• Employment law update
  • Going, going....... gone!?
    • Going....? The Vetting and Barring Scheme (or at least some of it!)
    • Going, or delayed? The Equality Act (or some of it)
    • Gone.... well almost! National identity cards

  • CRB checks can be made on-line
  • HRMC end of year returns
  • More guidance and possible changes to the points based immigration system
  • Increase in state pension age?
  • Increase in jurors' allowance
  • Some interesting cases
    • Resignations - can they be backdated?
    • Dismissal - use the correct procedure and check whether it is contractual!
    • Dismissal - couple both dismissed by same employer
    • Advice and legal privilege
    • TUPE - transfer of collective agreements
• Health and safety news
  • Some new absence statistics
  • Beware of fake fit notes!
  • Do you work all day with no breaks?
  • Drug-testing at work
  • Drivers - preventing Legionnaires' disease
• New on the website
• And finally....
  • Flexible working is the most valued employee benefit
  • Unemployment on the rise?
• BusinessHR HRCare services
• This month's hot topic

Going....?
The Vetting and Barring Scheme (or at least some of it!)

The government has announced a re-think and a "fundamental remodelling" of the Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS). This aims to protect children and vulnerable adults, by preventing those who pose a known risk from working with them, but ever since its introduction, the VBS has been highly controversial as many people felt its scope extended too far and it was far too bureaucratic. Home Secretary Theresa May has described it as an example of the "law of unintended consequences". In particular, the requirement that people about to work with children or vulnerable adults must register with the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) prompted concerns that many volunteers would simply withdraw their help, resulting in activities such as after-school clubs ceasing.

The next stage in implementing the VBS was due to start on 26 July. As from this date, workers (or volunteers) who began a new job or who switched jobs to work in "regulated" activity with children and vulnerable adults were to be able (but not obliged) to register with the ISA.

The Government has halted this whilst its review is undertaken. The intention is to maintain the current arrangements, but to scale the scheme back to "common sense levels". This will be co-ordinated by the Home Office in partnership with the Department of Health and the Department for Education.

In the meantime:

• Criminal Records Bureau checks should continue to be made for new entrants in care environments.
• The ISA will continue to maintain the two barred lists (adults and children), which should be checked in appropriate circumstances, and as part of an enhanced CRB check.
• It remains a criminal offence for barred individuals to apply to work with vulnerable groups, and for employers to knowingly take them on.
• Employers should still report the details of employees dismissed for harming, or considered a risk to, children or vulnerable adults to the ISA.

For further information see www.direct.gov.uk/vetting or www.businesslink.gov.uk/vbs. For further general information on the VBS see: /docs/legal/safeguarding.html

Going, or delayed?
The Equality Act (or some of it)

Panic and confusion spread quickly about the proposed implementation date for most of the new Equality Act, following the removal of the October 2010 implementation date from the Government's website. This just stated: "The provisions in the Equality Act will come into force at different times to allow time for the people and organisations affected by the new laws to carefully prepare for them."

The Government's helpline was then inundated with calls, and the page amended as follows:

"The provisions in the Equality Act will come into force at different times to allow time for the people and organisations affected by the new laws to prepare for them. The Government is currently considering how the different provisions will be commenced so that the Act is implemented in an effective and proportionate way. In the meantime, the Government Equalities Office continues to work on the basis of the previously announced timetable, which envisaged commencement of the Act's core provisions in October 2010."

So we continue to plan as before, but with a question mark as to whether the original date will be enforced or delayed.

For more information on the Equality Act, see: /docs/legal/equalitybill.html

Gone.... well almost!
National identity cards

The Identity Documents Bill had its second reading in the House of Commons on 9 June and an Identity Documents Bill Committee will consider its implications. The committee will complete its consideration of the Bill before Thursday 8 July. If passed, this Bill will invalidate all existing national identity cards on 3rd September 2010. The National Identity Register will then be "physically destroyed". The Bill extends to the whole of the UK.

Some provisions introduced in the original Identity Cards Bill (which became the Identity Cards Act 2006) do however remain: ie those which prohibit the possession or making of false identity documents other than ID cards, such as passports and driving licences.

