All posts in Employment

The uphill battle and intense stress in suing your employer is demonstrated by the high-profile Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006) legal case in the UK, where the Employment Tribunal found race discrimination and subsequently ordered Santander Abbey National to pay the record breaking 2.8 million compensation award. Abbey National Santander Group (the Spanish-owned UK high street bank which will soon be re-branded as Santander share price, and is part of the massive Banco Santander Group) terminated Balbinder Chagger’s employment in 2006, asserting redundancy as the reason. Mr Chagger believed that the real reason behind his dismissal was race discrimination. Santander Abbey National Group employed Mr Chagger (of Indian origin) as a Trading Risk Controller. He was paid about 100,000 per annum and he reported into Nigel Hopkins.

An employee who has suffered discrimination at work could decide to challenge his employer. The challenge may be initiated in the form of a formal grievance. The employee raises the grievance formally with the employer. The employer is responsible for hearing the grievance and deciding its outcome. The employer is, thus, given the opportunity to deal with the employment dispute and to bring it to a satisfactory end. The Employment Tribunal that heard the Abbey Santander price case found that Mr Chagger had attempted to resolve the issues around his dismissal directly with Abbey National and Mr Hopkins, via the company’s own complaints and grievance procedures. The Employment Tribunal also found, however, that Mr Chagger’s issues were simply dismissed out of hand.

If the employee remains dissatisfied with the employer’s handling of the grievance, then he must initiate legal action in order to persevere with his challenge. Mr Chagger, being dissatisfied with the outcome of his grievances, eventually initiated legal proceedings against both Abbey National Santander and Mr Hopkins on the grounds of race discrimination and unfair dismissal, thus, escalating the dispute to the attention of the Employment Tribunal.

An employer (especially a large and powerful organisation such as a major bank) is likely to be a formidable opponent for most employees, possessing vastly superior levels of financial resources, experience of dealing with disputes, legal expertise and plenty time to devote to the challenge.

In stark contrast, the employee will be relatively poor in financial resources, experience and legal expertise, will be hindered by personal circumstances and commitments, and have to make time to devote to the challenge while he also goes about discharging his obligation of mitigating his loss stemming from the discrimination he has suffered. He may also be further hindered by the low economic value of his challenge (the rewards less the costs), and be discouraged by the prospect of being shunned by prospective employers for having brought a legal action against an employer (whether he wins or loses).

The employer may exercise its superiority ruthlessly, without any remorse, in its attempts to coerce the employee into giving up his challenge for as little as possible. To persevere with legal action against such a formidable opponent requires the employee to possess an amazing level of resolve and lots of disposable cash.

Even though the employer might be holding significant advantages and be ruthless, a genuine challenge supported by appropriate evidence has the possibility to be successful, as shown by Mr Chagger who satisfied the Employment Tribunal that Mr Hopkins and Santander Abbey National had unlawfully discriminated against him on the grounds of race in his dismissal. In order to remedy the wrongs of race discrimination and unfair dismissal that Abbey Santander had committed, the Employment Tribunal ordered it to reinstate Mr Chagger. However, Santander Abbey refused to comply with the Employment Tribunal’s reinstatement order.

Despite Mr Chagger’s challenge being genuine and successful, his experience was that other prospective employers shunned him for having brought a legal action against an employer. This, along with Santander Abbey National’s refusal and failure to comply with the Employment Tribunal’s reinstatement order, subsequently led to the record breaking 2.8 million compensation award.

Even if the employee’s legal challenge is successful, the employer may appeal against the Tribunal’s decision and, thus, continue to prolong the employee’s challenge and to erode its economic value through additional legal costs. In 2008, Santander Abbey National and Mr Hopkins continued the legal case by appealing against the Employment Tribunal’s finding of racial discrimination and 2.8 million compensation award. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) that heard the appeals upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s finding that Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger in his dismissal. However, the EAT overturned the Employment Tribunal’s 2.8 million compensation award and sent it back to the original Employment Tribunal for reconsideration.

Even where the issue of the wrong committed has been closed off, the employer may continue to be ruthless in its handling of the issue of remedy/compensation. The Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins case did not end at the EAT stage. This year, 2009, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeal (the second highest court in the UK). The Court of Appeal’s List of Hearings showed that the appeal was listed for hearing on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court’s judgement and records of the hearing were not available at the time of writing this article. The King’s Walk Bench set of barristers’ chambers, who represented Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins, had reported that the Court of Appeal hearing was only about compensation (not racial discrimination also). That would suggest that the wrong of racial discrimination committed by Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins has been finalised by the EAT (which upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s decision that Santander Abbey National and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger in his dismissal), and that Mr Chagger has appealed against the EAT’s decision to send back the 2.8 million compensation award to the Employment Tribunal stage for reconsideration.

