All posts by blogger

Make Employee Write Up, Employment Letter Of Recommendation, And Offer Letters Manageable

By blogger on

If you are a supervisor, there are parts of your job that you love. You may like the responsibility, or perhaps you enjoy bringing out the strengths in your employees. Unfortunately, there is likely one area of your job you dislike: employee paperwork.

With supervision of employees brings what feels like a mountain of administrative paperwork. From an employee write up to an employment letter of recommendation to employment offer letters, forms can feel overwhelming.
The a href=”http://www.theofficepress.com/employee-write-up.htm”>Employee Write Up pile can be especially daunting, as the employee write up brings with it many negative emotions. Not only do subordinates feel embarrassment or anger at the site of an employee write up, but many supervisors are uncomfortable discussing one. An employee write up can easily turn into a confrontation instead of the learning tool it was meant to be.

For an employee write up to be beneficial, not just for the individual, but for the company, it must be handled appropriately by the supervisor. The language of the employee write up must be extremely clear and come across as attempting to help the employee get back on track, not as an effort to sabotage a career.
On the complete opposite end of the spectrum is an employment letter of recommendation. If a subordinate is in good standing, an employment letter of recommendation is a good experience for everyone involved. An employment letter of recommendation is a perfect opportunity for positive affirmation.

An employment letter of recommendation can be for a transfer, or an employment letter of recommendation can help a former employee start a new job. When you seek to hire, employment offer letters make your intent official. Employment offer letters must be very clear and well-written.
Because a href=”http://www.theofficepress.com/employment-offer-letters.htm”>Employment Offer Letters are not frequently used in small business, as employment offer letters are only needed if a company expands or replaces a position, they are sometimes over-looked. Employment offer letters are important, however, as employment offer letters may impact the decision of your top recruits.

Even though paperwork may not be your favorite part of the job, these forms serve an essential function. From happy occasions like an a href=”http://www.theofficepress.com/employment-letter-of-recommendation.htm”>Employment Letter Of Recommendation to the often- dreaded employee discipline papers, paperwork is inevitable.
Services do exist to help save time and increase positive outcomes of all the forms discussed here, and more. With these services, your paperwork tasks can be a very manageable part of the day.

Employment Law – Excessive Working Hours – Breach Of Duty Of Care

By blogger on

n the case of Mark Hone v Six Continents Retail Limited (2005), a pub landlord having collapsed due to overwork successfully sued his former employers in the County Court for breach of duty of care.

Mr Hone, the claimant, started working for Bass (now Six Continents) as a pub manager in 1995 and in 1998 was awarded “Pub Manager of the Year”. However, in 1999 he started working at The Old Moat House where he found himself working 13 hour days.

He repeatedly complained to his employers that he was overworked but the employers took no action. He had no assistant manager and other staff members, who left, including two chefs and an administrative worker, were never replaced.

Mr Hone, who had refused to sign a clause opting out of EU legislation that limits the number of hours an employee works, began suffering from headaches and insomnia. In May 2000, he collapsed at work suffering from an anxiety disorder. In 2004, Mr Hone sued Bass for breaching the duty of care owed to him as an employee.

The first instance court ( Swansea County Court ) held that:

Bass had not taken reasonable steps to ensure that Mr Hone did not work over 48 hours, which was likely to cause injury to his health, and that resources were available to employ more support staff for him; and
Bass should pay Mr Hone 21,000 in damages.
Six Continents (formerly Bass) appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal who upheld the Swansea County Court’s judgment.

Comment: This case highlights the importance of not imposing excessive working hours on employees and ensuring that employees have sufficient staff support.

If you require further information contact us at

RT COOPERS, 2005. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.

Ethical Behaviour Risk Factors Lessons From Emilio Botin Abbey Santander 2009

By blogger on

Some of the factors that increase the risk of unethical behaviour in organisations are illustrated by the high-profile legal case Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006), in which the Employment Tribunal made a finding of unlawful racial discrimination and (further to Emilio Botin Abbey Santander banking group’s refusal to comply with the Tribunal’s order to reinstate Mr Chagger) ordered Abbey Banco Santander share to pay Mr Chagger the record-breaking 2.8 million compensation for his loss. Abbey Santander share price (the UK bank soon to be re-branded as Santander banking group, and part of the global Emilio Botin Banco Santander Central Hispano Group – BSCH) dismissed Mr Chagger from his employment in 2006, giving a fair redundancy as the reason. However, Mr Chagger believed that the actual reason behind the termination of his employment was unfairness and race discrimination. Mr Chagger was of Indian origin. He worked for Emilio Botin Abbey Santander finance as a Trading Risk Controller, earning about 100,000 a year, and reporting into Nigel Hopkins.

