Friday, December 19, 2008

Busy 2008 for dispute resolution specialist PJ English

Dispute resolution specialist Peter English says he has won ВЈ8m for his clients this year, and he anticipates that figure jumping to ВЈ11m in 2009.

His group, PJ English Associates, is currently working on 74 cases which represents a substantial increase on the figure of 15 at the same time last year.

“A lot of our work has stemmed from the high-profile case we handled on behalf of Southern Glass Services,” said English after an adjudicator ruled (10 months ago) that the 3% deductions from agreed payment terms being summarily removed by Barratt Southampton were out of order.

The money involved (ВЈ19,000) was paid back along with a further ВЈ5,400 to cover interest charges

Interestingly, after that debacle, Barratt has become one of the good guys and not a single case on English’s current schedule bears the name Barratt.

ADVERTISEMENT

Busy 2008 for dispute resolution specialist PJ English

 

Two of his largest cases at the moment involve acting for a groundwork contractor who claims to be owed money on two scores: ВЈ500,000 from a major house builder and another from a smaller contractor.

“The larger players are not bowing down like they might have done in the past,” said English.

“However smaller players, who are owed £8,000 to £12,000 perhaps, are still caving in and adopting the stance that they will live with the problem and try to work through it.

“I’d say all the house builders are currently trying it on apart.

“The others are knocking 5% irrespective off what their agree payment terms say.

“Another trick is for them to close a site when the scheme is only halfway through, then challenging their subcontractors to take them to court for breach and putting every obstacle in the way."

However, larger subcontractors are wising up, according to English. “They are saying вЂget stuffed – we’ll see you in court’ because they know they will win the court case,” he reports.

Of the 74 cases on English’s books at the moment, 38 are into the litigation or adjudication phase.

The balance, where the two sides have failed to settle amicably, are mostly waiting for a further input of effort or clarification before advice can be given on how best to handle them.

English expects half of this balance to eventually go into adjudication.

“In all , I’d expect to see 50-plus of our 74 cases being resolved by way of adjudication,” he said, “with another five or six being taken to court.”

English thinks most cases are in the bag even before he steps through the courtroom door simply because 80% of main contractors who summarily hang on to money they should pay out fail to issue a withholding notice (a legal necessity) which means it's almost game over before the bell sounds for the start of the formal sparring.






Big-time Waffle House guy in trouble

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Multiplex launches record £250m claim against Mott MacDonald

Multiplex has launched a ВЈ250m High Court claim against Mott MacDonald, as the fallout from the Wembley stadium debacle rumbles on.

The writ, anticipated since early this year, alleges that Mott MacDonald failed to prepare a steelwork design that could be produced within the cost plan.

The contractor, which has since been renamed as Brookfield, also alleges that Mott MacDonald made a series of design changes which were beyond the scope of normal design development.

Mott MacDonald has always denied any responsibility for problems on the ВЈ757m stadium, which was completed over a year late.

Multiplex is still locked in a battle with Darlington-based Cleveland Bridge, although it has now settled its dispute with PC Harrington.

ADVERTISEMENT

Multiplex launches record £250m claim against Mott MacDonald

 

In a statement, Mott MacDonald said: "Mott MacDonald confirms that it has received a claim from Brookfield Construction (UK) Limited (formerly Multiplex Constructions (UK) Limited) against it as leader of the Mott Stadium Consortium (MSC), alleging breaches of contract in relation to structural engineering design work undertaken on Wembley Stadium by the consortium’s members.
 
"We would point out that Brookfield assumed responsibility for designing and building the stadium and MSC provided structural design consultancy services to Brookfield for the permanent structure.

"MSC was not responsible for project management or construction, which was the clear responsibility of Brookfield. We are in no doubt that MSC performed its obligations to Brookfield professionally and diligently.

"Mott MacDonald emphatically denies any liability for Brookfield’s loss and will vigorously defend the claim.
 
"We do not wish to comment in detail on any figures mentioned in the claim except to say they are not credible.

"We are confident that we will demonstrate that MSC fulfilled its obligations and has no liability for any loss Brookfield may have incurred."






