|
Paying people off
It is an unfortunate side effect of our employment laws that some larger organisations will simply opt to pay staff off under the protection of a compromise agreement when they dismiss them rather than going to the trouble of being “reasonable” and “fair”,.
It appears that public money is being wasted in this way with the HR Director of Network Rail signing over 155 compromise agreements during the past three years – that’s about one a week.
Apparently the same director has come under renewed pressure to resign over allegations of repeated sexual discrimination against staff. The Transport Salaried Staff Association (TSSA) has repeated its call for him to be suspended after his conduct was raised in the House of Commons back in March.
Further allegation is that Network Rail has paid out between £450,000 and £850,000 in compromise agreement settlements to three senior employees. Allegedly, he sacked two female employees who were undergoing fertility treatment, asked another to remove her blouse so he could see her tan lines and called another a name that we are reluctant to print!
Network Rail says it has carried out an investigation and can find no evidence of wrongdoing by the director. It will not be taking disciplinary action against him and labels the actions of TSSA as a nasty personal campaign.
Serial Claimants
Some Companies have been the victim of serial litigants particularly in discrimination claims resulting from applicants allegedly being turned down for jobs because of age or sex.
Whilst larger organisations tend to have strict controls in place the majority of businesses are vulnerable to this form of attack and it can be very costly.
In a recent case a 51 year old experienced female accountant (all of this description relevant and non-discriminatory!) made claims against 20 recruitment agencies. Some of the agencies settled immediately; 6 settled during proceedings and 5 went to Tribunal which they won.
The claimant in question had worked for nine years in a senior management role but applied for over 20 positions which were advertised for recently qualified accountants. She was clearly over qualified for these roles but her applications were intended to result in rejection so that she could bring proceedings based on her age discrimination.
The 5 won their case on the basis that she had no interest in applying for the vacancies but simply wanted to claim compensation and the Tribunal awarded costs against her.
The EAT dismissed her subsequent appeal and said that the Judgement could serve as authority that a job application must be genuine before a statutory disadvantage can be suffered. Costs were to be assessed but each of the five agencies was said to have legal costs of £10,000!
| 
