Using “Illegal” Subcontractors Makes You A Target For Prosecution

May 20th, 2008

Of all the employment issues we advise our clients on, the subject of proper hiring practices is becoming more and more critical. Just the other day in Des Moines, Iowa, 390 people were arrested for immigration violations at a meatpacking plant. According to ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement) this was the largest workplace raid in US history. The Associated Press reports that the raid was aimed at seeking evidence of identity theft, stolen Social Security numbers, and people who are in the country illegally.

Read more

Posted in Employment Law Cases | No Comments »

Whistleblower Protections

May 19th, 2008

Whistleblowers are individuals, usually associated or formerly associated with an organization or legal entity (typically a business corporation or government agency) who report or expose wrongdoing, violations of law, and/or fraudulent or dangerous behavior within or by the legal entity. In other words, whistleblowers are those who attempt to expose illegal or unethical acts committed by a company or agency. They may do so by contacting a lawyer, working with law enforcement, or simply testifying at a trial.

Persecution and Advocacy

As one might expect, the term whistleblower carries several conflicting connotations. Many people view whistleblowers as courageous, upstanding citizens who risk their own livelihood for the public good. A minority, however, may see whistleblowers as underhanded snitches in search of personal glory and fifteen minutes in the limelight.

These conflicting impulses have led to a sort of whistleblower crisis in modern society. Many corporations or government agencies have a predictable, self-interested tendency to retaliate against whistleblower employees. These individuals may be passed over for promotion, ostracized from important meetings, shunned by superiors and peers, fired from their jobs, or even taken to court on exaggerated charges. Although such actions are technically prohibited under a number of federal employment laws, they are nonetheless a common reaction to whistleblowing.

In response to the persecutions faced by whistleblowers and the difficulties of proving retaliation in court, several organizations have developed to promote whistleblower advocacy and provide funds and expertise for whistleblowers to rely on. These groups, such as the National Whistleblower Center, the ACLU, and the National Whistleblower Security Coalition, have worked to raise awareness of whistleblower injustice in both public and political arenas.

Enforcement of Whistleblower Laws

The first step for a whistleblower who feels discriminated or retaliated against is typically contacting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). This agency is responsible for investigating retaliation cases and acting upon them if they have merit. If a complaint is found to be valid, OSHA may issue an order to the offending employer or agency, instructing them to rectify the problem by reinstating the employee, paying wages owed, and ceasing any discriminatory behavior.

In many cases, however, whistleblowers must take action on their own. Private legal action may often be the only way to force an employer or organization to stop retaliation against a whistleblower.

For more information about whistleblower protection laws, visit the website of Los Angeles employment lawyer Perry Smith at http://www.losangeles-employmentlawyer.com

Joseph Devine

Read more

Posted in Employment Law Cases | No Comments »

Employment Law - Unfair Dismissal - Race Discrimination - Foreign Employer

May 19th, 2008

A City banker launched a race discrimination claim against Dresdner Kleinwort (”DrK”). He alleged that he was treated less favourably whilst at work, and was eventually made redundant because he was neither German nor a German speaker.

Read more

Posted in Employment Law Cases | No Comments »

Employment Law - Shareholders - Employees or Third Party Contractors? - Contracts of Employment - IT

May 18th, 2008

The case of Nesbitt and Another v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2007] involved joint shareholder claimants who had contracts of employment with their company. The claimants were husband and wife. In February 1985, the second claimant incorporated a company as the vehicle for a new business providing IT training services to businesses and public bodies. In March 1986, the first claimant joined her in the business. From that date onwards, the share capital of the company consisted of 1,000 issued shares, 529 of which were held by the second claimant, and 470 of which were held by the first claimant. One share was held by F, the second claimant’s mother.

Read more

Posted in Employment Law Cases | No Comments »

Employment Law- Transfer of Undertakings - TUPE - Employee Lack of Knowledge of New Employer

May 18th, 2008

In the case of New ISG Ltd v Vernon and Others [2007] an employee did not know who his new employer was going to be after his existing employer was sold. According to Regulation 4(7) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (”TUPE”):

“(7) Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not operate to transfer the contract of employment and the rights, powers, duties and liabilities under or in connection with it of an employee who informs the transferor or the transferee that he objects to becoming employed by the transferee”.

The defendants in this case had all been employed in sales positions by ISG (”the Company”). The Company’s business provided recruitment agency services for both white and blue collar workers to the rail industry. It was well known that there were fewer clients, as well as a shortage of skilled professionals and engineers, in the rail industry than in other industries. Those involved in the industry knew and dealt with almost all of the clients and candidates.

