Wymondham College is on the hunt for Business Mentors to help out with their Entrepreneurship Elective, which is a course that is run for Year 9 and 10 students.
Since September 2012, students have been undertaking a structured, 12-unit course covering all aspects of Business, from Strategy to Finance, Risk Management to Marketing. At the end of the Spring Term, students will work in groups to develop a Business Plan which they then ‘pitch’ to potential mentors. The mentor’s role can be light-touch or more involved – they act as a source of guidance and advice for students as they attempt to set up their own enterprise during the summer term of Year 9 and the whole of Year 10. The aim of the Elective is to help students to work independently, give them opportunities to learn things they wouldn’t in a GCSE course, collaborate with others both in and outside of the college, and to have fun doing something that is a bit different!
More and more businesses and young people are realising that Apprenticeships aren’t only limited to traditional fields. Norfolk County Council in partnership with training providers at the College of West Anglia, City College Norwich and Broadlands Training Services, has received a great response to its recent Apprenticeships Norfolk scheme. The fund will see up to 400 apprenticeships in small and medium-sized businesses created over the next two years thanks to £3.5m in funding from the county council.
This significant investment seeks to create apprenticeships in sectors which are creating jobs for the future with a particular focus on: – engineering, energy, advanced manufacturing, hospitality and tourism, creative industries, health and social care, agriculture and food and drink. Employers within the target sectors, who qualify for funding from the scheme, can receive up to £10,000 when they take on an apprentice. This funding provides a real helping hand for small and medium employers in Norfolk to grow their businesses.
Alison Thomas, Cabinet Member for Children’s Services at Norfolk County Council, added: “This scheme will create many interesting and valuable opportunities for young people exploring their choices and wondering what next steps to make. Norfolk young people seeking employment face many barriers in the current climate and we hope that this significant investment will help them take their first step into employment. We are very excited to see this begin to make a difference to the lives of young people in Norfolk.”
Elli Chapman, Director of Culture Works East said: “When I heard about the fund I thought it was a fantastic idea and something I passionately wanted to get involved with. Culture Works already support a number of young people in entry level roles within our company, it is important to invest in our sector. I started my career by being mentored and learning on the job after leaving school at an early age with very few qualifications. This was definitely the best route for me as it was a way of learning and earning at the same time. I want to pass this valuable experience on to potential apprentices within my own organisation.”
For more information regarding the scheme and to see if your company could benefit from this funding, please contact the Employer Partnerships team at City College Norwich by email on employerpartnerships@ccn.ac.uk or by telephone on 0800 328 3616
Professional Support Lawyer Elizabeth Stevens looks ahead at the changes to employment law expected during 2013.
The year ahead looks set to be an extremely busy one, with a large number of changes to employment law due to take place as a result of the Government’s plan to reform and simplify existing employment legislation.
Employers will need to take note of the following key developments (some dates are still to be confirmed):
February 2013
New tribunal award limits take effect from 1 February 2013, including an increase to a week’s pay from £430 to £450 and the upper limit for unfair dismissal compensation increasing from £72,300 to £74,200 (see our briefing).
March 2013
Increase to the number of weeks of parental leave available for parents under the revised Parental Leave Directive, from 13 to 18 weeks per child, due to take effect by 8 March 2013.
Introduction of online checks with the new Disclosure and Barring Service (formed following the merger of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA)).
April 2013
Various changes to be introduced under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill (likely to be from April), including:
All tribunal cases to be submitted for conciliation to Acas first.
Repeal of the third-party harassment provisions in the Equality Act 2010 (see our briefing).
Repeal of the obligation on an employer to respond to discrimination questionnaires under the Equality Act 2010.
New power to the Secretary of State to amend the maximum amount of the compensatory award in claims for unfair dismissal.
Compromise agreements to be renamed ‘settlement agreements’, with a new Acas Code of Practice on settlement together with a model agreement and standard letters.
Pre-termination settlement negotiations to be excluded from being used in evidence at tribunal hearings.
Introduction of the new “employee-shareholder” status, whereby certain employment rights are surrendered in exchange for shares, under the Growth and Infrastructure Bill (see our briefing).
