A recent case involving a contract dentist and the subsequent ruling by the Employment Appeal Tribunal has demonstrated that an unfettered right of substitution in contract jobs affect worker status. Law firm Blake Lapthorn has said that the construction sector should also keep the implications of this ruling in mind before they pursue any claim in court.

Dr Sultan-Darmon, a contract worker with Community Dental Centres (the Centre), was engaged to provide dental services. It was understood that the dentist was not an ‘employee’ of the Centre. But the doctor argued that since he was a ‘worker’, he had the right to pursue an unlawful wage deductions claim against the Centre. The argument put forward by the Centre was that the dentist was a self-employed sub-contractor.

Per his employment contract as a “licence agreement and contract for service” with the Centre, Dr Sultan-Darmon’s status was specifically stated to be that of a self employed independent contractor. According to the terms of the contract, if the dentist failed to provide his services for a period exceeding five days and for any reason other than allowed holidays, he would have to make arrangements for a temporary dentist to fill in his place during his leave of absence and also pay him. The dentist had never used this provision to engage a substitute physician though other dentists with similar contract terms had relied on this provision.

The Employment Tribunal ruled that the Centre had provided the dentist an unfettered right to appoint a locum. He could not be considered a worker as he was not under any obligation to personally provide his services to the Centre.

For anyone involved in human resources management, training and development, the Chartered Institute of Professional Development is the body to refer to. Organisations can keep up to date with employment relations developments with a CIPD Course to help employers to set their own organisation’s policies and procedures in context and develop the skills needed in employment practice.

One day you may require the counsel of criminal lawyers in NJ. Whether you are facing a DUI, drug charges, a traffic ticket or other charges in Municipal Court in New Jersey the fines and penalties may become overwhelming. Depending on the charges involved, including drug charges, you risk losing your license and this may hinder you from working making it more difficult to pay the costly fees associated with the charges against you.A New Jersey municipal court lawyer may help you in your specific situation. Oftentimes people decide to have a meeting with the municipal prosecutor before Court begins and discuss possible plea agreements. Even though this may appear to be reasonable thing to do at the time, those negotiating such pleas are not always aware of the ramifications of such pleas. These may go from increased fines or insurance rates to a criminal record that will haunt them throughout their lives and possibly interfere with future employment opportunities. Having criminal attorneys in NJ advising you in municipal court is a wise choice. These attorneys are familiar with the rules of law and rules of the court. An attorney familiar with municipal court practices can prevent you from making serious errors by advising you of challenges to the evidence. These could include lack of probable cause for stops and searches or DUI checks, informing you of alternate charges you may obtain which result in a less severe criminal record or less severe monetary fines and otherwise assist you be either insuring your case is tried properly or negotiating the best possible plea agreement for you. For all of these reasons, always consult an attorney who consistently practices in municipal court any time you are facing traffic tickets, DUI, drug charges, or other municipal violations.

A development company in Cornwall was slapped a fine of £4,500 for not conducting a survey at a demolition site for detecting asbestos fibres which are dangerous for health.

Norwegian Homes Limited had been put in charge of demolition of the Cellar Cover Hotel situated in Perranporth at Droskyn Point. The demolition was supposed to be carried out in July 2006 so that the site could be converted into new apartments and guesthouses for holidays.

Suspected samples of asbestos were found in polythene sacks, bonfire ashes and in insulation boards beneath a caravan when inspectors from the HSE visited the site. The Health and Safety Laboratory later confirmed that the samples contained asbestos.

The Truro Magistrates Court heard that no steps had been taken to ensure safe removal of the material containing asbestos, and no protective measures had been implemented for the protection of on-site staff.

Norwegian Homes, an undertaking of Cligga Head Industrial Estate, St. George’s Hill, Parrenporth had breached Regulation 15 of Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations passed in 2002, and had to plead guilty. Beside the fine levied, the firm had to pay £11,959 towards costs as directed by the court.