Big-time Waffle House guy in trouble
Leading marketers embrace new way of thinking

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

OFT issues new guidelines on busting cartels

Cartel busters at the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) are making it easier for contractors to report on anti-competitive behaviour.

Companies involved in price-fixing rings can avoid hefty fines if they blow the whistle on their fellow conspirators.

Officials at the OFT have now launched new leniency guidelines outlining easier ways for firms to get in touch and detailing how they will be exempt from massive fines and criminal prosecutions.

Simon Williams, OFT senior director of cartels and criminal enforcement, said: "Cartels cheat consumers by restricting competition.

"The leniency programme continues to be a simple and powerful tool to expose such conduct and the revisions to the OFT's guidance will help ensure that the programme continues to provide a powerful incentive to seek leniency before it is too late."






Seasonal jobs outlook is dim
Job seekers tap social networking Web sites

Monday, December 15, 2008

Carillion faces £21m counter sue over Bath Spa project

Carillion and architect Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners are being counter sued for ВЈ21m by Bath & North-East Somerset (BANES) Council over the Thermae Bath Spa project.

The beleaguered ВЈ45m project suffered a catalogue of delays finally completing in 2006 three years late and ВЈ27m over budget.

Mowlem, which is now part of Carillion, was the main contractor. Since its opening Bath Spa has been plagued with technical problems including condensation, clouds of mould on the walls and faulty foot spas.

The council’s court action follows Carillion’s move in August to sue BANES for £2.4m.

In a statement BANES said: “The council’s position is that significant costs which it incurred in relation to the Bath Spa are the result of design and/or workmanship issues, for which Carillion and/or Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners (NGP) are responsible.”

Carillion and NGP were unavailable for comment as CJ went to press.






Pathfinder Therapeutics gets financing
Lehman’s bond insurers to take a financial bath

Winding-up notice issued to Strand developer as subbies left unpaid

Knight Build has issued an insolvency notice against Urvasco in the latest chapter of the Strand hotel dispute.

Work is currently on hold at the former Marconi Hotel on London’s strand where the first UK venture for the Spanish Silken Hotel group had been underway.

The project has been plagued by legal problems since work begain. O’Keefe Construction (Greenwich) filed a claim against Cantillion for monies owed for demolition, while Cantillion filed a counter claim.

Now, having already won one adjudication for ВЈ320,000, Knight Build has been forced to issue a winding up notice against developer Urvasco to collect a further ВЈ70,000.

In the original case the high court was shown bank statements indicating the developer had no other money.

ADVERTISEMENT

Winding-up notice issued to Strand developer as subbies left unpaid

 

Urvasco still owes tens of millions to the various other contractors on the job. They include Buro Happold, H+B Scaffolding, Crown Lifts, Severfield Rowen and project architect Foster and Partners.

One contractor, who declined to be named, said: “No-one has been paid and there’s nothing happening on site. Subbies have been told to leave and have gone leaving materials everywhere. It’s a health and safety nightmare.”

The hearing is set for February 2009.






$10M retail expansion cleared for Mt. Juliet
Retail building binge can’t last

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Laing O'Rourke facing legal battle over Marbella development

Laing O’Rourke faces a potential winding-up order in the Irish courts following a dispute with Irish developer John Magnier.

The Times reported that Magnier, Ireland's seventh-richest man, is considering a "cease trade" order, after Laing O'Rourke refused to pay ВЈ3m awarded to him in a court ruling last week.

The dispute centres on a property development that Magnier and O'Rourke were planning in Marbella, Spain.

The contractor was using a special purpose vehicle called Explore Investments to buy half of a 4ha tract of land in the resort, which was owned by Magnier's companies Daltwo Holdings and Marbetwo Holdings.

The plan was to develop the land, one of the few remaining plots boasting a beach frontage still to be developed, as part of a joint venture.

ADVERTISEMENT

Laing ORourke facing legal battle over Marbella development

 

But problems began when planners decided that only two villas could be built on the site, rather than the 30 the jv partners had envisaged.

