Birmingham Employment Attorneys offering legal help to wronged employees

Modern day work environment with its cut throat competition and financial compulsions comes with a lot of work place law violations. Very often you may find yourself being victimized or treated unlawfully by your employer. It is here that an Employment Attorneys comes in handy to you in your battle for justice. There are several law firms in Birmingham and adjoining areas that offer youlegal help in such needs no matter what the magnitude of the violation or stature of the company.

These law firms provide you with legal assistance in a wide array of cases like discrimination, wrongful termination or demotion, claims etc. They handle cases of retaliatory actions taken by the employer in response to whistleblowing on your part. In addition to these, they handle the cases where overtime fees are not paid.

As per the federal law, it is illegal on the part of an employer to discriminate you on the basis of sex, your place of origin or your religious belief. It is also illegal to be discriminating on the groundage and physical disability.Such discriminations can come in the form of termination of service, demotion, under payment or even forced transfers and low increments. Legally you are protected against allsuch discrimination. These firms and their attorneys help even with cases of unequal pay as well as in cases when you are laid-off because of your age.

Non-payment of over time fees is another unlawful act that these firms help you with. If you are a victim of sexual Harassment,these firms can provide legal assistance to you irrespective of your sex. Theyoffer assistance in cases of medical leave rights violation committed by the employer.You may also seek their assistance in case you are a whistle blower and have brought irregularities of your company into the government’s notice.

In all of the above mentioned scenarios, your employer is not only bound to pay you compensation for violations that they have made, but also reimburse the attorney’s professional fees. The assistance of Birmingham Employment Attorneys and the legal advice that they provide can help you fight for your right. If you are looking for the same at Birmingham neighborhood, then there are a number of firms with dedicated attorneys on board who can extend their helping hand to you. Remember, you are not alone in your fight for justice against powerful employer.

Birmingham Employment Attorneys offer assistance to those who suffer discrimination in the hands of their employers. The assistance of these attorneys helps them in fighting for their rights.

Reading the reviews provided by the author is one of the best ways to gain necessary information on http://www.employmentlawyerbirmingham.com/contact/.

Abbey Santander Illustrates Unfair Dismissal Remedy (reinstatement)

Reinstatement, being the re-employment of the employee back into the role he was unfairly dismissed from (as though the dismissal had never occurred), is one possible remedy in the UK for unfair dismissal. In the high-profile case Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006), the Employment Tribunal found that Mr Chagger had been unfairly dismissed, and that both Santander Abbey National (the Spanish-owned UK bank due to be re-branded as Santander, and being part of the Banco Santander Group) and Mr Hopkins had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in respect of his dismissal. The Employment Tribunal took the rare step of ordering Abbey Santander to reinstate Mr Chagger in order to remedy its wrongdoing. Santander Abbey National, however, refused to comply with the Employment Tribunal’s reinstatement order. Following Abbey Santander’s refusal and failure to comply with the reinstatement order, the Employment Tribunal subsequently ordered Abbey Santander to pay Mr Chagger the record breaking 2.8 million compensation for his loss on the basis that he had not been reinstated. Santander Abbey National had terminated Balbinder Chagger’s employment in 2006, giving redundancy as the reason. He was employed as a Trading Risk Controller, earned about 100,000 per year, reported into Nigel Hopkins and was of Indian origin.

UK law views reinstatement of the unfairly dismissed employee as the primary remedy for unfair dismissal; reinstatement of the employee permits him to continue to enjoy the economic benefits of the role in the future and also restores the mental satisfaction that he enjoyed from his role. If reinstatement of the employee is not practicable, UK law then usually views reengagement as the next best remedy. Reengagement is re-employment of the employee into a different role to the one he was unfairly dismissed from (on terms and conditions as close as is reasonably practicable to those he was unfairly dismissed from).

After an Employment Tribunal makes a finding of unfair dismissal, it must ask the unfairly dismissed employee whether or not he wishes to be reinstated or reengaged. If the employee wishes to be reinstated or reengaged, then the Employment Tribunal has complete discretion as to whether or not to issue a reinstatement order or reengagement order. The Employment Tribunal will consider whether it is practicable for the unfairly dismissed employee to return to work for the employer and, where the unfairly dismissed employee was partly to blame for the dismissal, whether or not it would be just and equitable to issue such a reinstatement order or reengagement order.

Although they are the primary remedies, Employment Tribunals rarely ever order reinstatement or reengagement though. That’s because the reality of the process of litigation is that its vexatious nature often leaves the relationship between the employer and the unfairly dismissed employee beyond repair such that it is no longer possible for them to work together anymore; only in rare cases do Employment Tribunals decide that the relationship remains workable.