The ID card issued to citizens of the EEA or Switzerland who are living in the UK may also be discontinued, but the issuing and use of the compulsory immigration identity cards to some categories of foreign nationals is unaffected. The UK Border Agency website states: "The identity card for foreign nationals should not be confused with the national identity card (for British citizens) or the identification card (for citizens of the EEA or Switzerland who are living in the UK), which were formerly issued by the UK government. Identity cards for foreign nationals will continue, therefore, to be the principal method by which employers and sponsors of skilled workers and students can confirm their right to work or study in the UK."

For more information on checking the right to work in the UK, see: /docs/legal/righttowork.html

The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) has found that delays in checks were often due to errors on the paper forms, with many being rejected because of missing information or illegible writing. In response, it has introduced a new e-bulk service for Registered Bodies that submit at least 3000 CRB applications per year. Applicant information is submitted on-line, and submission is only allowed when all the required information has been supplied, therefore reducing the number of errors and making requests easier and quicker to process. The removal of the need to post documents will also assist in speeding up the process, and should lead to a quicker turnaround.

For further information on CRB checks see: /docs/legal/employeesconvictions.html For further information on the e-bulk service, see www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/faqs/e-bulk.aspx

HMRC has had a "grace period" of seven days for those who miss the statutory filing deadline for PAYE year-end returns (19 May each year). The grace period helped employers who had made every effort to file on time but whose returns were delayed for reasons beyond their control, such as postal delays. Since all employers (other than an exempt minority) are now required to file returns on-line, there is no longer any need for it so as from March 2011 this will be scrapped.

The on-line filing deadline for the 2010/11 tax year is therefore 19 May 2011, without any concession. Employers who file late may still seek the removal of a penalty if they can provide a reasonable excuse for the delay in filing, and an appeal against a penalty may be made to the First Tier Tribunal.

For more information on PAYE, see: /docs/guides/PAYE.html

The UK Border Agency (UKBA) has added a new 2-page table to its guidance on Tier 2. This includes specific details where, for example, someone is seeking "Leave to Remain" where their previous grant of leave was in one of a number of categories and they are applying for an extension in the same job with the same sponsor.

The revised guidance also covers those making a change of employment application and/or where the previous grant of leave was in one of certain categories including any Tier 1 or Tier 4 category or a different Tier 2 category to the one to which they are now applying.

For more information see www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/applicationforms/pbs/tier2-guidance.pdf For general guidance on employing foreign nationals, see: /docs/legal/foreignnationals.html

You may also like to note that the Government has begun a 12-week consultation on the introduction of a proposed permanent limit, starting in April 2011, on the number of migrants from outside Europe who can come to work in the UK. Home Secretary Theresa May said "This Government believes that Britain can benefit from migration but not uncontrolled migration. I recognise the importance of attracting the brightest and the best to ensure strong economic growth, but unlimited migration places unacceptable pressure on public services."

In order to avoid a rush of claims prior to this date, a temporary limit, aimed solely at Tiers 1 and 2, (highly-skilled and skilled workers) will apply from 19 July 2010:

• Tier 1: there will be a limit of 5,400 on the number of applicants within Tier 1 until April 2011. However applicants who are within the Investor, Entrepreneur or Post-Study categories, or from individuals already in the UK, will not be affected. The number of points required has also been increased. (A migrant worker already in the General section of Tier 1 will need to score 95 points. A migrant worker in any other category, eg post-study work, will need to score 100 points if applying to switch into Tier 1 (General). Anyone applying from outside the UK will need to score 100 points.)

• Tier 2: the temporary limit will be 18,700 and applies to the general route only. Intra-Company Transfers, Ministers of Religion and Elite Sportspeople are specifically excluded.

There is also a suggestion that employers bringing migrant workers into the UK will have to provide private health insurance for them.

Consultation closes on 7 September 2010. For further details see www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/aboutus/workingwithus/mac/mac-consultation-annual-limit/

Plans are already in place (Schedule 4 of the Pensions Act 1995) to raise the state pension age, but these may now be escalated. The State Pension age for women is due to increase to 65 between 2010 and 2020, matching the State Pension age for men. This will then increase for men and women to 66 from 2024, 67 from 2034, and 68 from 2044. However, the Government is proposing to escalate these increases, and their current proposals are for the state pension age for men to increase to 66, possibly as early as 2016, with the pension age for women being brought to the same level by 2020. This would affect everyone currently under the age of 58.