All of the defendants, except the fourth defendant, accepted that they had signed written contracts of employment. They also accepted that those contracts contained restrictive covenants which prevented solicitation, canvassing or dealing with clients or temporary workers of the employer.

Subsequently, the Company became insolvent and joint administrators were appointed on the 13th of July 2007. On the 19th of July, the joint administrators offered for sale some of the assets of the Company, including goodwill. On the 27th of July, UKRS and its subsidiary, the claimant, agreed to purchase the assets of the company.

The defendants maintained that they had received very little information from the joint administrators as to the progress of the proposed asset sale. At about 3pm on the 27th of July, all staff were called into a meeting. They were informed that UKRS had purchased the Company, and that they were now to be regarded as employees of UKRS.

The defendants argued that they were very concerned by the sale to UKRS. On the 31st of July, they resigned with immediate effect and subsequently gained employment with a competitor. During the course of that employment, they canvassed, solicited and dealt with a variety of clients and temporary workers of the claimant.

The claimant also alleged that the defendants had removed confidential information from its premises. It then obtained a ‘without notice injunction’ preventing the defendants from breaching the restrictive covenants.

Issues arose as to whether the defendants’ objections to the transfer to UKRS had prevented the transfer of their employment pursuant to Regulation 4(7) of TUPE.

The claimant submitted that Regulation 4(7) should be construed narrowly, and that on the plain meaning of the words used in the Regulation any notification of objection by the defendants had to have been made before the date of the transfer.

The defendants argued that Regulation 4(7) should be construed purposively. It should have regard to an employee’s fundamental right to choose his employer. In cases where the employee was not informed of the identity of the employer to which his employment had been transferred until after the transfer had taken place, Regulation 4(7) had to be construed as applying to objections made after a transfer had been carried out.

The court decided that in a case where an employee did not know the identity of the employer to which his employment had been transferred before the date of the transfer of the undertaking, the fundamental principle that an employee should be free to choose his employer required that Regulation 4(7) of TUPE be construed purposively.

This meant that in this case, despite the delay of two working days, the defendants’ resignations had been effective objections within the meaning of Regulation 4(7). Accordingly, it was held that the restrictive covenants were not enforceable against them. In such circumstances, the court felt that there was no serious issue to be tried.

© RT COOPERS, 2008. 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.

Read more

Posted in Employment Law Cases | No Comments »

Employment Law - Vicarious Liability - Harassment - Depression

May 17th, 2008

The case of Hammond v INTC Network Services Ltd [2007], concerned issues relating to vicarious liability where a claimant complained that the defendant’s conduct causing him to suffer clinical depression. The claimant in this case was employed by the defendant until he was eventually made redundant.

Read more

Posted in Employment Law Cases | No Comments »

American Workers Injured Overseas Get Compensation Under The Defense Base Act

May 17th, 2008

Following 9/11, thousands of American workers signed on with companies who contracted to aid in U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of these people paid dearly for that decision.

Tragically, many of these workers became injured while overseas. Adding to their difficulties, many of these injured workers, who put themselves on the line working in support of the American mission,faced steep medial expenses and loss of income as they recovered.

Some of these workers lost their lives, leaving their spouses and family in financial crisis. Many others who are unable to work watch their family’s savings and assets dwindle, and their security disappear.

A law exists to ensure fair workers compensation for these people. This law is known as the Defense Base Act. Unfortunately, too few people in need of its protection understand their own rights under the law. Even fewer know what to do to guarantee those rights.

Recuperation can be difficult enough without mounting bills, the threat of bankruptcy, and an inability to get proper medical care and rehabilitation. That’s to say nothing of the financial threat to the families involved.

The Defense Base Act requires that contractors working with the U.S. Military in war zones carry worker’s compensation insurance. This type of insurance is compulsory for organizations employing U.S. citizens or residents, and all employees or subcontractors hired on overseas government contracts.

These companies have been known to fail to inform their employees of their rights under the law. In numerous cases, insurance carriers have refused valid claims, thus leaving the injured party- who had taken the risk to supported the American mission- to face financial ruin.

Fortunately, Federal law provides a genuine solution, though unfortunately few injured workers know how to apply it. The Defense Base Act is part of the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, and covers to employees of government contractors working overseas under contract to the United States Government.

