January 2010

You are currently browsing the monthly archive for January 2010.

The absent employee : a Poltergeist of the workplace?

January 28, 2010 in Courts and tribunals, Dismissal

poltergeistIf you were able to choose a way of coming back to haunt people after death, being a Poltergeist wouldn’t be a bad option.
The term is derived from a German word, meaning “to make noise”, and refers to a paranormal phenomenon whereby an invisible spirit or ghost is seen to move and influence objects.
While there is, of course, no demonstrated scientific evidence to prove the existence of Poltergeists, the phenomenon has been a popular one in fiction – probably best remembered through a series of movies in the 1980s.  It seems that the concept of an evil spirit moving objects – but not being seen – is one which we find fascinating.
In certain circumstances, in a workplace sense, some employees could be said to become Poltergeists.  There are certain situations in which employees no longer wish to be seen in the workplace – despite things continuing to move around without their presence.  A recent case gives a nice illustration of the concept.

Read the rest of this entry »

“Ellen kind of look” not pretty enough - discrimination claim results

January 28, 2010 in Human Rights

ellenA story this week from Work Matters about a US case in which the Court of Appeals will consider whether sexual stereotyping is a breach of the relevant Human Rights legislation. 

In brief, a woman who describes herself as having an “Ellen DeGeneres kind of look” was told that she was not “pretty” enough for her employer’s workplace. 

In essence, the complaint is that an employer should not have a fixed view about the way in which female employees should look. 

(and just on that note, wouldn’t you be a bit brave to say that Ellen isn’t “pretty” - or at least well presented for employment?)

In contrast, however, there is no breach of New Zealand’s Human Rights legislation if an employer chooses to hire on the basis of good looks.  In this case, therefore, if the employer considered that a prospective employee’s “look” was not “pretty” enough for its business, it could not be in breach of the Human Rights legislation for deciding not to hire her.   

This is a complex area – and the conclusion that I have offered above can be displaced if, for example, there are religious reasons for the person’s appearance.  This latest American case will be worth watching.

Hell hath no fury…

January 28, 2010 in Technology

6a00d8345275cf69e20120a80886f2970b-300wiAn odd story this week from the HR Capitalist about a woman who appears to have taken revenge on a scorned lover by putting up billboards disclosing their affair. 

Kris Dunn ponders whether an employee might do something similar in the event of feeling aggrieved about a workplace issue – and whether, instead of using a billboard, the same type of outcome might be achieved through the use of social media. 

Using an employee’s image…to sell your beer

January 28, 2010 in Privacy, Workplace quandaries

hofbrauA couple of weeks ago I posted a story about an American clothing company which had used the image of President Obama (without his knowledge or consent) in its advertising campaign.  One of the comments that I made at the time was about how the same issue can arise in the context of a workplace – where an employer uses the image of an employee to promote its goods. 

Spookily enough, an issue on exactly these facts has come to light over the last couple of weeks. 

A woman employed as a waitress by a beer manufacturer at a festival last year has complained about her image being used – on a world-wide basis – to promote her employer’s product.  The woman says that she gave her permission for her picture to be used for a one-off restaurant promotion – but subsequently found her image on six packs, posters and computer screen savers as far and wide as New York and China. 

The article is worth a read.

 

What health nasties might lurk in your workplace?

January 20, 2010 in Health and Safety

lloydsOne of the (often happy) outcomes of reading dozens of employment/HR blogs each day is coming across the occasional website which is both obscure and bizarre. 

That is certainly true of this particular site, created by a UK pharmacy chain. 

I think the idea is to scare you into getting a medical check – and, from my cursory experiment with the calculator – the site may well have the desired effect! 

It only takes ten seconds or so to input some data (you can be reasonably approximate in the information you input) – and the results which are generated (which I am sure are a reflection of statistical experience) may give you something of a wakeup call! 

Moonlighting : an issue for your business?

January 20, 2010 in Workplace policies

moonlighting22“Moonlighting” is a term which refers to the practice of engaging in secondary employment – often as a way of supplementing the income earned from one’s principal job. 

(It is, of course, also the title of the 1980s comedy drama which sky-rocketed Bruce Willis to fame – and you will forgive my guilty pleasure of including that as my illustration this week!). 

The practice of moonlighting has, as a result of the current economic climate become more common in many households – meaning that, for many employers, there is now an increased need to address the need for a moonlighting policy (if one does not already exist). 

In turn, that may cause employers to think about the interests which they might seek to protect in introducing such a policy.  Why, for example, should you have any interest in what your employees do outside of their usual business hours?  These questions – and some helpful suggestions about the content of moonlighting policy – are examined this week in the Ohio Employer’s Law Blog. 

Have a read.

 

« Older entries