As a first step, the Department for Work and Pensions has published a "Call for Evidence", asking for views on when and how the State Pension age should be increased to 66, in view of more recent changes to longevity forecasts.

A response to the evidence received is expected to be published this autumn.

With effect from 1 June 2010, the maximum daily rates of the financial loss allowances for jurors have been increased as follows:

• In the first 10 days:
  • for a period of 4 hours or less on any day: £32.47
  • for a period of more than 4 hours on any day: £64.95

• from the 11th to the 200th day:
  • for a period of 4 hours or less on any day: £64.95
  • for a period of more than 4 hours on any day: £129.91

• From the 201st day
  • for a period of 4 hours or less on any day: £114.03
  • for a period of more than 4 hours on any day: £228.06

It's rather daunting to see a special payment for cases which last more than 201 days - most people assigned jury service tend to think in terms of up to a fortnight away from work!

For more information on time off for reasons other than sickness absence, see /docs/legal/otherabsence.html We would also recommend that you decide on your stance on payment for jury service, and include this in your employee handbook so that staff are treated consistently.

Resignations - can they be backdated?

The answer is "no"!

In Heaven v Whitbread Group Plc, following a discussion with his employer, Mr Heaven sent a "Conditional Resignation Letter", dated 29 August. This stated that he would resign with immediate effect, provided that he received one month's salary and a "glowing reference". His employer responded on the two conditions, but asked Mr Heaven to confirm whether he was actually resigning or not. Mr Heaven sent an email on 3 September confirming that he was resigning "with effect from 29th August". This was accepted on 4 September.

Mr Heaven then claimed constructive unfair dismissal and put an Effective Date of Termination (EDT) of 29 September (ie including the one month's salary) on his ET1. This was inaccurate, but the employment judge had to decide what the EDT was, since this would determine whether or not his claim was presented within the three-month time limit. The judge decided that the EDT was 29 August, since Mr Heaven had clarified in his email of 3 September that he wanted the resignation to take effect from that date. In this case, his claim was presented too late.

Mr Heaven appealed to the EAT, who upheld his appeal.

The EAT said that the the conditional letter of 29 August was not an "unequivocal resignation" and explained that "the effective date of termination of employment is a statutory construct. It depends on what has happened between the parties and not on what they may agree to treat as having happened." Further clarification was given as follows: "....a contract of employment.....cannot be brought to an end by an equivocal and conditional letter. You either resign or you negotiate the terms on which you will resign, but there is a fundamental distinction between those two propositions, and so the letter of conditional resignation did not bring the contract to an end. What brought the contract to an end was [Mr Heaven's] e-mail, saying that he intended to resign and did resign...The date on which the resignation was sent was the email of 3 September 2009, and...it could not be backdated, either by Mr Heaven, nor by any agreement..."

Mr Heaven's EDT was therefore 3 September, so his claim was presented in time and his case allowed to proceed.

So - in summary - even if you want to, you can't backdate a resignation!

Dismissal - use the correct procedure and check whether it is contractual!

Firstly, an interesting case which demonstrates how having different procedures can create problems!

In Sarkar v West London Mental Health NHS Trust, the Trust decided to use a procedure called the "Fair Blame Policy" (FBP), to deal with a number of complaints about Dr Sarkar's behaviour towards his colleagues. This procedure was part of the Trust's disciplinary policy, and applied to minor misconduct, with the most severe penalty under it being a first written warning.

Dr Sarkar was suspended when negotiations under the FBP broke down, partly because of the original complaints, and partly due to additional new ones about his conduct. Following a disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of gross misconduct and summarily dismissed. He claimed unfair dismissal.

The tribunal found his dismissal unfair. The tribunal felt that since the Trust had opted to use its "Fair Blame Policy", it must have thought the alleged misconduct was relatively minor. The Trust could not therefore change stance and decide that the same offences could also constitute gross misconduct, and therefore result in summary dismissal.

On appeal, the EAT sided with the Trust and said that the key question was whether the decision to dismiss fell within "the range of reasonable responses" open to the Trust. The fact that the Trust had initially tried to resolve matters using the FBP did not exclude any subsequent use of the full disciplinary procedure.

