Hi

I've just seen a job advert - in the UK for a role in the UK - that
asks for application by CV, covering letter and a recent photo.

Other than for discriminatory reasons why would a photo be required at
this point?

The Equality and Human Rights Commission seems to say quite clearly
that ....

"It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a candidate
for a job because of their age, disability, race, religion or belief,
sexual orientation or gender in any part of the recruitment process –
in job descriptions, person specifications, application forms, during
interviews, in tests, or in shortlisting."

By insisting on a photo are they not opening themselves up to possible
discrimitation claims based on age, sex, race, disability, religion
(someone wearing a cross, turban, etc) which would be illegal? This is
a coordination / admin role so should be open to anyone with the
skills.

Regards

Chris

http://www.aquaflowgroup.com/

Is it possible to patent a chemical process?

My daughter has just handed her resignation in to a one of a national
optician chain after their 'less than ideal' employee relations - too
many appalling employee relation instances to mention but suffice it
to say she could not possibly stay for the optional year her contract
allows for. To do so would almost certainly involve her having a
nervous breakdown!

She has about two weeks holiday entitlement and her notice period of 4
weeks should end in the third week in July.

The managers of the shop are telling her they will not allow her to
leave two weeks before her notice period is due (ie using up her
annual holiday) and they will pay her the extra two weeks in pay
instead.

Can anyone please tell me if they have a legal right to do this?

They will no doubt claim back the stipulated £3000 training fees she
has incurred during her 1 year pre-registration period as an optician
as her contract stipulates. This, to me, seems extremely unfair
anyway as she has only been paid £10,000 salary for the year!

Consequently I would be highly doubtful if she would see any of the
extra two weeks holiday pay if she was forced to take that route.

There is a thread running in the other place of the same title.

One of the characters who has posted there has said that I should have
got an injunction as part of the action through the small claims
track.

I have asked - could I have done that, what would it have achieved,
what would it have cost - but have had no response.

Can anyone oblige please?

It's not uncommon for contracts of employment, or business IT
policies, to state that employee use of the Internet (including web
browsing and the content of any email, including personal email) may
be monitored for compliance with any policy restrictions.

It's also not uncommon for emails to carry a footer stating, among
other things, that the content of the email is confidential and may
not be disclosed to anyone other than the addressee.

If, hypothetically, an employee was to receive an email with such a
confidentiality clause and, hypothetically, it happened to arrive at a
time that the recipient's employer was carrying out a compliance audit
and the email was, therefore, read by a senior member of staff who is
not the intended recipient, would either the intended recipient or the
senior staff member be liable for any breach of the confidentiality
clause if the senior staff member subsequently copied the email to
other members of staff - or, indeed, to a wider audience? Even
disregarding the confidentiality clause (which some would argue is
unenforceable anyway), has any breach of copyright occurred, and, if
so, who is liable?

For the sake of argument, you can assume that the hypothetical
recipient received the email at a personal address which they freely
chose to download at work rather than wait until they got home. You
can...

My partner is unwell to the extent that she cannot travel by public
transport. Nor can she use a taxi (well, this is a touch more arguable,
but given many taxis and their drivers, she would not wish to do so).

From time to time she needs to see her doctor, go for blood
tests/scans/etc., or go to see a consultant. I always take her - and
most often go in with her. This seems most especially important at
consultant appointments but there are reasons that she sometimes needs
to be accompanied anyway.

One appointment was cancelled because of its location. It was impossible
for me to take her and accompany her and the doctor failed to arrange
patient transport.

Unfortunately, I have been made redundant and am now looking for work.
But I am concerned that with any work I get, the holiday entitlement
will be at zero.

What are my rights (assuming I get a job with no special entitlements)?

Should I say what will be needed before accepting a job offer? Or should
I leave it to argue when the time comes round?

--
Rod

On Tue, 27 May 2008 12:15:07 +0100, Him & Her wrote:

Use <http://search.ebay.com/380029784272> instead and it willc work as
long as the item exists.

On Tue, 27 May 2008 09:25:07 +0100, Allan Gould wrote:

Thanks for both of your replies. It looks like it's a personal number,
not a commercial operation. We have not received any more since the
request to desist, so hopefully it was just a teenager with a wrong
number.

The links are interesting though, as I am with T-Mobile.

TOF.

It's of no great importance, but I wonder who owns the copyright in
photos which were taken by my grandfather in the 1920s? I have the
negatives, which I've scanned; I'm about to start sending electronic
copies to local history groups in the area where he grew up.

Is the copyright expired, or do I create a new copyright by processing them?

On Tue, 27 May 2008 09:25:07 +0100, Allan Gould wrote:

I had premium rate texts hitting my hone for a while. I tried texting
'STOP' and other things to them but they didn't stop. The ICSTIS site
(now phonepayplus.org.uk, as mentioned above) has a number checker that
should help you find who is running it, if it's commercial.

Unfortunately in my case I did find the company but when I rang to
complain they said they were 'just a service provider' and the actual
company doing the texting was in Canada(!) - so they could stop the texts
coming but to get a refund (I was certain I had never signed up or
accepted the texts) I would have to take it up with the Canadian company.