Reduction in minimum consultation period for collective redundancies affecting 100 or more employees, from 90 days to 45 days, with effect from 6 April 2013 (see our briefing).
Increase to the standard rate of statutory sick pay (SSP) from £85.85 to £86.70 per week, with effect from 6 April 2013.
Increase to the standard rate of statutory maternity pay (SMP), statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay from £135.45 to £136.78 per week, with effect from 7 April 2013.
Also likely in 2013 (date to be confirmed)
Fees for issuing tribunal claims introduced, the applicable rate to depend on the complexity of the case (see our briefing).
New employment tribunal Rules of Procedure to take effect (see our briefing).
The Steeles Law employment team will be looking in more detail at these changes, as well as looking back at important developments over the previous year, at our forthcoming Employment Update breakfast seminar, due to take place on 21 March 2013. Please check our website or contact us for further details.
For any employment enquiries please contact the Steeles Law employment team on employment@steeleslaw.co.uk or 01603 598000.
Michael Fahy and Trainee Solicitor Robert Hickford consider the case of Charles Terence Estates Ltd v Cornwall Council [2012] EWCA Civ 1439 regarding the sub-letting or licensing of social housing.
Facts
Restormel Borough Council (‘Restormel’) and Penwith Borough Council (‘Penwith’) were Cornish local housing authorities. They each entered into arrangements with Charles Terence Estates Ltd (‘CTE’) in 2006/2007 under which CTE purchased properties and leased them to Restormel or Penwith, who in turn sublet or licensed them to vulnerable people who were in priority need of social housing.
There were no issues until April 2009. On 1 April 2009, Restormel and Penwith ceased to exist as they were united under the ‘Cornwall’ Council, who took over their rights and liabilities. Cornwall reviewed the CTE arrangements and in July 2010 stopped paying rent, although continued to occupy and use the properties to house vulnerable people.
CTE commenced proceedings for recovery of the unpaid rents. Cornwall defended the claim, raising a number of defences, including assertions that Restormel and Penwith had breached fiduciary duties owed to their council taxpayers with the result that the leases were ultra vires (outside of their powers) and void. Cornwall argued that this was due to Restormel and Penwith failing to consider the standard market rent rates.
Court of Appeal Decision
CTE appealed to the Court of Appeal and in upholding its appeal, it ruled that:
the leases were not void;
there was no fiduciary breach; and
even if there had been, the leases would still not have been void.
The Court stated the breach would have had to be under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985. This only required rents to be at a ‘reasonable price’, and at no point did the act place any value on what would be considered reasonable. The Court stated that it would be dangerous for it to determine what value would be considered reasonable, as this would throw into question any financial decision taken by Councils and similar bodies. More specifically to this case, there had been no expert proof that the rents were not ‘market rate’. The Court also held that even if this was a breach of duty, this does not in any way mean the Council did not have the capacity to enter into the leases, so whilst a breach could have other consequences, the leases would still stand, and rent would be due. The case of Credit Suisse v Allerdale Borough Council [1996] QB 306 was cited as evidence for this point.
The Court did not want to allow historic breaches being used as a defence in this way. The time limit would have long ago expired for challenging the Council’s decision to enter into the leases, and throughout the entire process, CTE had acted in good faith.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal finds that a dismissal for redundancy following maternity leave was not necessarily unfair. Employment solicitor Sam Greehalgh and trainee solicitor Laura Tanguay report.
The claimant in this case was employed part time as a manager in the respondent company’s sales and marketing department. The claimant went on maternity leave and upon returning to work she was asked to attend a meeting with her manager. During the meeting, the claimant’s manager was alleged to have said: “I will cut to the chase on this one … as you have been off for what is it, a year or so and we have managed without you we are considering making the position of part-time marketing manager or whatever redundant. Your work has been absorbed by other members of your team”. The claimant was subsequently dismissed for redundancy.
The claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of her maternity leave.
The employment tribunal concluded that the claimant had been unlawfully discriminated against and unfairly dismissed because the reason for dismissal was connected to the claimant’s maternity leave; she was the only person singled out for redundancy.
The respondent appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”).
The EAT Decision
The EAT upheld the respondent’s appeal and remitted the case to the tribunal for a further hearing.