The Court of Appeal, however, agreed with the tribunal and overturned the EAT's decision. The tribunal was entitled to regard the use of the FBP as an indication of the Trust's view that the alleged misconduct was relatively minor, since they had chosen to use a procedure that could not result in dismissal. The Trust itself had also said that the later incidents were relatively minor. It was not reasonable to then find Dr Sarkar guilty of gross misconduct on the same set of facts.

The second case is another NHS one, and demonstrates the risk of having contractual disciplinary procedures (Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust). Mr Edwards, a consultant, is claiming £4.3 million compensation for his dismissal. However, this is a breach of contract claim, rather than straight unfair dismissal (which would of course be capped at £65,300). His claim for breach of contract is on the basis that the hospital failed to follow its disciplinary procedure, which was expressly stated to be contractual. Specifically, Mr Edwards alleges that the hospital:

• failed to appoint a legally qualified chairman to the disciplinary panel
• failed to appoint a clinician of the same medical discipline as him to the panel
• refused to allow him to be legally represented.

All of the above were included the contractual procedure. Mr Edwards argues that, had the above provisions been complied with, he would not have been found guilty of misconduct and would not have been dismissed. He is claiming damages for the breach, including £3.8 million for future loss of earnings (including loss of pension rights) up to his normal retirement age of 65 - the dismissal preventing from from finding comparable employment elsewhere.

This case has worked its way through the system, with differing outcomes as follows:

• the Employment Tribunal decided that Mr Edwards might recover damages for his three months' contractual notice period - nothing more
• the Employment Appeal Tribunal added to this damages for the period it would have taken to complete the disciplinary procedure properly
• the Court of Appeal decided that a breach of an express contractual provision is a breach of contract, and, as with any breach of contract, Mr Edwards can claim damages - which may reflect the stigma of having wrongly been found guilty of misconduct.

Mr Edwards' case may go ahead, but the NHS Trust is considering whether to appeal to the Supreme Court first. If it does go ahead, Mr Edwards will then have to convince a court that there is a genuine chance that he would not have been dismissed, had the hospital complied with its contractual procedures.

Unlike the majority of employers, who have non-contractual disciplinary and grievance policies and procedures, public sector employers often have contractual procedures. Failure to comply with them will constitute a breach of contract. So do ensure that you check your procedures in advance and know what is contractual and what is not, and then ensure that you follow it!

Note that failure to follow a non-contractual procedure may still result in a finding of unfair dismissal, but not a breach of contract.

Dismissal - couple both dismissed by same employer

An interesting case of apparent retaliation against an employee, following his partner's (successful) claim against the company!

Ray Berrow, an employee of PrintPlus, won his case of unfair dismissal and was awarded more than £20,000. Three days later, his partner, Peter Lawless, was dismissed and told that "Print Plus could no longer afford to pay him".

The original tribunal found Mr Lawless' dismissal unfair, as no selection or consultation process had taken place, and awarded him £9,000 compensation plus a 10% increase due to the employer's failure to comply with the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedures. On appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, this percentage uplift was increased from 10% to 40%, giving him an extra £5,000.

It is reported that neither man has yet received compensation from Print Plus and they are now seeking the payments through the courts.

Advice and legal privilege

A case which was of much interest to us, as your advisors!

Previously it has been considered that litigation privilege (which prevents the enforced disclosure of confidential documents sent between an employer and its advisor) was limited to qualified lawyers. However, in Scotthorne v Four Seasons Conservatories (UK) Ltd, the EAT said that advice given by employment consultants about how to deal with an alleged act of gross misconduct did not have to be disclosed because it is protected by litigation privilege.

Since the main purpose for seeking the advice was to avoid litigation and to properly deal with it should it occur, it did not matter that the consultants were not legally qualified. (Note that litigation privilege is different from legal advice privilege, so any general advice given prior to the advice about the dismissal would not necessarily be covered.)

The EAT summed up the position as follows: "The advice given by RBS Mentor to its insured would correspond to it both seeking to avoid litigation and assisting [Four Seasons] should litigation occur. In that case it does not matter that some of those giving advice were not legally qualified. It was given for the dominant purpose of litigation which could well ensue in the light of what [Four Seasons] told RBS Mentor about the altercation with [Mr Scotthorne].

So the decision was that the documents should not be disclosed.

TUPE - transfer of collective agreements

Just an update on the Alemo-Herron and others v Parkwood Leisure Ltd case - another example of different (conflicting) decisions as the case makes its way to the top!