Laing O'Rourke agreed to pay nearly ВЈ22m for the plot, to be paid in stages. But it withheld the latest instalment of ВЈ3m as it became aware that the planners' decision meant the development was no longer commercially viable.

Several more instalments are due until 2011.

Magnier’s companies intend to request a “cease trade” order – Ireland’s equivalent of a winding-up order – if the payment they claim they are owed is not made within 21 days.

A Laing O'Rourke spokesman said: “The Laing O’Rourke Group confirms it will be providing in full for the €3 million loan due from its subsidiary, Explore Investments [No 2], following a judgment entered against that company by an Irish court. This provision will have no material effect on the group’s trading results for the year. Explore Investments [No 2] has no interests other than an investment in a single project in Spain.”






Google drops Yahoo ad deal to avoid legal fight
Conference unites ideas, cash

One in 10 OFT probe firms in administration or liquidation

One in 10 of the contractors named in the OFT's cover pricing investigation has fallen victim to serious financial problems or ceased to trade.

Of the 112 contractors named in April's Statement of Objections (SO), a total of 10 are now in administration or liquidation, after York House Construction called in administrators last month (see list below).

The high proportion of struggling and failed businesses among the group of accused has sparked fears that high levels of fines from the OFT, expected to be announced in the early part of 2009, could send even more companies under.

The OFT has the power to fine a company up to 10% of its relevant turnover if it is found guily of fraudulent bidding practices.

ADVERTISEMENT

One in 10 OFT probe firms in administration or liquidation

 

A spokesman for the Construction Confederation said: "The industry is on a downward trend and there are quite a few companies on the list of the original 112 which are in difficulty or in administration.

"This probably doesn't come into the OFT's criteria when it is thinking of what penalties to impose.

"But we think that it should be a consideration.

"The impact of the level of fines it imposes on the industry is going to be significant."

Adrian Magnus, a competition partner with law firm Berwin Leighton Paisner said: "The challenge is that the OFT will want to have a fine commensurate with the size and importance of the investigation.

"But if it were to impose a fine that put more construction companies into administration or liquidation, then is that really in the wider interest of UK plc?"

The OFT declined to comment on the investigation.

Where are they now?Ballast - dissolved by Dutch parent Ballast NedamChase Norton Construction - administration, July 2008Frudd Construction - liquidation, July 2008G. Carter Construction - liquidation, March 2008Holroyd Construction Group - administration, June 2008Lotus Construction - administration, November 2008Piper Construction Midlands - liquidation, November 2008Thomas Fish & Sons - trading under new ownership following administration, April 2008Thorndyke - liquidationWilliam Sapcote and Sons - administration, October 2007York House Construction - administration, November 2008




Obama to inherit red ink

9 predictions for construction in 2009

Next year looks like being a tough one for construction on all fronts. Ben Thornycroft looks into his crystal ball and gives a forecast for 2009.