Martin Lee- HSE Inspector, told that Asbestos was extremely dangerous for humans, and was a very serious occupational health hazard in the country. Annually, 4,000 deaths are reported due to diseases related to asbestos. He said that Norwegian Homes should have conducted a survey to determine the presence and amount of asbestos present inside the building before beginning demolition. The incident could have been easily avoided, and the clean-up costs along with the fine was far greater than what a survey would have cost.

IOSH training by the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health is designed to give managers and supervisors all they need to know to help handle health and safety in their teams; click IOSH Working Safely to learn about the importance of promoting a positive health and safety culture in the workplace environment, and to help organisations find the best ways to lead and promote health and safety, and therefore meet its legal obligations.

Mrs B and her daughter were aware her overall health would get worse very quickly and in a little while she would have no option but to move straight into a care home. They all were aware two of her acquaintences had left the whole thing until too late when the neighborhood social worker came into the picture and dealt with it. Mrs S and her daughter subsequently found out that the work group had themselves declared legal guardians, which ensured they could put up for sale her neighbours properties to fund their care. What really caused Mrs B to acquire a will professionally composed and her family given Power of Attorney, was the fact they eventually learned that any money left over right after her acquaintences passed on, was used by the social services department

Mrs B and her son chose to have her will written by pros and to be certain that her son and daughter was given Power of Attorney over her affairs they worked with a Will writing service to make sure her wishes couldn’t be overruled by the authorities. Mrs s was finding it more difficult to deal with very little support and would at some point require daily nursing care. Mrs Ts daughter would definitely make sure that their mum had perfect care as she had control over the ultimate selling of her house and money that remained once her care was paid for.

Mrs T’s physical condition got a great deal more serious some time after she had her will written. Her illness was taken into account by the carer who turned up each day and as her job required, she described it to her local office A social worker showed up the very next day to speak with Mrs S about going into a residential home. The social worker spoke to Mrs Ts daughter and told him that local authority would place her in a nursing home. Thankfully, Mr B was in possession of a copy of the will and the law was on his side when she spoke to the social worker and made it clear to her that he would find a nursing home for his mother as he had legal authority as defined in the terms of her will.

When the local authority had checked the legitimacy of the claims made by Mrs Ts son they unhappily withdrew from the situation. Making a will had been the best thing that Mrs S had done simply because it ensured her daughter could find the kind of residential home they realized she would be happy in, and she could put up for sale her house to finance things. Mrs B was content because she knew that her family would at the least have some inheritance when she passed on making a will with professional help had made all the difference to their situation.

On 14th of October 2007, a fire broke out in a shop in Colney Hatch, Barnet. The fire brigade was soon alerted. When they came, they found that the shop was shut. They managed to get hold of a worker of the shop who was putting in new supplies into the store after it had been shut down.

The fire-fighters found that the fire had been put out using blanket and fire extinguisher but discovered that there was plenty of smoke in the kitchen, corridor and locker rooms. They had to tell the workers multiple times to exit the shop.

This made the Fire Brigade worried about the fire hazards inside the shop and it launched an investigation the next day. They found many violations of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order, 2005 (RRO). Under the RRO, the person in charge of a store has to assess all the fire hazards and take suitable steps to remedy them. This was not done in the present case. The exit routes were not kept clear for the workers to leave in case of an emergency, and there was insufficient fire division in the construction because the doors were wedged open.

London Fire Brigade has sued Tesco, the owner of the superstore, which accepted its guilt and was fined £95,000 along with £24,321 in costs.

Companies need to be sure that they are giving the correct instructions with effective policies around health and safety decisions. The NEBOSH Fire Certificate has been designed for managers, supervisors, and employee representatives who need to ensure that their organisation meets its responsibilities under fire safety legislation - click NEBOSH Fire. It is of benefit to organisations in enabling them to contribute to the conduct and review of fire risk assessments and fire preventive and protective measures within the workplace.

A senior clinician, who was suspended from a London hospital after he disapproved the management’s cost-cutting measures, has warned employees to “think hard” before they disagree with bosses over matters of policy.