When an Employment Tribunal orders reinstatement or reengagement, then it is open for the employer to refuse to re-employ the unfairly dismissed employee. Unless the employer satisfies the Employment Tribunal that it was not practicable to comply with the reinstatement order or reengagement order, then the employer’s refusal to comply with the Tribunal’s wishes will give rise to increased compensation for the unfairly dismissed employee. If the Tribunal is dissatisfied with the employer’s reasons for refusing to comply with its wishes, then the employer will have failed to comply with what the law views as the best solution to rectify the wrong committed; then the Employment Tribunal will proceed to consider and award compensation as the next best remedy to address the employer’s wrongdoing.

Requesting reinstatement and/or reengagement may prove to be tactically useful for an unfairly dismissed employee because the employer’s failure to comply entitles him to be compensated in full for all his loss of earnings from the date of the unfair dismissal to the date of the reinstatement/reengagement order; the statutory limit (or cap) on the compensation amount does not apply. So, if the unfairly dismissed employee’s losses to the date of the hearing exceed the statutory limit, then reinstatement/reengagement should be seriously considered. Furthermore, employers generally dislike re-employing an unfairly dismissed employee so much that a credible application for re-employment could lead to higher offers of settlement from the employer. If the employer complies with the order of reinstatement/reengagement, then the employee will be expected to comply too.

The Chagger case did not end at the Employment Tribunal stage, however. The case was subsequently escalated to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), and recently had escalated to the second highest court in UK, the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal’s website showed the case was heard on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court of Appeal’s records of the case were not available at the time of writing this article. However, the King’s Bench Walk set of barristers’ chambers reported (through their website) that the hearing was limited to the issue of compensation only (not race discrimination also). That suggests that the wrong of race discrimination committed by Santander Abbey National and Mr Hopkins seemed to have been finalised by the EAT, which upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s judgement that Mr Hopkins and Abbey Santander had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in his dismissal.

Abbey National Santander Demonstrates The Uphill Battle In Suing Your Employer

The uphill battle and intense stress in suing your employer is demonstrated by the high-profile Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006) legal case in the UK, where the Employment Tribunal found race discrimination and subsequently ordered Santander Abbey National to pay the record breaking 2.8 million compensation award. Abbey National Santander Group (the Spanish-owned UK high street bank which will soon be re-branded as Santander share price, and is part of the massive Banco Santander Group) terminated Balbinder Chagger’s employment in 2006, asserting redundancy as the reason. Mr Chagger believed that the real reason behind his dismissal was race discrimination. Santander Abbey National Group employed Mr Chagger (of Indian origin) as a Trading Risk Controller. He was paid about 100,000 per annum and he reported into Nigel Hopkins.

An employee who has suffered discrimination at work could decide to challenge his employer. The challenge may be initiated in the form of a formal grievance. The employee raises the grievance formally with the employer. The employer is responsible for hearing the grievance and deciding its outcome. The employer is, thus, given the opportunity to deal with the employment dispute and to bring it to a satisfactory end. The Employment Tribunal that heard the Abbey Santander price case found that Mr Chagger had attempted to resolve the issues around his dismissal directly with Abbey National and Mr Hopkins, via the company’s own complaints and grievance procedures. The Employment Tribunal also found, however, that Mr Chagger’s issues were simply dismissed out of hand.

If the employee remains dissatisfied with the employer’s handling of the grievance, then he must initiate legal action in order to persevere with his challenge. Mr Chagger, being dissatisfied with the outcome of his grievances, eventually initiated legal proceedings against both Abbey National Santander and Mr Hopkins on the grounds of race discrimination and unfair dismissal, thus, escalating the dispute to the attention of the Employment Tribunal.

An employer (especially a large and powerful organisation such as a major bank) is likely to be a formidable opponent for most employees, possessing vastly superior levels of financial resources, experience of dealing with disputes, legal expertise and plenty time to devote to the challenge.

In stark contrast, the employee will be relatively poor in financial resources, experience and legal expertise, will be hindered by personal circumstances and commitments, and have to make time to devote to the challenge while he also goes about discharging his obligation of mitigating his loss stemming from the discrimination he has suffered. He may also be further hindered by the low economic value of his challenge (the rewards less the costs), and be discouraged by the prospect of being shunned by prospective employers for having brought a legal action against an employer (whether he wins or loses).

The employer may exercise its superiority ruthlessly, without any remorse, in its attempts to coerce the employee into giving up his challenge for as little as possible. To persevere with legal action against such a formidable opponent requires the employee to possess an amazing level of resolve and lots of disposable cash.

