All posts by blogger

Microsoft Office Examination A Crucial Pre-employment Tests Application

By blogger on

Computer systems currently turn into vital in the workplace, and laptop or computer expertise are getting to be more important now than in the past. Computer programs such as ‘microsoft office’ could increase the productivity of your personnel and also the total business in general. Employees can use the idea to produce a business strategy plan, a letterhead, advertising and marketing materials, any profit-loss screening machine, product sales catalogues, and the like. Miracle traffic bot request offers lightened inside the weight for most workers as it means completion of responsibilities in a more accurate as well as quicker approach.

Right now, Microsoft ‘office’ skills (and also computer knowledge in general) have grown to be more than just a good thing which a staff member may have got. It’s key role in maintaining large productiveness has created it any essential skill. Consequently, if your task outline needs make use of or perhaps just a few understanding of these programs, it’s very important to make certain that your job individuals has the abilities necessary to perform the job. One of the proven approaches to fairly determine personal computer knowledge would be to do an assessment.

Even though ‘microsoft’ features its own certification system, they generally cost big fees to people. ‘microsoft office’ exams for pre-employment employing uses can be obtained by way of professional vendors including Employment Knowledge On-line Analyze. The Microsoft Office assessment is usually the active or perhaps a multiple alternative test that will decide precisely what a potential job candidate is aware of and doesn’t understand. Fun Microsoft ‘office’ exams are generally sim sort where job seekers are asked to perform certain tasks employing device pubs, selections, secret secrets, and so forth. These exams appear while Microsoft Expression, Power point, Outlook, FrontPage and also Shine tests. It is possible to select one or perhaps a mix of these kind of tests, depending on your business’s needs. They also are available in numerous variants; whether your business currently employs the 2010 variation or 2007 as well as 2004 variations, you’ll find an evaluation that will finest match your existing requirements.

Microsoft ‘office’ tests are also available in a variety of amounts, usually throughout novice, more advanced or perhaps innovative amounts. You can select from these levels according to what exactly is needed by the job accessible. In the event the task calls for planning of economic plans and also accounts, you should perform at the very least a great more advanced level in order to innovative degree to make certain high productiveness. Work necessitating in-depth as well as hard core ‘microsoft’ apps might need superior amount evaluation assessments. In addition, in case a job explanation merely needs simple inputting and also small pc expertise, an elementary level assessment might perform. (Regardless of whether employees do not work along with pcs on a daily basis or perhaps when not essential to comprehensive their particular major obligations, they’ll almost certainly encounter that over and over again.)

Can it be important in order to execute any Microsoft Office exam with your pre-employment methods? This is compared to requesting no matter whether Ms office is actually crucial that you total duties with your office. If your reply to the latter is yes, then it’s certainly imperative that you execute any Microsoft knowledge test.

Personal computer skills have become more vital these days than previously. A labor force which is skilled throughout programs for example Microsoft ‘office’ can present you with a better border in the direction of making the most of productiveness. Whether it is in management (characters, faxes, labeling, the envelopes, databases), income (active presentations), advertising (income illegal copies, powerful adverts), financial and also sales, press along with website design, expertise throughout Microsoft Office will really come convenient.

Trethowans Employment Law Five Changes to Employment Law in 2010 (Part Two)

By blogger on

As 2010 gets into full swing, there is set to be a substantial review of the UK’s employment law regulations over the next 12 months. Further to last week’s article, Southampton solicitors Trethowans bring you another five changes to employment law expected to be made by the Government in the coming year:

1.Independent Safeguarding Authority
From November, new workers who wish to work with children or vulnerable adults will need to register with the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA), who will work in partnership with the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) to prevent unsuitable people from working in such environments.

2.Renewed Union Rights Regarding -Blacklisting-
The Government has outlined a number of proposals making it illegal for a company to sack, or refuse employment to a worker based on appearing on a -blacklist- due to their union memberships. The proposals also allow workers or their unions to pursue legal action against those who use, compile or distribute blacklists. The regulations will come into effect in the spring, pending approval by Parliament.

3.Sick Notes to be Replaced With -Fit Notes-
Under the Social Security and Statutory Sick Pay Amendment Regulations, doctors can state whether an individual is able to fully carry out their work, some work, or no work at all. The law, when introduced in April, will also allow doctors to state whether an employee could return to work under altered circumstances, such as reduced hours, amended duties, or adaptations to their working environment.