According to the EAT, the tribunal erred in concluding that there was a discriminatory dismissal, as it failed to ask the relevant questions, namely: (a) whether the reason or principal reason for dismissal was redundancy; (b) whether the circumstances of the redundancy applied equally to employees holding similar positions who had not been dismissed; and (c) whether the reason or principal reason for the dismissal was connected to the fact that the claimant took maternity leave.
The EAT was satisfied that both (a) and (c) applied in the claimant’s case, but it referred the matter back to the tribunal to deliberate whether (b) also applied. The tribunal needed to consider the precise job descriptions and work carried out by the other three members of the department, to determine whether the claimant should have been pooled with those individuals rather than being singled out for redundancy.
Comment
The scenario that arose in this case is not uncommon, but employers should always tread carefully in carrying out a redundancy exercise involving individuals who are pregnant or on maternity leave.
If a redundancy situation arises during an individual’s maternity leave, that individual must be properly consulted with along with any other affected employees. It is not the case that employees on maternity leave are exempt from being made redundant; however, they have the right to be offered alternative employment in preference to other redundant employees, where any is available. ACAS recently published a guide for employers on managing redundancy for pregnant employees or those on maternity leave, which is available on their website.
Construction Training Specialists Ltd have one of the widest portfolios of construction based qualifications in the Eastern Region. We have expertise in delivering courses from entry level through to supervisory and management all of which are across a plethora of skill and trade areas. Our flexible approach to industry allows us to move with trends and react to our customers’ needs immediately anywhere within the East of England.
Our Mission Statement: “CTS Limited is committed to raising the skill level of all learners who wish to develop a successful career in the construction industry, doing so by providing a first class delivery and training experience”.
One of our main strengths is the way in which we work with employers to increase the numbers of apprenticeships on offer to young people in this area. We are currently working with over 80 young apprentices and their employers to give them the skills, knowledge and experience to start their careers in the construction industry.
It is our partnerships with other organisations such as Adult Education, Broadland Council Training Services and Construction Skills that enable us to offer funded training to the unemployed, self employed and employed people, with many qualifications and courses on offer to help people achieve recognised qualifications to further their career options.
Funding available for Apprenticeships and Experienced Workers see attached information leaflet for further information.
Norfolk’s PCC wants to hear from residents as she launches
Police Budget Consultation
Norfolk’s Police and Crime Commissioner, Sarah Taylor, has
launched her public consultation concerning the proposed budget for policing
for 2026/27.
Following discussions with Norfolk’s Chief Constable, Paul
Sanford, the PCC is asking residents whether they would be prepared to pay an
increase in the policing element of their council tax to meet inflation-related
cost pressures, nationally agreed salary increases, pension liabilities and the
requirement to recruit and train new officers.
It is a statutory duty for the PCC to set the police budget
and balance the books, and with this responsibility, make the decision on how
much residents of Norfolk should pay.
The PCC’s consultation will run until 5pm, Friday 5
December.
This financial year (2025/26), £201.3 million (88.1%) is
being spent on officers and staff, with the remaining £21.6 million (11.9%)
spent on everything else, including maintaining buildings, vehicles, fuel,
equipment, computers and training. This supports every aspect of policing, from
the visible front lines of neighbourhood policing teams to the many roles and
operations behind the scenes that make possible those investigations into
complex case areas like County Lines drug crime and online fraud.
In the consultation documentation published today, Sarah
said: “All of these areas need robust funding. At the same time, the demands on
police time and resources continue to grow. There has been a welcome increase
in the reporting of violence against women and girls that is helping us to get
to grips with this critical area. The collection and processing of complex
digital evidence is costly and difficult, and the ongoing challenges of
addressing rural crime in the more sparsely populated parts of Norfolk are
significant. On top of this, Crown Court backlogs create a huge and enduring
need for the Constabulary to support victims.”
The law allows PCCs to raise the policing element of
council tax to meet increased demands and costs, up to a maximum amount, before
a local referendum is required. Last year, the increase was £14 (£13.95) per
year for a Band D property. If the same increase were to be used for 2026/27,
this would leave the constabulary with a shortfall of £1.9m against the
police’s current spending plans.