Some ethical behaviour risk factors illustrated by Emilio Botin Abbey Santander 2009 clearly relate to the pursuit of personal goals; the Employment Tribunal found that Mr Hopkins personally desired Mr Chagger’s employment with Abbey Santander share price to be terminated, had pre-planned that Mr Chagger would be dismissed, and had used the compulsory redundancy process as a means to dismiss Mr Chagger, in an unfair and discriminatory manner.

One such factor increasing the risk of unethical behaviour is the amount of discretion an organisation allows its officers; the greater the discretion allowed, the greater the opportunity the officer has for acting in his personal interests. The Employment Tribunal found that the redundancy selection criteria Abbey Santander had permitted Mr Hopkins to apply in assessing and judging the two employees up for redundancy were highly subjective and un-measurable; they afforded Mr Hopkins a very wide discretion. The Employment Tribunal criticised Mr Hopkins for the way in which he had applied that discretion (i.e., for his own interests). As an example, Mr Hopkins had criticised and scored Mr Chagger lower for getting on with work and being self-reliant. The Employment Tribunal thought that other reasonable managers would consider such qualities to be valuable assets, considering Mr Chagger’s highly paid and highly responsible job, and praise and score him highly for. As a further example, during the redundancy process, Mr Hopkins had criticised Mr Chagger on numerous points that Mr Chagger had never been criticised for prior to the redundancy exercise. All the criticisms were inconsistent with previous company records of Mr Chagger’s performance. The Employment Tribunal ruled that the criticisms were unfair not legitimate.

Another such factor increasing the risk of unethical behaviour is the level of autonomy of decision-making and action an organisation allows its officers; the greater the level of autonomy, the greater the opportunity the officer has for acting in his personal interests. The Tribunal found that Mr Hopkins was entirely single-handedly able to advise Abbey’s management to dismiss one of the two Trading Risk Controllers that he managed (of which Mr Chagger was one), was entirely single-handedly able to make Mr Chagger an offer of voluntary redundancy (Mr Chagger refused the offer, and never was an equivalent offer ever made to the other Trading Risk Controller), was entirely single-handedly able to judge and score the two employees up for redundancy, and was entirely single-handedly able to lower Mr Chagger’s redundancy scores to guarantee that he would be the one who would be selected for dismissal.

A different type of factor also increasing the risk of unethical behaviour is the organisation’s focus; a focus on results rather than processes can imply that the ends justify the means. The UK statutory Code of Practice on Racial Policy in Employment provides organisations with guidance concerning good practices and processes. The Employment Tribunal found that Abbey Banco Santander had failed to comply with those processes. Abbey Grupo Santander had failed to comply with the statutory guidance regarding Equal Opportunity training. Mr Chagger had tried to resolve the issues of unfairness and race discrimination around his dismissal directly with Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins, through the company’s grievance procedures. Santander Abbey had not provided any Equal Opportunity training to any of the managers it had assigned to decide on Mr Chagger’s issues. Not even one manager upheld Mr Chagger’s issues; his issues were simply dismissed out of hand. Emilio Botin Abbey Santander banking group had also failed to comply with the statutory guidance concerning monitoring procedures. The Tribunal found a multitude of monitoring failures (far too many to outline here), as well as the failures to give serious consideration to allegations of racial discrimination and to investigate them promptly.

In 2008, Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) against the original Employment Tribunal’s ruling of racial discrimination; the EAT upheld the original Tribunal’s ruling that both Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger. Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had also appealed against the record-breaking 2.8 million compensation award; the EAT accepted Abbey Santander’s appeal on the compensation award and remitted it to the original Tribunal for reconsideration. In 2009, matters were escalated to the Court of Appeal (the second highest court in the UK). The Court’s List of Hearings showed that the case was heard on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court’s records of the hearing were not available at the time of writing this article. The 11KBW set of barristers’ chambers, who represented Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins, had reported prior to the hearing that the it was to be about quantum only (i.e., compensation) and not about liability (i.e., not about the wrong committed of race discrimination). That would seem to suggest that the wrong of race discrimination committed by Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Nigel Hopkins was finalised by the EAT when it upheld that Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger, and that Mr Chagger had appealed against the EAT’s ruling to send the compensation award back to the Employment Tribunal stage for reconsideration.

