How to Reduce Your Overheads
Since profit is what you are left with after you have paid your business costs, it stands to reason that one of the ways you can increase your profit is by reducing your overheads. In this article we will share some key strategies to help you reduce your overheads and grow your business.Reducing OverheadsWhilst a quick fix solution to the issue of reducing overheads is always possible, busines

Got Domains? Get Paid for Them
Have you ever thought of an idea for a web site and rushed out to buy a domain name, only to quickly lose interest and let it sit undeveloped for months?Instead of letting your domain names waste away unused, you should consider “parking” them.It takes less than five minutes, and once your domain is parked, you can start making money every time that a visitor clicks an ad on your page.<

Work It Baby - Working Your Networking!
1. Stay in regular contact with your database. That's one of the reasons I send out emails like my weekly newsletter. In my opinion there's no point having a database unless they're receiving something (relevant!) from you regularly. It doesn't have to be every week - find out what works for you and always make sure you're asking permission before sending people anything.2. Remember special datesch 2005, he received a letter from his employer which he interpreted as giving notice that his employment was to be terminated.

The employee brought proceedings before the employment tribunal. The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the employee's claim. It cited the reason for this decision being that the employee had not claimed that he had been dismissed for attempting to assert a statutory right under the Working Time Regulations 1998 SI 1998/1833 (“the Regulations”). The tribunal said that in those circumstances, his claim for unfair dismissal could proceed no further on the basis that he had not accrued the requisite qualifying period of service under s.108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“the Act”).

The employee appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT). The employee submitted that the tribunal had erred in finding that it had no jurisdiction to hear his claim. He argued that:-

- It was wrong to prevent his claim from continuing on the ground that he had not alleged that he had been dismissed for attempting to assert a statutory right.

- the tribunal had failed to have regard to the provisions of s.101(A) and s.108(3)(dd) of the Act. Those provisions dis-applied the statutory continuous service requirements in respect of an unfair dismissal claim where it had been alleged that an employee had been dismissed for refusing to adhere to an employer's requirement that would have contravened the Regulations.

- this applied to his case due to the fact that he had been asked to work many more hours than he should have been.

The appeal was allowed. In this case, it was held that the tribunal had erred in law by directing itself that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim on the ground that the employee had not alleged that his dismissal had been a consequence of his attempt to assert a statutory right. The EAT said that it was plain from the terms of the Act that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the employee's claim on the basis that he had alleged that his dismissal had been a consequence o

ances, his claim for unfair dismissal could proceed no further on the basis that he had not accrued the requisite qualifying period of service under s.108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“the Act”).

The employee appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT). The employee submitted that the tribunal had erred in finding that it had no jurisdiction to hear his claim. He argued that:-

- It was wrong to prevent his claim from continuing on the ground that he had not alleged that he had been dismissed for attempting to assert a statutory right.

- the tribunal had failed to have regard to the provisions of s.101(A) and s.108(3)(dd) of the Act. Those provisions dis-applied the statutory continuous service requirements in respect of an unfair dismissal claim where it had been alleged that an employee had been dismissed for refusing to adhere to an employer's requirement that would have contravened the Regulations.

- this applied to his case due to the fact that he had been asked to work many more hours than he should have been.

The appeal was allowed. In this case, it was held that the tribunal had erred in law by directing itself that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim on the ground that the employee had not alleged that his dismissal had been a consequence of his attempt to assert a statutory right. The EAT said that it was plain from the terms of the Act that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the employee's claim on the basis that he had alleged that his dismissal had been a consequence o

ssed for attempting to assert a statutory right.

- the tribunal had failed to have regard to the provisions of s.101(A) and s.108(3)(dd) of the Act. Those provisions dis-applied the statutory continuous service requirements in respect of an unfair dismissal claim where it had been alleged that an employee had been dismissed for refusing to adhere to an employer's requirement that would have contravened the Regulations.

- this applied to his case due to the fact that he had been asked to work many more hours than he should have been.

The appeal was allowed. In this case, it was held that the tribunal had erred in law by directing itself that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim on the ground that the employee had not alleged that his dismissal had been a consequence of his attempt to assert a statutory right. The EAT said that it was plain from the terms of the Act that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the employee's claim on the basis that he had alleged that his dismissal had been a consequence o

work many more hours than he should have been.

The appeal was allowed. In this case, it was held that the tribunal had erred in law by directing itself that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim on the ground that the employee had not alleged that his dismissal had been a consequence of his attempt to assert a statutory right. The EAT said that it was plain from the terms of the Act that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the employee's claim on the basis that he had alleged that his dismissal had been a consequence of him having refused to accept the employer's request to work hours in contravention of the Regulations.

It was decided that the employee's claim would be remitted to the tribunal for re-consideration.

If you require further information please contact us at enquiries@rtcoopers.com or Visit http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_employment.php

© RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.