To be specific, the Act pertains to workers employed by companies contracting to perform public works for the U.S. government in U.S. territories, or at U.S. military bases located outside the continental United States, in support of military aid programs within allied nations. The Act protects workers, even in situations that are not overtly dangerous, such as building embassies.S. government buildings abroad. As with domestic workers compensation laws, the Act covers medical treatment and compensation for defense contractors employees injured in the course of employment.

For thousands of American workers injured abroad, the Defense Base Act has provided support them under devastating circumstances. Claims under the Act have been successfully filed by many individuals, including some contact workers injured in Korea, VietNam, both Iraq wars, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. All of these come under the general coverage of the Act.

The Defense Base Act mandates that any injured worker should be confident of having an attorney at his side to ensure a just outcome. Both injured workers and family member of someone who has died from job injuries overseas are covered. Compensation can be given for partial loss of earnings, and in a case of death substantial death benefits are commonly paid to surviving family.

To their great relief, injured workers and their family discover that they they are not responsible for attorney fees under the Act. The Defense Base Act requires that all attorney fees depend entirely on the amount of money the claimant receives. No outrageous legal fees are possible. The fees are awarded by the Department of Labor,and are never included in any other compensation to the claimant. The injured party does not pay the lawyer out of his or her compensation. Instead,compensation is awarded to the attorney by the court, and paid by the insurance company or the original employer.

American civilians working in support U.S. military and U.S. State Department objectives continue to experience difficult injuries to this day.

For these injured civilians, the key to success in securing just compensation under the Defense Base Act is finding the right lawyer. This is a highly specialized area, and familiarity with standard Workman’s Compensation Law is simply inadequate. Claimants are advised to find a Defense Base Act attorney with years of experience and success with these claims.

William Prescott is web copy writer and researcher of health issues. This article is based on interviews with legal expert Kurt Gronau, a well-known Defense Base Act attorney.

Read more

Posted in Employment Law Cases | No Comments »

Claim For An Accident Within The Workplace

May 16th, 2008

Accidents within the workplace are something which can occur to anyone at anytime. In most cases the accident is normally instigated through another person or companies negligence and not the injured parties fault. In these circumstances the injured person has a right to make a claim for compensation.

Most people don’t realize that Employers are governed by law to have special insurance in place to help cover instances of unfortunate accidents happening in their workplace. Its difficult for some to Understand this thought process that you are not actually claiming against your employer but his insurance company. Many claims are never acted upon by the injured party either through fear or guilt or both.

Its best to contact an experienced personal injury lawyer if you have suffered an injury within the workplace. They’ll discuss your case in great detail and let you know if you have valid case or not to claim compensation.

Once you have found a personal injury lawyer that you are happy to represent you here are some key points on how your claim will progress:

  • The injury lawyer will study the standing operating procedures and safety rules within your workplace. He will make it evident in your claim for compensation that you observed those procedures and rules with utmost sincerity.
  • Remember that you are not expected to foresee every possibility of an accident at work occurring. But you are definitely expected to observe general precautions, which may not be explicitly mentioned in the standing operating procedures and rules of the workplace.
  • Statements from witnesses at the scene of the accident will be collected for evidence, medical reports, past and present safety safety records etc … As much information required to give you a solid background of evidence to help support your claim.
  • A high percentage of claims never actually make it to trial they are instead settled out-of-court. Where a figure for compensation is agreed upon by you the claimant and the insurance company.

If you have suffered an accident within the workplace and are unsure of whether to make a compensation claim remember you have a right to protect the next person suffering from a similar fate as yourself.

Read more

Posted in Employment Law Cases | No Comments »

US Employers Aren’t Paying Accident Insurance

May 16th, 2008

It was recently revealed that thousands of workers in New Jersey are getting hurt at work and finding out that their employers have not taken out insurance to cover their injuries. The Star Ledger reported that the problem is a “small but growing slice” of the state’s litigious system which pays out a total of $1.8 billion a year in accident claims.

Read more

Posted in Employment Law Cases | No Comments »

Ten Tips On Choosing A Specialist Over A Generalist In A Virginia Workers Compensation Case

May 15th, 2008

Attorneys specialize like doctors. Some orthopaedists handle backs, some arms, and some do only legs. Again, like doctors many attorneys specialize in areas of the law. There are still some attorneys who are general practitioners and try to handle every case that comes in the door. Is it wise to choose such an attorney for your Virginia Workers Compensation Case? The following are:

Read more

Posted in Employment Law Cases | No Comments »

« Previous Entries Next Entries »