Even though the employer might be holding significant advantages and be ruthless, a genuine challenge supported by appropriate evidence has the possibility to be successful, as shown by Mr Chagger who satisfied the Employment Tribunal that Mr Hopkins and Santander Abbey National had unlawfully discriminated against him on the grounds of race in his dismissal. In order to remedy the wrongs of race discrimination and unfair dismissal that Abbey Santander had committed, the Employment Tribunal ordered it to reinstate Mr Chagger. However, Santander Abbey refused to comply with the Employment Tribunal’s reinstatement order.

Despite Mr Chagger’s challenge being genuine and successful, his experience was that other prospective employers shunned him for having brought a legal action against an employer. This, along with Santander Abbey National’s refusal and failure to comply with the Employment Tribunal’s reinstatement order, subsequently led to the record breaking 2.8 million compensation award.

Even if the employee’s legal challenge is successful, the employer may appeal against the Tribunal’s decision and, thus, continue to prolong the employee’s challenge and to erode its economic value through additional legal costs. In 2008, Santander Abbey National and Mr Hopkins continued the legal case by appealing against the Employment Tribunal’s finding of racial discrimination and 2.8 million compensation award. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) that heard the appeals upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s finding that Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger in his dismissal. However, the EAT overturned the Employment Tribunal’s 2.8 million compensation award and sent it back to the original Employment Tribunal for reconsideration.

Even where the issue of the wrong committed has been closed off, the employer may continue to be ruthless in its handling of the issue of remedy/compensation. The Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins case did not end at the EAT stage. This year, 2009, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeal (the second highest court in the UK). The Court of Appeal’s List of Hearings showed that the appeal was listed for hearing on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court’s judgement and records of the hearing were not available at the time of writing this article. The King’s Walk Bench set of barristers’ chambers, who represented Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins, had reported that the Court of Appeal hearing was only about compensation (not racial discrimination also). That would suggest that the wrong of racial discrimination committed by Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins has been finalised by the EAT (which upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s decision that Santander Abbey National and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger in his dismissal), and that Mr Chagger has appealed against the EAT’s decision to send back the 2.8 million compensation award to the Employment Tribunal stage for reconsideration.

As can be seen, winning a discrimination case against a powerful employer is far from easy: it is highly risky and intensely stressful, possibly spanning across many years. The employee should try to have regard for the economic value of his challenge and base his decisions with reference to it, because if the challenge is purely based on principles (no matter how admirable they may be) or spite, then he should prepare to lose lots of money.

Austin Insurance Done Right!

Whether you are looking for business insurance, home or car insurance you need to have a trusted resource to help you navigate the maize of options in the market today. You can’t turnaround without being bombarded with ads about how a Gecko or Caveman or groovy waitress-looking chicks are telling you that all you have to do is call them and you will save $487. Or switch to xyz insurance company and save 15%. Are all of these ads right? Are they all the lowest cost solutions? How can this be? Who can I believe? Something just isn’t adding up!

Take a peak here to get an insider’s look at the insurance industry Insurance companies price their policies on a multitude of factors ranging from their overall underwriting profit (or combined ratio), their expense ratios, returns on their investment income and the competitive landscape.

It has been our experience in the Austin insurance market that carriers go through cycles in their pricing structure. A big reason for this is their loss history for a given market segment as well as the company overall. If an insurance company experiences lower than normal claims and makes more of an underwriting profit, they typically get more aggressive in the insurance discounts they offer.

One of the keys to managing your business and home insurance programs is to test the waters with other insurance companies at least every other year to make sure you are taking advantage of the carriers who are in an aggressive rate cycle. Yes this sounds like a very time consuming and frustrating process, but if you get with a knowledgeable and reputable independent insurance agent they can do most of the work for you and typically save you significant dollars.

Up-front premiums, however are only one part of the equation in securing an optimal insurance program. Today there are so many different types of carriers and types of insurance coverages that it is literally a full time job understanding all of the issues involved. Don’t assume that since an agent is merely licensed that they are truly qualified.

Make sure your insurance agent has advanced certifications such as a Certified Insurance Counselor (CIC) or a Certified Property & Casualty Underwriter (CPCU). A Certified Insurance Counselor can not only help you find the optimal price, can help you diagnose and then prescribe the proper coverage. Having a lower premium becomes quickly irrelevant if you have an uncovered claim!

Here Is A Brief Synopsis Of Some Of The Types Of Coverage You Need To Evaluate For Your Austin Business Insurance:

Austin General Liability Insurance

A broad commercial policy that covers liability exposures of a business that are not specifically excluded. Coverage typically includes product liability, completed operations, premises and operations, and personal and advertising injury. It is recommended that all businesses operating have general liability coverage in place.

Business Owners Policy

An Austin business insurance policy that combines property, liability and business interruption coverages for small to medium-sized businesses. Coverage is generally cheaper than if purchased through separate insurance policies. A Business Owners policy is typically available to businesses and industries that are typically viewed as having relatively low liability exposures.