January Blues. There was little to lift the spirits of owners of construction companies in the Pre-Budget Statement and we can expect a very old January as many contractors fail to open after the Christmas break, either as victims of the continuing credit crisis or simply realising that there is no real point in struggling on when there is not enough work to fill their books. The accountants and administrators will have a busy New Year but some smaller contractors may pick up reasonable prices to finish off other peoples jobs.Whistleblowing. Watch out for a surge in whistleblowing instances in 2009 – prompted by the ticking bombs of health and safety issues and cartel accusations. If the OFT offers financial incentives of up to ВЈ100,000 in return for information which helps it to identify and take action against illegal construction cartels, there’s plenty of motivation for workers to get blowing - or whistling?Green Won’t Go. Don’t expect the recession to automatically result in sustainability being conveniently forgotten about. The industry will remain the subject of much scrutiny, particularly as the major projects propping up the industry are either of international significance (the 2012 Olympics) or directly linked to вЂsustainable’ initiatives themselves (energy projects or sustainable housing, for example). Being seen to be green will remain important.Subbies Lose Out. Further hold ups for Local Authority maintenance work will hit small contractors the hardest. Any spend on the kind of major projects that the Government is talking loudly about will have to be clawed back from somewhere. It’s pretty obvious that this will be from much-needed buildings maintenance, which may see schools and hospitals suffer, and will be a missed opportunity to put money into the pockets of smaller contractors and thereby stimulate the economy.Hold On To Your Talent. In the inevitable rush to reduce cost through redundancies, employers must remember that they still need the right people to see them through the tough times. Talent management and workforce planning will be as important if not more so than in the good times. Good people will still be able to move jobs and good people still need to be motivated and supported. Experience of the last economic downturn in the 90s was that employers were quick to reduce their workforce and were then lacking key skills when better times came along.New Contract Forms. Well, all the commercial managers and lawyers will have nothing else to do so why not spend the year trying to improve the JCT and in particular the NEC Form of Contract. In times of pressure the industry needs clear precise obligations which it can price and manage and uncertainty favours neither employer nor contractor. Some time from Government lawyers spent simplifying the unnecessarily complex PFI and BSF contracts would also be a welcome move.Priming Too Slow. The Government's undertaking to increase spending on schools, social housing and motorways will have little effect in 2009 with the normal planning and procurement process not taking effect until 2010. The increased energy efficiency spend for homeowners may be quicker but is again unlikely to impact before third quarter 2009. The market still has a way to go down before it comes back up and the general real cut in government spending after 2010 will mean the upward slope is very gentle.The Year Of The Bond. Not James but performance, as employers, increasingly scared of insolvency, will  require those recently unpopular performance bonds to protect their projects so at least the Bondsmen will have a happy new year.And If You Have Cash To Spare... This is the year to get those delayed repairs and extensions done to your house as you will be able to get a plumber or dry liner easily, the roofer will return your call, and the electrician will be available as our tradesmen move down market to keep their businesses going. Unfortunately, this may not work if you live in London as the tradesmen may still be dragged eastwards to Newham, with the Eastern Europeans heading even further eastwards to the stronger Euro on the continent.

Ben Thornycroft is a partner with Beachcroft LLP






Nashville job engine sputters

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Inland Revenue launches clampdown on employment agencies

Inland Revenue chiefs are launching a new crackdown on construction employment agencies managing payrolls for thousands of contractors and workers across the industry.

The clampdown is the latest stage in an HM Revenue & Customs campaign against companies offering to slash tax payments for contractors.

The tax man is also threatening to chase after firms and individuals for back payments if they are found to be operating through companies that do not comply with legislation.

Hundreds of 'umbrella' and 'managed service companies' have sprung-up in the wake of CIS tax legislation.

They act as intermediaries between workers and companies allowing individuals to claim they are self-employed. They are also widely used by labour agencies to handle the payroll of people on their books.

ADVERTISEMENT

Inland Revenue launches clampdown on employment agencies

 

But revenue chiefs believe many are little more than tax dodges, with only a handful complying with strict guidelines.

HMRC officials will now be challenging the legal status of agencies they believe are flouting the law.

A spokesman said: "HMRC will now look for suitable cases to investigate and, where appropriate, challenge and litigate."

Martin Hesketh, managing director of Brookson, which had its system approved by the Revenue, said: "A variety of models and structures have been introduced designed to circumvent the legislation.

"This shows that HMRC is aware of these attempts to frustrate the legislation and is now clearly targeting these structures."

Payroll companies have been trying to keep one step ahead of HMRC for years.

The Revenue launched its last crackdown in April 2007 to coincide with the introduction of new CIS. But since then, companies have continually tried to get round the legislation by adapting their structures.

Tax expert Carolyn Walsh of CWConstruction said: "There are always people who will try and dodge the rules, but the Revenue is gradually weeding them out.

"Bona fide contractors, nominee companies that handle workers' payments legitimately, and the companies that use them to pay or supply labour, have nothing to worry about."






Economy puts pressure on state Medicaid programs

One in 10 bid-rigging firms in administration or liquidation

One in 10 of the contractors named in the OFT's cover pricing investigation has fallen victim to serious financial problems or ceased to trade.