Talking to The Independent, Dr. Ramon Niekrash said the professional environment of the health sector is such that professionals think twice before opposing their management, even if the decisions taken by the bosses are not in the best interests of the patients, especially since there is no law to protect workers who lose their jobs after disagreeing with bosses.

Pointing out the poor management policies that risked patients’ lives at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Dr. Niekrash said NHS officials are more concerned with money than the health of people.

In February, the Employment Tribunal revoked his suspension since it was effected for raising genuine whistleblowing concerns.

According to Arpita Dutt, the counsel for Niekrash, their victory in this case throws up a serious issue of public concern. She said employers do not have a right to silence their employees if their concerns are genuine.

Expressing her delight at winning the case, Dutt said problems of safety with NHS trusts and hospitals still exist as very few workers dare to raise their voice against the unfair policies of their bosses lest they lose their jobs. She warned that tighter budgets might further compromise health and safety measures at the hospitals.

For anyone involved in human resources management, training and development, the Chartered Institute of Professional Development is the body to refer to. Organisations can keep up to date with employment relations developments with a CIPD Course to help employers to set their own organisation’s policies and procedures in context and develop the skills needed in employment practice.

What started as an investigation of arson at BCB Environmental Management Limited, a Tockwith based hazardous waste recycling company in October 2008, ended up with the company being prosecuted for security failures. Though the police found and prosecuted the arsonist successfully, it also found, together with the HSE, that the company had committed several security lapses and thus also made the arsonist’s job easy.

The company was charged for two counts of violation of Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 as it had been illegally processing vats of volatile chemicals in proximity to unprotected electrical equipment and forklift trucks. The drums of flammable liquid were kept without any security, and thus the arsonist ad found it easy to ignite the fire.

They also found that the drum crushing machine being used by the company was a potential hazard because there was no safety guard in the machine which meant that workers were exposed to the danger of a hydraulic ram which was capable of applying two tones of pressure. Such a disaster, if it occurred, could not be easily averted, either, as it was impossible to find the emergency switch in the layer of dirt over the machine. This led to a charge of violation of Regulation 11 the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

When prosecuted before of Harrogate Magistrates Court, the company pleaded guilty to all the charges. As a result, it was fined £40,000 and £6,110 as the costs of the suit.

Protecting the health and safety of employees or members of the public who may be affected by your activities is an essential part of risk management. Failure to comply with fire safety legislation can pose a serious and significant risk and cost to your business. Fire safety management solutions (see Fire Risk Assessments) from Workplace Law are tailored to meet site-specific requirements for the implementation, review and audit of fire safety policies, procedures and processes.

The London Fire Brigade recently prosecuted a former pub landlord after the pub was found to be in blatant and consistent violation of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

On 29 August 2008, fire officers went on an inspection visit to the Star Public House located on Uxbridge Road at Hillingdon. Finding several fire safety breaches, such as the absence of fire extinguishers, fire risk assessment, and signs for emergency exits the officers expressed concern and while requesting that these issues be addressed.

Subsequent visits to these locations showed that the concerns of the officers were still unaddressed, following which the pub was issued an enforcement notice, that also mentioned timeframe for compliance. Officers inspected the premises yet again; amazingly enough, the place had actually regressed, instead of becoming better. After inspecting the upper floors of the building the Brigade decided that there were too many fire hazards there, and issued a prohibition notice, barring the usage of the higher floors of the buildings as they were extremely dangerous for the staff and guests.

However, on 22 May 2009, another inspection confirmed that the higher floors of the property were continuing to be used as accommodation. The owner of the property, Punch Taverns, heeding the recommendations given by the fire officers, finally blocked entry to the higher floors of the building.

On 7 December 2009, Mr. Bhupinder Singh Mann, the former landlord pleaded guilty on sixteen counts of breach of fire and safety directives in front of the Uxbridge Magistrates Court and ordered to pay £16,015 in fines and costs. The manager of the Star Public House who also pleaded guilty, was charged costs and fine of £1,015.