Austin Workers Comp & Employers Liability

This coverage pays for medical care and physical rehabilitation of employees injured at work and helps to replace lost wages while they are unable to work. Additionally this coverage protects an employer from being sued by an injured worker in most cases. A commonly overlooked exposure for companies who employ mostly office workers is the potential injury to employees while driving their own vehicles on company business. This could be as simple as an employee driving to a sales call, the bank or office supply store. If you have employees it is critical that you secure this important coverage.

Professional Liability Insurance Austin

E&O insurance covers professionals for negligence and errors or omissions that injure their clients. In addition to covering licensed professionals such as accountants, attorneys, insurance agents, architect and engineers to name a few, technology companies frequently have a professional liability exposure. This typically arises from the fact that the general liability policy excludes damage to data. Technology E&O can protect your company in the event that your negligence, error, or omission causes damage to a third party’s data. It is recommended that all professional and technology companies have E&O coverage. Contact an Agent today for more information business insurance.

Austin Umbrella Insurance

This Cedar Park business insurance policy provides coverage for losses above the limit of an underlying policy or policies such as General Liability, Employers Liability and Automobile Liability. While it applies to losses over the dollar amount in the underlying policies, terms of coverage are sometimes broader than those of underlying policies. Due to the unpredictable nature of jury awards, it is recommended that your business insurance program have this coverage.

Austin Employment Practices Liability Insurance

Employment Practices Liability Insurance for employers that covers employment related liabilities other than on the job injuries. EPLI will cover legal fees and damages for suits such as wrongful termination, discrimination, sexual harassment, and other alleged violations of employees’ legal rights. Although only three percent of Employment Practices lawsuits go in favor of the plaintiff, the average cost to defend yourself in one of these is well over $200,000.

Austin Commercial Auto Policy

This Texas business insurance policy provides coverage for bodily injury liability and property damage, for injuries/damage the policyholder causes to someone else. Medical payments or Personal Injury Protection (PIP) for treatment of injuries to the driver and passengers of the policyholder’s car are also offered. Optional property coverages for damage to the insureds vehicles are also available in the form of collision, for damage to the policyholder’s car from a collision and comprehensive, for damage to the policyholder’s car not involving a collision with another car (including damage from fire, explosions, earthquakes, floods, and riots), and theft. Uninsured motorists’ coverage, for costs resulting from an accident involving a hit-and-run driver or a driver who does not have insurance is also recommended.

These are just a few of the Cedar Park Insurance coverages for businesses. If you have questions, feel free to contact Inspire Insurance solutions, your one-stop solution for all your Austin Insurance needs.

The Four Biggest Problems Wit Oil Field Employment

Have you ever thought about why oil field employment has such high pay? Not to mention that you only have to work half of the year? Then there are the travel opportunities? Have you ever wondered why the oil companies are so kind? The truth is, they aren’t (kind). The benefits they give you are compensation for these four big problems with jobs in oil field.

1. An Oilfield Job Has Very Long Hours

Most oil field jobs go 14, 21 or even 30 days without a break. Sometimes you have to take a 12-hour day-shift, and other times you have to take a 12-hour night-shift. You work rain or shine, doing dirty and physically strenuous work. Oilfield jobs can take a lot out of you.

2. Working An Oil Field Job Can Cause A Divorce

Oil field employment is best left to bachelors. Society has taught most women that their husbands should at home in the evening after work, or at the very least return home at night. Their husbands are also expected to be at home during the weekends. When your wife does not get what she expects, there will be a great deal of strain on your marriage. Divorces and separations are common among men in oil field jobs.

3. There Is Sometimes Great Danger In An Oilfield Job

Your high pay and bonuses are danger pay. By its nature, an oil well is more dangerous than a factory or warehouse. Many things can go wrong – the drilling rig could blow up, the offshore oil platform could collapse or sink. In addition to that, oil rigs, pipes, workers and infrastructure are often popular terrorist targets, as oil field workers in Nigeria and other Third World countries can tell you.

4. Too Hot, Too Cold, In The Middle Of Nowhere

Most oil fields are in very inhospitable environments in the middle of nowhere. It’s either too cold, like Alaska, north Canada, Siberia and the deep oceans. Or too hot – the Arabian and African deserts. Convenient places like the Texas oil wells no longer exist. People working in oilfield jobs need to deal with sub-zero temperatures, gale-force winds, ice, snow, poisonous snakes and wild animals.

Your very high salary and bonuses for oil field employment is to compensate you for the danger to life and limb. Is this double-pay enough? Only you can decide the worth of your own life. But an oilfield job separates the men from the boys. If you can do the job, you know you are a real man.