September 2009

You are currently browsing the monthly archive for September 2009.

“Killer heels” : a woman’s right to choose?

September 24, 2009 in Courts and tribunals

high-heelsA remarkable story has been gaining some momentum over the last couple of weeks concerning a woman’s right to wear high heels to work. 

The UK Trades Union Congress recently argued that employers should take a stand against the “risks” of wearing high heels in the workplace.  The union argues that high heels pose a health and safety issue for women who are required to wear them as part of their work.   

Remarkably, the union suggested that employers should be compelled to carry out health and safety assessments on heels – and that they should be replaced with “sensible and comfortable shoes” where practical. 

Support in the opposing camp has been vociferous.  Instead of showing concern about health and safety risk, many women have argued that wearing high heels is not only a fashion statement, but a personal expression - to which they have a right!

Perhaps all of this lends new meaning to the phrase “killer heels”.
(Hat tip to Annabel James for putting me onto this one!)

 

Religious discrimination, and the right “look”

September 24, 2009 in Human Rights

images1Some weeks ago I posted about a discrimination case brought against the high-end clothing store, Abercrombie & Fitch.  Remarkably, this store is again in the news – this time in relation to a religious discrimination claim. 
It has been alleged that the store refused to hire a 17 year old Muslim woman because she wore a hijab (or headscarf) – as part of her religious belief. 

The issue appears to be between the worker’s right to observe her chosen religion against the store’s desire to ensure a particular “look”. 

The case has been filed in Oklahoma, and we should watch this space to see the result.

 

Social media - the introduction you need if you don’t get it….

September 24, 2009 in Technology

imagesAny regular reader of an HR or employment law blog will know that the hot topic of the moment is social media.  Remarkably, there are still many whom remain to be convinced about the potential power of tools such as Twitter and Facebook - and actually a few who still need to be told what this is all about! 

If you need convincing, or maybe just basic education, there is no better place to start than this wonderful video posted on Social Media Today. 

Enjoy.

Commute time : a legitimate factor in making a hiring decision?

September 17, 2009 in Hiring

commuteHere’s an interesting question from Ask a Manager : can an employer legitimiately take into account a candidate’s potential commute time (and associated issues) when considering their suitability for a role?
From a legal point of view I don’t think there’s anything under New Zealand law that would prevent an employer giving consideration to this factor - but I also have sympathy for the candidate’s position : what business is it of the employer where I live and how long I have to travel?
I suppose the logical counter is that a lengthy commute potentially offers up issues of delay and lateness.  But shouldn’t the proof be in the pudding - and the issue managed on a performance basis if and when it arises?

“Fatism” weighs in…again

September 17, 2009 in Human Rights

cafx6zj0cat3o2bncabrrp4sca7r2ihicacqzjtbcalp3ty5caqwlcttcaz3nz9yca6wktjlcax50w35ca4ynk5ocaz72ua6cambeh6dcalyhlxbcau7l417cajrhwgbcakczqujcai2dilbcamcvtkzI have recently posted about issues to do with overweight employees - and potential discrimination in the workplace.
It seems that issues of “fatism” may, in fact, be “flavour of the month” (pardon the food-related pun).
An interesting post on HR Observations this week about some of the legal issues posed.
And have a look at this post on the Workplace Prof blog about an employer which was ordered to pay for weight-loss surgery after an employee injured his back at work!!

The importance of being earnest in employment law…

September 17, 2009 in Courts and tribunals

ca755p09catj21wwca4130smca6bqt07cac7frlccajas1qfca3qq3sxcauzmwedcap27slhcaweq4btcab1ytfsca67kotkcae9rydica3rczu0ca031n43ca5mme1fcanmcxrsca09a2owcahzigxnNew Zealand’s employment legislation is built on an expectation of promptness in all relevant dealings. The philosophy which underlies the law is simple:  a problem addressed promptly is more likely to be solved than a problem which is left to fester.
For that reason, the employment jurisdiction’s problem-solving tribunals operate on short timeframes (especially when compared to their civil counterparts). An employee and employer can, for example, regularly find themselves in mediation only two weeks after the incident which has given rise to the need for them to talk.
Against that background, the time limits which are prescribed by the employment legislation are perhaps understandable. 
In a civil claim, a plaintiff quite often has up to six years to raise an issue before it will be ruled to be out of time.  In employment matters, however, a claimant only has 90 days.
If the employee finds him or herself outside this period, the law allows the position to be remedied if the employer provides consent to the claim being brought out of time.  And if the employer does not consent, the employee can make an application to the Employment Relations Authority for leave to bring a late claim.

Read the rest of this entry »

« Older entries