This case deals with the question of whether future pay rises, negotiated by a trade union under a national collective agreement, should transfer to the new employer - even though the new employer would not be a party to those negotiations and the rises are agreed AFTER the transfer.

• The employment tribunal said not.
• The EAT decided the opposite.
• The Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the EAT and agreed with the employment tribunal.

So currently, increases agreed after the date of the transfer would not apply; however Unison, the union bringing the case on behalf of the employees, has been granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Watch this space!

The latest CBI/Pfizer Absence and Workplace Health Survey reports an average employee absence of 6.4 days last year, at a cost of just under £600 per employee per year. This adds up to 180m days and costs the UK economy £16.8 billion, excluding indirect costs such as reductions in customer service and delays to teamwork.

This is the lowest rate since the survey began in 1987. As in previous years, the public sector still has a much higher absence rate than the private sector (with an average 8.3 days' absence per year, as opposed to 5.8 days in the private sector). Also, predictably, absence was higher amongst manual employees than non-manual ones, and larger organisations had higher rates of absence than small ones, but a new feature is the increased use of structured rehabilitation plans to help people with longer-term illnesses back to work.

Although long-term absence accounted for only 5% of the number of absences, the longer periods meant that it accounted for 20% of lost days in the private sector and 36% in the public sector. Back pain and mental health issues were the key causes.

"Sickies" are also still a problem. The HR staff surveyed estimated that around 15%, or 27m sick days, were not genuine, at a cost of £2.5 billion a year.

For further details see www.cbi.org.uk/ndbs/press.nsf/0363c1f07c6ca12a8025671c00381cc7/adb2dcd8d9455258802577350036dcf0?OpenDocument

For advice on managing absence, see: /docs/TPduringabsence.html

In the light of the above comment on "sickies", you may be interested to hear about a site where you can buy fake fit notes which claim to be "authentic looking replicas" of the genuine forms. These cost £9.99 for two!

Doctorsnotestore.com claims its fakes are "for entertainment use only", but describes them as "authentic looking replica doctors sick note or medical certificates. Written on official doctors' notepaper, with real stamp." It is currently running a special 'buy one, get one free' offer with a blank fit note: "have a spare one to fill in yourself at a later date - you never know when you'll have to explain your absence again". The fake fit notes come with a guaranteed 48-hour delivery, and employees can choose to have their notes stamped by doctors from medical centres in any UK city.

It's worth taking a look at the site: www.doctorsnotestore.com. The CIPD advises that if you are suspicious about a submitted statement, you should refer the worker to an independent occupational health adviser or doctor, or alternatively call the surgery which issued the note to check its legitimacy and that it was signed by the doctor named. You could also warn staff that anyone found using the fakes will face disciplinary action - this would count as fraud and may be regarded as gross misconduct.

For more details about the new statement of fitness for work, see /docs/legal/fitnotes.html

The Working Time Regulations require anyone working a shift of six hours or more to be able to take a break of at least 20 minutes, but it would seem that many of us work through the day with no breaks at all!

The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP) conducted a survey of 2,600 working adults which revealed that:

• one in four people regularly worked all day without taking a break
• 36% of staff regularly work through their lunch break while 23% take no lunch break at all - half of those who worked through their breaks did so because of their workload
• 54% said they went to work when feeling stressed or physically unwell
• 46% claimed they felt stress due to a lack of staff to do the work expected
• 42% felt stressed at least once a week, while 31% said they experienced physical pain
• 46% felt discomfort caused by working in the same position for a long time
• 41% were too busy at work to exercise regularly.

The CSP claims that the cost to the economy is over £35 billion a year, caused by reduced performance and productivity and increased absence rates, sick pay and benefit pay-outs.

For more guidance on managing stress, see our page: /docs/guides/stress.html

The CSP has launched a "Fit for Work" campaign which is intended to raise awareness that workers are increasing their risk of back pain, obesity, cancer, depression, heart disease, type-2 diabetes and stroke through poor working practices.

For more information see www.csp.org.uk/director/public/moveforhealth.cfm

The TUC is urging the Government to produce clear guidance on drug-testing, especially random or routine testing in jobs that are not safety-critical. Whilst it agrees that a person working under the influence of any kind of performance-influencing drug, whether illegal or prescription, may pose a real danger to themselves, their colleagues or the public, its new guide for union safety reps suggests that employers should concentrate on developing a comprehensive drugs and alcohol policy to deal with drug and alcohol abuse in the workplace, rather than introducing random testing.