Of the 112 contractors named in April's Statement of Objections (SO), a total of 10 are now in administration or liquidation, after York House Construction called in administrators last month (see list below).

The high proportion of struggling and failed businesses among the group of accused has sparked fears that high levels of fines from the OFT, expected to be announced in the early part of 2009, could send even more companies under.

The OFT has the power to fine a company up to 10% of its relevant turnover if it is found guily of fraudulent bidding practices.

ADVERTISEMENT

One in 10 bid-rigging firms in administration or liquidation

 

A spokesman for the Construction Confederation said: "The industry is on a downward trend and there are quite a few companies on the list of the original 112 which are in difficulty or in administration.

"This probably doesn't come into the OFT's criteria when it is thinking of what penalties to impose.

"But we think that it should be a consideration.

"The impact of the level of fines it imposes on the industry is going to be significant."

Adrian Magnus, a competition partner with law firm Berwin Leighton Paisner said: "The challenge is that the OFT will want to have a fine commensurate with the size and importance of the investigation.

"But if it were to impose a fine that put more construction companies into administration or liquidation, then is that really in the wider interest of UK plc?"

The OFT declined to comment on the investigation.

Where are they now?Ballast - dissolved by Dutch parent Ballast NedamChase Norton Construction - administration, July 2008Frudd Construction - liquidation, July 2008G. Carter Construction - liquidation, March 2008Holroyd Construction Group - administration, June 2008Lotus Construction - administration, November 2008Piper Construction Midlands - liquidation, November 2008Thomas Fish & Sons - trading under new ownership following administration, April 2008Thorndyke - liquidationWilliam Sapcote and Sons - administration, October 2007York House Construction - administration, November 2008




Credit trickle slows construction
Obama to inherit red ink

Irish contractors try to impose 10% pay cut on 200,000 workers

Contractors in Ireland are trying to tear up an agreed wages deal and impose a 10% pay cut on more than 200,000 construction workers.

The move raises fears that similar pay cuts could be considered in the UK.

Irish employers are pleading with the unions to accept the drop in a bid to save jobs in the wake of the deepening recession in the industry.

The call comes as the Construction Industry Federation - which represents more than 3,000 contractors - unanimously rejected a national pay settlement.

The deal was originally agreed in September and gives workers increaseses of 6% to 6.5% over 21 months. The agreement covers the Republic as a whole and has been accepted by other private sector employers.

ADVERTISEMENT

Irish contractors try to impose 10% pay cut on 200,000 workers

 

But the construction employers now want the increase to be replaced with a pay cut as the industry dives.

Federation director general Tom Parlon said the proposed 2009 pay deal ignored the current state of the Irish economy.

He forecast that construction employment will drop to 190,000 - down by 90,000 compared with the end of last year.

He said: "Jobs are being lost and construction firms are now tendering at 8% to 10% below the cost of particular projects. Executives within building companies are being laid off or taking substantial pay cuts."

The Irish unions - which include Ucatt and Unite - will fight the move vigorously.

Parlon said: "The bottom line is that the industry can't afford the deal and is seeking a 10% reduction to safeguard jobs in construction. A 6% increase was never realistic at this time."

Talks have now been referred to the Irish TUC's construction committee. Failing an agreement, the employers' claim may be referred to the Labour Court.






Some Spring Hill GM workers face year-end layoffs

Monday, December 8, 2008

Contractors slam red tape increase in Construction Act

Main contractors believe plans to amend the Construction Act will increase red tape and costs at a time when the industry cannot afford it.

Leaders of the Construction Confederation believes changes announced in the Queen’s Speech will prove a burden to the industry as it battles against the economic downturn.

The Confederation backed improvements to the adjudication provisions of the Act but has serious reservations about proposals to amend the payment provisions.

Confederation leaders believe the proposals will increase the burden on contractors by:

Forcing the redrafting of all the standard and bespoke forms of contract at great expenseForcing companies of all sizes to employ experts to interpret the new clausesAdd to the already heavy admin burden in terms of staff time in a worsening economic situationRequiring costly training of staff dealing with paymentADVERTISEMENT

Contractors slam red tape increase in Construction Act

 

Chief executive Stephen Ratcliffe said: “The proposed payment provisions are poorly drafted and will not help contractors of any size but will particularly hurt SME main and sub-contractors.