Sarah said: “While I am awaiting confirmation of the
Government’s spending plans, the Government has allowed me to request the
maximum increase, in order to support the maintenance and improvement of
policing in Norfolk. Based on last year’s maximum allowed by the Government,
this would mean an increase of £13.95 per year for a Band D household.
A 4.23% rise equates to £13.95 a year or 27 pence per week
for a Band D property and £10.85 or 21 pence per week for a Band B property.
“Earlier this year I launched my Police and Crime Plan,
which was built on my consultations with residents and businesses across
Norfolk. With the Constabulary, I am working to deliver the things that people
asked me to prioritise, including a much stronger focus on prevention to tackle
anti-social behaviour, drugs and knife crime, and more support for victims who
have been let down by the court system.
“The outcome of this consultation on council tax precept
setting will have a direct impact on the extent to which these priorities can
be delivered over the coming year.”
Age UK Norwich is excited to announce the launch of the Older and Bolder Pod, a new podcast dedicated to living well in later life.
Hosted by recently retired broadcasters Louise Priest and Mike Talbot, the podcast will delve into the world after work, offering insightful discussions, expert guests, and plenty of light-hearted moments.
In each fortnightly episode, Louise and Mike will share their personal experiences, compare notes, and explore the challenges and joys of life after retirement. The duo will be joined by a variety of expert guests to discuss important issues affecting people in later life, from managing identity changes to finding new social connections and purpose.
Episode One and Two Now Live
The first episodes are now available to listen. In their inaugural episode, Mike and Louise open up about the transition into retirement, including the emotional aspects of losing work identity, finding time for new hobbies, and navigating the changes in relationships with colleagues and friends. Plus, listeners will get Mike’s first cash-saving tip on “Mike On The Money” and some sage words of wisdom from “The Priest in the Pulpit.”
The podcast is a fresh, engaging resource for those in retirement or approaching it, offering practical advice, relatable stories, and much-needed support for this life stage.
Sponsorship by Age UK Norwich
As part of its 80th birthday celebrations, Age UK Norwich is proudly sponsoring the Older and Bolder Pod. This partnership reflects the organization’s ongoing commitment to supporting older people in the region, providing them with the resources and platforms they need to thrive in later life.
There has been much debate about the demise of HMV and Blockbuster. These two high street entertainment giants were once at the heart of our retail world, much like the mighty Woolworths who were the first of the giants to be slayed over the holiday period of 2008 – 2009.
Some say HMV and Blockbuster should have moved with the times, and that they did not do enough to adapt to their changing customer needs. Whatever the reason for their demise, the harsh reality is that thousands of people face unemployment -irrespective of who or what contributed to the downfall of these retail giants. Between them, HMV and Blockbuster have over 8,000 employees who are facing redundancy.
When administrators are called in, the process is often quite brutal for employees. The knowledge that your employer is in financial difficulty and that your job may not be secure often leaves the employee in a difficult position. In such situations, many employees are made redundant and left feeling that their views and suggestions have not been adequately taken into account or even heard. When it is proposed to make 20 + employees redundant, the affected employees have a legal right to be consulted with. If you fall into this category and have NOT been consulted with then do let us know.
Leathes Prior are willing to meet with the employees of HMV and Blockbuster, or indeed any employee who has been / is being affected by the insolvency of their employer.
The European Court of Human Rights has handed down its judgment in four conjoined cases brought by Christian employees, who each claimed that they had been discriminated against by their employers on the grounds of their religion. Professional Support Lawyer Elizabeth Stevens considers the implications of this decision.
These cases involved four Christian employees: two had pursued claims for religious discrimination on the grounds that their employer’s dress code did not allow them to openly display a necklace with a cross (Eweidaand Chaplin); the other two (Ladele and Macfarlane, a Registrar and a relationship counsellor) objected to a requirement to carry out duties which, in their view condoned homosexual activities and were inconsistent with their religious beliefs.
The employees’ claims were all eventually dismissed by the employment tribunals and courts in the UK, so they each brought claims at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) against the UK Government, on the grounds that domestic law had failed to adequately protect their right to manifest their religion. They claimed a breach of their rights under Article 9 (freedom of religion) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The ECHR has upheld the claim brought by Eweida, but has dismissed the claims of the other three employees.