4.Reduction in Unfair Dismissal Compensation
The overall compensation award for dismissals on or after 1st Feburary will fall from 66,200 to 65,300, while the daily compensation award limit will fall from 21.50 to 21.20

5.Time to Train Initiative
This new scheme gives employees the legal right to request time off for training, under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act. However, employers are within their rights to refuse requests if it can be proven that the employee taking the time off would be detrimental to the business. It will become law for businesses with more than 250 employees in April, with the scheme being extended to cover all businesses 12 months later.

For more information about Trethowans and the services they offer, call 0845 302 4695, or visit the Trethowans website at http://www.trethowans.com/.

——————- Company Description
Trethowans LLP has over 130 people, based in our offices in Salisbury and Southampton. We advise both individuals and businesses, including international groups, national chains, household brand names, major regional businesses, owner-managers, entrepreneurs and SME businesses. Five of our six teams that advise business clients are highly rated by the two independent guides to the legal profession, Chambers Guide to the Legal Profession and the Legal 500.

Home Page

——————- Hit Search Contact
Press release produced and promoted Hit Search. Find out more about us and our services at http://www.hitsearchlimited.com/. Tel: 0845 643 9289

——————– Unique reference
HSLP0101AA83

Liability for Bad Reference, Employment Tribunal Case

By blogger on

Employment Solicitors Trethowans look at a recent Employment Tribunal case regarding Employment references.

A case this month considered whether a past employer could be liable for the future loss of earnings caused by providing a bad reference.

The Claimant in the case of Bullimore v Pothecary Witham Weld Solicitors and Another had previously brought a claim for sex discrimination against her past employer. A prospective employer requested a reference from the previous employer, who provided a reference which referred to the sex discrimination claim and stated that the employee had a “poor relationship” with the firm’s partners and could be “inflexible in her opinions”. As a result of this reference, the prospective employer did not employ the employee.

The employee brought a claim against the prospective employer, as well as the past employer. The prospective employer settled prior to the hearing. The Tribunal considered that the prospective employer’s unlawful action of rejecting the employee on the basis of the reference broke the chain of causation so that the past employer was not liable. The EAT reversed the Tribunal’s decision and considered that it was foreseeable that the prospective employer would react as it did. As a matter of fairness, the past employer should be liable for the result of its actions. The case has now been re-submitted to the Tribunal to consider the level of damages to be awarded.

Many employees now have a policy of only providing factual references. The above case is a classic example of the dangers in going beyond a purely factual reference. In our view, the risks are not worth running.

Abbey National Santander Demonstrates The Uphill Battle In Suing Your Employer

By blogger on

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.

Fixing The House Or Breaking The Law The Scoop On Hiring An Illegal Maid

By blogger on

An illegal immigrant is a person who has crossed a national border in any manner that violates the laws of immigration. People do this for a variety of reasons. Some feel this is their way out of poverty. They come to the United States to look for work. You may come across someone like this who seems to need your help. Perhaps you are looking for an affordable way to keep your home clean. You may consider the possibility of hiring an illegal immigrant as a maid. In that scenario, it would seem that both parties have something to gain.

Is it Wrong to Hire an Illegal Immigrant Maid?

On one hand, seeing a person in a desperate situation can naturally make a person want to help. The person may be very nice and just in a bad predicament. Your job offer could help feed this person’s family. Another reason people may wish to hire an illegal immigrant as a maid is to possibly get the labor for a lower amount than they would normally pay, because an illegal immigrant will not report them for substandard pay due to having an illegal status.

On the other hand, when considering whether or not to hire an illegal immigrant maid, it is important to remember that there are consequences that can go along with offering that help. Consider the fact that if you do, you could possibly be charged with a felony.

An alternative does exist in encouraging this person to apply for the guest worker program, which, if approved, would allow an illegal immigrant to remain legally employed without the risk of deportation. The guest worker program is a way for illegal immigrants to temporarily remain in the U.S. for employment purposes. Qualifying for the guest worker program will take away the risk of deportation.

Legalities

As mentioned on FairUS.org, knowingly encouraging or harboring an illegal alien, by assisting him or her in finding work or by providing employment, is a violation of federal law. Employment is defined as any service or labor. Is a maid considered an employee? The answer is not simple. Some may consider maid services to be domestic services.

According to The Boston Globe, a border protection chief is facing criminal charges for hiring illegal immigrants as maids. Perhaps a solution for him before hiring these maids could have been to encourage the illegal immigrants to apply for the guest worker program. If they had been approved, they could have been legally employed by him.