For more information see: "Drug Testing in the Workplace" www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/tuc-18000-f0.cfm For more information about drugs and alcohol abuse in the workplace, see our guide: /docs/hasaw/alcohol.html For a template drugs and alcohol policy, see: /docs/pol/substances/index.html

The Health Protection Agency (HPA) is alerting drivers to the possible risks of using plain water in windscreen washer bottles and recommends the use of screen wash, which commonly contains ethanol, as a safety measure.

The bacteria that cause Legionnaires' thrive in warm, stagnant, untreated water. The HPA found that in England and Wales, professional drivers are five times more commonly represented than expected among cases without an established cause. They identified two sorts of exposure which linked vehicle use with an increased risk of Legionnaires' disease; driving through industrial areas and driving or being a passenger in a vehicle with windscreen wiper fluid not containing added screen wash.

The researchers said "Not adding screen wash to windscreen wiper fluid ...appears to be strongly associated with community acquired sporadic cases of Legionnaires' disease. We estimated that around 20% of community acquired sporadic cases could be attributed to this exposure. A simple recommendation to use screen wash may mitigate transmission of Legionella bacteria to drivers and passengers."

For more information about managing the health and safety aspects of drivers, see: /docs/hasaw/drivers.html

We have a new "DOs and DONT'S" on managing absence - see /docs/lf/ddabsence/index.html and have also added a guide to social networking, see /docs/guides/socialnetworking.html

A new report from PricewaterhouseCoopers, "Managing Tomorrow's People", found that 47% of more than 1150 UK professionals surveyed rated flexible working arrangements as their most important benefit. Both men and women valued this equally highly - 41% and 54% respectively ranking it as the most valuable. Performance-related bonuses were second, and the third most popular benefit was a good company pension plan (15%).

For more information on flexible working schemes, see: /docs/guides/flexible.html

• The Guardian has reported that a private Treasury assessment of the planned spending cuts predicts a loss of up to 1.3 million jobs across the economy over the next five years.
• The Chief Economic Adviser at the CIPD is predicting that the Government's reliance on cuts in public spending will result in a post-recession peak in unemployment of close to 3m.
• The Office for Budget Responsibility has also predicted 490,000 job losses in the public sector by 2015 and 610,000 by 2016.
• HR recruiter Ortus has forecast the loss of 200,000 UK jobs purely due to the forthcoming increase in VAT.
• And some TUC analysis found that London, the North East and Scotland were the worst hit regions, with dole claimants outnumbering job vacancies by five to one. In Hackney, (the worst area for unemployment) claimants outnumber vacancies by 24 to 1.

But if you ARE recruiting read on!

Whilst you may feel inundated with the large number of applications you may currently receive for any vacancy (and given the above these are more likely to increase yet again), it's still worth remembering that a recruitment exercise is also a PR exercise for your business.

A study by SHL of 1600 job seekers found the following concerns:

• 46% said their main concern was about not being told whether they have been successful
• 39% cited lack of feedback on applications
• 36% commented on receipt of application not being acknowledged.

Be aware that candidates use their spending power to reflect their dissatisfaction - a fifth had stopped buying products from specific companies as a result of having a negative impression of them following an unsuccessful job application.

For more guidance on recruitment, see our recruitment section: /docs/TPrecruitment.html

Finding it difficult to keep abreast of all of the above changes?

Why not let us help you? We can review your contracts, handbook and HR policies, advise on any suggested additions and update them for you - and then keep them updated. Take a look at our HRCare range of services: www.businesshr.com

We are looking to expand further and need people to assist us with our business development on a regional basis. As this would be on a self-employed, commission basis, we are therefore looking for people who already have an established business base, good networking skills and a knowledge of HR or business consulting and who feel they could help us grow our business.

If you are interested, call our MD, David Lennan, on 07736 775767 for an informal chat, or email him at david.lennan@businesshr.com.

This month's hot topic will cover identifying and developing leadership skills.

Note: hot topics are only sent to subscribers. If you receive our newsletters only and are interested in subscribing to our wider services, please take a look at /intro/index.html