SPECIAL NUMBER ONE 2014

Welcome
WELCOME to Con!
ference Chambers' Spe!
cial newsletter, pertain!
ing to human resources.
Whichever human re!
source management
strategy an organisation
adopts or implements
"whether deliberately or
not# $ be it Universalist best practice, Fit/Contingency,
Resource-based or any other it must work in accordance
with employment law "Domestic and European#. It is
fair to say that most "not just many# breaches of em!
ployment law by employers are avoidable with good
HRM structures in place $ internal and/or external reli!
ance. Conference Chambers assists organisations on two
main levels.
Corporate level
FIRST is at corporate level "whether or not the
organisation has existing human resource man!
agement#, advising on human resource manage!
ment strategy and, having undertaken an audit
of the organisations contracts of employment
and, where applicable, sta&/employee handbooks
advise on suitable updates where applicable.
2014 Conference Chambers 1
Responsibility Chain
Many organisations either
have their own human re-
source management or have
access to external assistance.
In Conference Chambers'
newsletter No.3, we referred to
the case of Gallop v Newport
City Council where the Court
of Appeal held, "the employer
must not forget that it is still
[it], the employer, who has to
make the factual judgment as
to whether the employee is or
is not disabled: [it] cannot
simply rubber stamp the ad-
viser's opinion that [s/he] is
not." Also, in newsletter No. 4,
we referred to the case of
Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd &
Others where, allowing an
appeal, the EAT held, "it may
be said that discrimination has
been made out, even if the
person who makes the actual
decision has not acted for that
reason if one examines only
the mental processes of that
person."
Delegation
REPRESENTATIVES give advice
on which their clients may or
may not act. Whichever de-
cision the employer makes
and action it adopts, it stands
or falls by them. It remains li-
able for its decisions/actions.
CONFERENCE CHAMBERS
HUMAN RESOURCES
SPECIAL NUMBER ONE 2014

Employee relations
SECOND is, where an organisation has existing
human resource management, working with HRM
in order to provide it with regular key updates on
employment law and to provide, where specifical-
ly requested, training on various practices such as
staff recruitment, staff retention, dealing with staff
grievances or disciplinary, redundancies and gen-
eral awareness such as anti-discriminatory prac-
tices.

AS EXPECTED, the former is undertaken at the
organisations premises (which may well be at
more than one location). However, the latter is in-
variably undertaken at the organisations premises
also.
To instruct
THE ABOVE SERVICES are provided to organi-
sations of various sizes. If you are interested in the
above services or simply wish to enquire whether
Conference Chambers could assist you, please
contact Carole to discuss your requirements. Nat-
urally, as organisations are of all sizes and in all
locations, any work agreed to be undertaken will
be bespoke and, hence, any fee to be agreed will
be unique to the work to be undertaken. All fees
for initial and, where/if applicable, subsequent
work are agreed with organisations and fixed in
advance. Therefore, our clients are able to plan
and budget efficiently and effectively.

Conference Chambers
272 Field End Road
Eastcote
Middlesex
HA4 9NA
Tel: 020 8582 0500 Fax: 0800 2425323
carole@conferencechambers.com
www.ConferenceChambers.com

2014 Conference Chambers 2
GM Packaging v S Haslem
SQUARE the above with the case of
GM Packaging (UK) Ltd v S Haslem
UKEAT/0259/13/LA that dealt with a
matter where conduct of the discip-
linary process had been delegated
to an external HR consultant. The
employer had retained external HR
consultants (HRC). For reasons we
need not repeat SH was the subject
of disciplinary measures and, after
receiving authorisation from the
employer's managing director (GM)
to do so, HRC summarily dismissed
him. SH appealed his dismissal and
that appeal was heard by another
member of HRC who, after hearing
the appeal, also sought and ob-
tained GM's authority to dismiss the
appeal. The matter went to the ET
and EAT
Authorisations by GM
AS GM had given his 'authorisation'
for the decisions, the ET considered
whether, in essence, GM had been
both the dismissing and appeal of-
ficer. Had that been the case the
procedure would surely have been
unfair. Notwithstanding that the ET
found that the seeking of the per-
mission to implement HRC's de-
cision did no more than, "reflect the
reality of the situation," and, "the
actions taken to deal with the dis-
ciplinary proceedings...were reas-
onable," it nonetheless found SH to
have been unfairly dismissed based
on the 'mind' of GM because GM
had the last word (authorisation).
EAT
ALLOWING the appeal on various
grounds, the EAT held, amongst
other things, that the ET had failed
to consider the reasons given by
'HRC' (as opposed to GM) for its
decision and held that SH had been
fairly dismissed.