Eweida and Chaplin
In relation to Eweida and Chaplin, the Court agreed that there had been an interference with both women’s right to manifest their religion, by preventing them from wearing crosses visibly at work.
In Eweida’s case, the Court decided that the UK courts had not struck a fair balance between her desire to manifest her religious belief and to communicate that belief to others on the one hand, and her employer’s (British Airways) wish to project a certain corporate image. The Court noted that other employees had previously been authorised to wear items of religious clothing (such as turbans and hijabs) without any negative impact on BA’s brand or image. It also pointed to the fact that BA had amended its uniform code to allow for the visible wearing of religious symbolic jewellery, which the Court considered to show that the earlier prohibition had not been of crucial importance.
The Court therefore concluded, by a majority, that the domestic authorities (the Court of Appeal) had failed to sufficiently protect Eweida’s right to manifest her religion, in breach of Article 9.
In Chaplin’s case, however, the Court considered the reason for asking her to remove her cross, namely the protection of health and safety on a hospital ward (she was a nurse), to be inherently of much greater importance. The Court concluded that requiring Chaplin to remove her cross was not disproportionate and that the interference with her freedom to manifest her religion had been necessary in a democratic society.
Ladele and McFarlane
Ladele and McFarlane’s cases involved the interesting issue of when one set of protected rights (religious belief) conflicted with another (sexual orientation).
The Court considered that the policies of their employers (the promotion of equal opportunities and requiring employees to act in a non-discriminatory way), had the legitimate aim of securing the rights of others, such as same-sex couples, which were also protected under the Convention. The Court was satisfied that the right balance had been struck between the employer’s right to secure the rights of others and the applicants’ right to manifest their religion. The applicants’ claims were therefore dismissed.
Comment
This decision does not mean that employers will have to allow the visible display of religious symbols in every case, but it does mean that employers will have to demonstrate legitimate and justifiable reasons for imposing a dress code that prevents such a display. Eweida’s employer in this case had eventually decided, following consultation with its employees, to amend its dress code to allow religious symbols to be displayed. Rather ironically, this was used as evidence to support the Court’s view that imposing the restriction on any jewellery was not necessary to maintain BA’s corporate image.
Employers who have compulsory dress codes in place should ensure that any requests for flexibility, particularly for religious reasons, are given due consideration on an individual basis and are dealt with sensitively.
It is unlikely that this decision will result in any immediate changes to existing equalities legislation in the UK. The Court, in upholding Eweida’s claim, did not consider that the lack of specific protection under UK law in itself meant that her right to manifest her religion by wearing a religious symbol at work was insufficiently protected. Instead it was the application of the law by the Court of Appeal that had struck the wrong balance and was therefore found to be in breach of her rights.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has announced that in view of this judgment it will be issuing new guidance for employers on the issue of religious freedom in the workplace.
Keen to mingle with the Hingham locals, Naked Marketing has collaborated with our next door neighbours to create this set of quirky postcards.
Mongers Achitectural Salvage prides itself on being no ordinary reclamation yard – giving a future purpose and function to quality pieces from the past.
Offering so much, from cast iron radiators, original fireplaces, antique bathrooms, reclaimed floorboards and brass door furniture with vast experience and extremely talented local craftspeople, Mongers Architectural Salvage in Hingham is a treasure trove of items.
Having worked on the toilets of the fashion brand, Jack Wills’ flagship store in London and judging by the famous names who have given testimonial on the Mongers website, this little Norfolk secret is well and truly out. Encouraged by this we approached and designed a range of postcards to promote the different items that Mongers stock. The postcards wanted to encourage a younger, ‘funkier’ audience to pay attention with an on-trend vintage appeal and quirky copy lines, without completely alienating the traditional customer.
Sam Coster, owner of Mongers commented “We were delighted when Naked Marketing’s young creative team moved into the Old Bank next door, and really hope that the postcards will be the first of many marketing ideas that they can carry out for us. Mongers are very ambitious to take architectural salvage to new audiences and believe that Naked Marketing can help us with this.”