Employment Agency

By blogger on

All the people in this world need employment of some sort or the other. We need jobs to live, dream, build and achieve. Employment therefore has become one crucial aspect of life. In this regard employment agencies can help us find work. These organizations find work and help one and all with their solutions and assistance in clinching the right kind of employment that an individual with his given skills can get. They offer assistance in looking for a job, maximize chances of getting a satisfactory work position and also assist us with regard to upgrading our skills in order to retain the jobs we have in hand.

Employment agencies function in the following ways:

1.These agencies become the applicant’s representative in companies where the details of the representative have been submitted. 2. The employment agency screens the candidates when job postings are posted by it on behalf of the company. 3. The agency does not take any kind of remuneration from the candidates when they apply for the job postings. It earns from the organizations that approach the agency for the candidates. 4. Employment agencies earn not from the applicants but from the employers who also hire the agencies for meeting their purpose. 5. Employers hire the agency for a certain period of time. Basing on the number of reliable employees that the company gets from the agency the remuneration or the fees for the company is settled. 6. There are certain agencies that act only as searchers for candidates. They are paid to search for candidates for the company. It so happens that the company gets a candidate on its own, but as per the understanding between the agency and the company the candidate still needs to go through the process of being registered by the agency and go through various processes of getting employed. So this clearly spells out that the agency is solely responsible to the company it has tied up with. Therefore the rumours abiding that the employment agencies are out to fleece money from the candidates is totally baseless.

Employment firms do help job seekers to find employment. However, every applicant must know that in order to find a job, it is not enough to rely solely on the agencies. If possible they need to look out for a job on their own, or advertise their skills and expertise with online agencies to increase their chances of getting a good job.

Sai People Solutions, Inc. – Providing Staffing Services across various parts of USA. As a leader in the staffing industry, we pride in our ability to deliver right staffing resources.

How To Spot employment Gaps Lies

By blogger on

Defining questionable “employment gaps”

Questionable employment gaps are periods on a resume or job application that can’t be verified. Some of the most popular false claims used to cover employment gaps are:

– Freelancing
– Business Owner
– Fictitious Out Of Business Company

A clever and sneaky employee can get these lies past an employer who is not conducting a careful and thorough employee background screening. Most employers do not have the in-house resources to verify these claims. When an employer conducts a background check on their own they will usually only get information on the position held, dates of employment and if the candidate is eligible for rehire.

Fortunately, even for freelance and closed businesses, there is a paper trail. Genuine freelancers and business owners must apply for a fictitious business name and a business license. This is a requirement for most cities regardless of where the work will be performed. For a freelancer, a business license is required even if he or she works from home.

Unfortunately, tracking this information can be confusing and time consuming for most personnel departments and small business owners. Getting the most accurate information is usually best left to a professional pre-employment screening firm, such as Accu-Screen, Inc. They have the resources and experience to readily search and provide the most up to date and accurate information.

Questionable “employment gaps”

Employers need to be careful not to jump to conclusions because freelance and business information may not be readily verified. When this occurs, the employer should request clarification from the job applicant. An employer should ask for references from past clients, projects worked on and milestones. Most freelancers and business owners should be able to give you business references, detailed information on projects and accomplishments.

Similarly, for a situation where a business is no longer operating, a job seeker should be able to provide verification of employment. Verification can include paystubs, tax return, offer of employment letter or proof of any type of recognition received, while employed at the company.

A red flag should be raised if the job seeker can’t provide additional information to verify claims of freelancing, owning a business or a company that is no longer open for business.

Problems with employees who lie about “employment gaps”

When an “employment gap” is discovered, an employer needs to be concerned about the reasons for it. Periods of employment gaps that can’t be verified may be associated with:

– Incarceration
– Involuntary termination

Some job seekers are unlucky while others are just plain deceitful. A professional employment background screening firm, such as Accu-Screen, Inc., can help get to the bottom of these issues by obtaining the most appropriate and accurate information.

When an applicant has these issues in their past or fails to report them, an employer should proceed with caution. These issues need to be handled confidentially and with diplomacy. The issue should be addressed and clarification should be reached before a job offer is made.