deal and heading straight back to dine ‘al desco’?

Put simply, times are tough for most companies at the moment and employees are feeling this strain more than anybody. So while stomachs might be calling for lunch, there’s a good chance that the boss is calling even louder for the completion of the next piece of work.

Sure, we would all enjoy being able to leave the office – and to leave our emails there while we’re at it – to enjoy a leisurely lunch for a full 60 minutes, but the fact is it just isn’t viable for the majority of employees anymore.

So is eating at your desk as disgusting as Anna Soubry has suggested, and if so, can it harm your health?

Dr Ron Cutler, a microbiologist at Queen Mary University of London, believes a quick lunch at the desk could be potentially threatening to your health:

He said: “The crumbs that accumulate on your desk and in your keyboard provide a perfect environment for bacteria and fungi to thrive.

“The temperature in offices is typically around 20C, the point at which staphylococcus can breed, causing diarrhoea and vomiting — which is why leaving your sandwich on your desk all morning is also a risk.

“And the more people who share office equipment or desks, the greater the risk of catching a bug.

“The more people use certain equipment, the more germs will be on it.”

It appears then, that your desk probably isn’t the most hygienic place to consume your lunch.

So how can companies maintain staff productivity levels, while lowering their exposure to such potentially unsanitary conditions?

The simple answer would be to introduce a ban on staff eating at their desks and force them to leave the office. However, this might result in them feeling extra pressure to meet deadlines and leave them feeling frustrated.

Although, having said that, I used to work at a busy law firm in Paris, were the lunchtime culture resulted in two-hour breaks filled with eating and exercise – not at the same time of course – and productivity levels didn’t seem to suffer at all.

Eating away from the desk may even result in workers taking less sick leave, as germs are prevented from traveling around the office so freely, and therefore output levels might actually increase.

The other option, and probably the more viable one to many businesses, is to introduce a regular cleaning process. This would ensure that desks and workstations are fully cleaned and sterilised, reducing the number of germs in circulation.

To ensure that employers are acting lawfully, they must also be aware of their employees’ rights when it comes to lunch-time dining:

• For employers, ensure that you include break periods within contracts of employment so that your staff know what to expect each lunch time.

• If this is not the case, the Working Time Regulations state that an adult employee is entitled to a 20 minute rest break, during a daily working time of more than 6 hours per day, and under normal circumstances, they are absolutely entitled to take that rest break wherever they want, including leaving the premises.

• However, breaks cannot be taken at the end of the working day – it must be somewhere in the middle.

• Employers have the right to manage the time when breaks are taken, as long as it meets these conditions.

• Employees have no statutory right to take smoking breaks.

To summarise, however your company chooses to combat the issue of eating ‘al desco’, the most important factor for many employers is the productivity and motivation of their staff. Whatever you decide to do, be sure to consult your team and involve them in any decision you make. If you can achieve staff buy-in, creating the lunchtime culture you want will be much easier.

Read more:
Government health minister says eating at desks is ‘disgusting’, but should it be banned?

Anyone for spaghetti bolog-neighs? While the horse meat scandal has been a god-send for wannabe comedians on the social networks, it has prompted a wave of criticism of retailers and major food brands.

What began as an isolated problem with one supplier has now become a political and economic problem as retailers and ministers alike struggle to deal with the crisis.

Big name supermarkets and leading frozen meal supplier Findus have all found themselves at the eye of the storm, after being found selling horse meat despite assuring that they have stringent checks in place to test the quality of their food products. The saga has highlighted the difficulties in monitoring and securing a reliable supply chain, even for the biggest brands.

Nasty surprises in the supply chain are nothing new, as we saw when Apple, Dell and HP came in for a barrage of negative publicity when poor working conditions were uncovered at one of their Chinese suppliers, Foxconn.

One of the harsh realities of dealing with global supply chains is that it can be incredibly difficult to keep tabs on every single sub-contractor. In the case of Tesco, it had a number of controls in place to ensure the quality of its meat products, including regular audits and approved sub-contractor lists that are all British Retail Consortium accredited.

In fact, Tesco told the environment, food and rural affairs select committee that it carries out over 20,000 tests a year for quality and adherence to strict specifications.

It had visited the supplier that produced the burgers found to contain horse meat three times in 2012 to audit its practices, yet it still slipped through the net. Investigations suggest the supplier in question had been buying in meat from an unapproved Polish supplier for as long as a year, and Tesco had no knowledge of this link in the chain.

Any supply chain relies on a certain amount of trust between the parties involved and the supplier in this case has now lost lucrative contracts with a number of supermarkets.

But that’s by no means signals the end of the problem. The authorities are now considering whether there has been some kind of international conspiracy to substitute beef for the more cheaply produced horsemeat.

At the moment, investigations are focussed on protecting public health and addressing understandable consumer concerns. But how long before we hear of procurement fraud? In legal terms, this could take a range of forms. Product substitution to the supplier is one possibility, as it is unlikely the buyer requested ‘horse meat’ in its product specification. Then there is the issue of product substitution to the consumer; would consumers have bought the product if they were aware of the substitution? Then there is the spectre of possible bribery and corruption. Who was aware of the product substitution? If so did money change hands to those complicit in the actions?

The lesson that many big brands have learnt the hard way is that if someone is determined to do something illegal, if they are good at covering their tracks, it can be difficult to uncover. For us as consumers, that is a scary thought. What else are we eating, buying and using daily that isn’t quite what it seems?

Increasingly, consumers are demanding cheaper products, which means supply chains have become longer and more complex – which obviously presents hidden dangers. Any organisation with multiple suppliers should ask itself: Do I have clear visibility of my supply chain? Do I know how long my supply chain is? And do I really know who my suppliers are, or has the work been subcontracted so far down the supply chain that it’s just too much trouble to delve deeper?

It is true that the longer the supply chain, the harder it is to monitor and carry out compliance checks. But what this scandal has shown is that this scrutiny is crucial; not only to protect reputation, but more importantly, to protect others.

One answer is to keep the supply chain as simple as possible; Morrisons has been largely safe from the horse meat scandal because it sources the bulk of its own-label meat in the UK and processes it at its own network of abattoirs.

There are also assurance schemes to boost buyer and consumer confidence – the NFU-backed Red Tractor assurance label, for instance, guarantees meat has been tracked through the entire production process from the farm to packing and labelling.

Some retailers are upping the ante on their testing regimes, but that is unlikely to be sustainable as the cost can run into the millions and this cost will eventually have to be passed on to the consumer.

Intense scrutiny of supply chains by retailers is the only way to avoid unwanted surprises. Scandals such as the horse meat saga dent shoppers’ trust, and at a time when trust in big business is at an all time low, it’s crucial that retailers do everything possible to restore that faith.

And as consumers, perhaps it’s time to reconsider what we expect in return for our money. We may want to enjoy cheap food, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that it could come at a different price altogether.

Read more:
How horse meat scandal puts supply chain issues in the spotlight