As can be seen, winning a discrimination case against a powerful employer is far from easy: it is highly risky and intensely stressful, possibly spanning across many years. The employee should try to have regard for the economic value of his challenge and base his decisions with reference to it, because if the challenge is purely based on principles (no matter how admirable they may be) or spite, then he should prepare to lose lots of money.

Have you ever thought about why oil field employment has such high pay? Not to mention that you only have to work half of the year? Then there are the travel opportunities? Have you ever wondered why the oil companies are so kind? The truth is, they aren’t (kind). The benefits they give you are compensation for these four big problems with jobs in oil field.

1. An Oilfield Job Has Very Long Hours

Most oil field jobs go 14, 21 or even 30 days without a break. Sometimes you have to take a 12-hour day-shift, and other times you have to take a 12-hour night-shift. You work rain or shine, doing dirty and physically strenuous work. Oilfield jobs can take a lot out of you.

2. Working An Oil Field Job Can Cause A Divorce

Oil field employment is best left to bachelors. Society has taught most women that their husbands should at home in the evening after work, or at the very least return home at night. Their husbands are also expected to be at home during the weekends. When your wife does not get what she expects, there will be a great deal of strain on your marriage. Divorces and separations are common among men in oil field jobs.

3. There Is Sometimes Great Danger In An Oilfield Job

Your high pay and bonuses are danger pay. By its nature, an oil well is more dangerous than a factory or warehouse. Many things can go wrong – the drilling rig could blow up, the offshore oil platform could collapse or sink. In addition to that, oil rigs, pipes, workers and infrastructure are often popular terrorist targets, as oil field workers in Nigeria and other Third World countries can tell you.

4. Too Hot, Too Cold, In The Middle Of Nowhere

Most oil fields are in very inhospitable environments in the middle of nowhere. It’s either too cold, like Alaska, north Canada, Siberia and the deep oceans. Or too hot – the Arabian and African deserts. Convenient places like the Texas oil wells no longer exist. People working in oilfield jobs need to deal with sub-zero temperatures, gale-force winds, ice, snow, poisonous snakes and wild animals.

Your very high salary and bonuses for oil field employment is to compensate you for the danger to life and limb. Is this double-pay enough? Only you can decide the worth of your own life. But an oilfield job separates the men from the boys. If you can do the job, you know you are a real man.

Are you seeking work or making a formal proposal to a peer? Then you want to understand the purpose and composition of the covering letter to accompany your resume, application, email, or facsimile.

The covering letter is a short introduction to your main document, generally used to accompany an application or resume for employment. Cover letters should be short and to the point. If you are submitting a resume, you do not need to repeat information in the covering letter. When accompanying your resume, you want that cover letter to highlight the main reason you are writing this person or company, what relevant skills or qualifications you have and why you believe you should be considered for the post.

The main reason for a covering letter is to allow an employee to make a first introduction and so an employer can get a general feel of the applicant’s manner and nature. This is why a covering letter is vital to any application as it is like the opening pages of a book. You want to ensure your application is eye-catching and a good covering letter will allow you to do this.

Cover letters should be set out in the same fashion as a letter and include the following items:

1. The employment post your application is relevant to.

2. Full title of person to whom it is directed or a polite heading, Dear Sir or Madame or To Whom It May Concern if you do not have their name.

3. Brief one or two line informative statement of why you are contacting them and a reference to what topic or position. (This could also be a re: item above spaced across from the heading) This is the area in which you would also indicate any referral information, such as who told you about this job.

4. Briefly highlight what you feel is your best reason for being considered for this job or loan or whatever you are applying for.

5. Polite closing, Thank you or Thank you for your consideration; please feel free to contact me, or, I will be contacting you this week, thank you

You need to keep your covering letter “short and sweet” as it accompanies the main document and you do not wish to bore the receiver. It is important to be concise and clear. If they do not get past your covering letter, your resume will not be seen. Your resume needs to be concise and well organized. Do not include too much, for example irrelevant employment that you held thirty years ago.

At the bottom of your covering letter, just below the closing, you may list what attachments are included. This is your opportunity to show that you have paid attention to their ad by submitting any items they requested be submitted, such as references, salary requirements, etc.

A general rule of thumb, do not go beyond one page. Save the rest for the interview by keeping the employer interest and wanting to invite for an interview personally. A solid application contained within a concise template should assist you in establishing an interview. Good luck!