“They do not reflect the world in which contractors operate nor do they show much understanding of how payment works within the construction industry.

”Far from reducing costs, proposals to include verbal contracts within the legislation will only serve to make adjudication over disputes a lengthier and more costly process.

“Swift adjudication remains the most effective way to tackle non-payment and introducing oral examination and cross examination will delay the process and increase costs.”






Credit trickle slows construction

Valuation of work: Orchard Construction -v- Peter Gallant

The valuation of work and consequences of wrongful determination.

Summing upThe case: Martin John Hayes & Linda Hayes (T/A Orchard Construction) -v- Peter Gallant (2008), EWHC 2726 (TCC), 10 November 2008.The issue: The valuation of work on the basis of a reasonable price and consequences of wrongful determination.The implication: Delay on the part of the contractor is not sufficient grounds for the employer to determine the contract such that the employer was in repudiatory breach by doing so, entitling the contractor to claim for loss of profit on the work it was prevented from completing.

If an employer wants to determine the employment of the contractor, then it should be very careful that it does so on grounds permitted by the contract and that it complies with any determination procedure under the contract.

ADVERTISEMENT

Valuation of work: Orchard Construction -v- Peter Gallant

 

The consequences of getting this wrong are quite likely to be that the employer will be found to have wrongfully determined the contract and itself to have committed a repudiatory breach of contract by refusing to allow the contractor to complete the work. The contractor will then be entitled to claim damages for the wrongful determination.

The recent case of Martin John Hayes & Linda Hayes (trading as Orchard Construction) -v- Peter Gallant (2008) concerns a situation where it seems that the employer (Peter Gallant) felt that the contractor (Orchard Construction) was overcharging for work it was carrying out and that it was taking too long and that the work was defective. In consequence, Peter Gallant excluded Orchard Construction from site.

The works comprised refurbishment works on Peter Gallant's house and outbuildings and the construction of a covered pool complex. There was no written contract between the parties.

Orchard Construction contended that there was a contract or series of contracts on the basis of regular statements of account setting out the cost of work undertaken. Until the summer of 2004, Peter Gallant made regular payments on account of these invoices but thereafter a dispute arose about the reasonableness of Orchard's costs, resulting in Peter Gallant refusing to make any further payment and excluding Orchard Construction from site.

Orchard argued that such payments indicated agreement to its statements and that Peter Gallant was therefore bound by that agreement. Peter Gallant contended that the works were to have been carried out on a cost-plus basis and that payments made on account were not made on account of the invoices submitted from time to time but on account of a final reckoning.

Orchard Construction further argued that as it had been unlawfully expelled from the site, it was entitled to claim for loss of profit on work that would otherwise have been carried out. Peter Gallant contended that he had been entitled to terminate the contract because of Orchard's delay in completing the work, and as a consequence of defective work.

Prior agreement

The judge held that Peter Gallant had ordered the works to be carried out, and that while earlier in the project the parties had followed a procedure whereby Orchard Construction rendered an estimate to Peter Gallant, which was agreed prior to the work being carried out and was later paid for on that basis, after a certain date that practice had not continued and Peter Gallant had, thereafter, agreed to pay a reasonable price for subsequent work. The latter was valued on the basis of actual cost properly incurred, plus a reasonable percentage for overheads and profit.

The judge then went on to determine the question of Orchard Construction's claim for loss of profit, which was made on the basis that by excluding it from site, Peter Gallant had repudiated the contract.

Where there is a fundamental breach of contract that goes to the root of the contract by one party and the other party accepts the repudiation, then the contract will be brought to an end. Failure to continue to perform might be sufficient notice that the innocent party had elected to treat the contract as at an end. Where time was not of the essence, delay on the part of a contractor did not amount to a repudiation unless it deprived the innocent party of the whole benefit of the contract.

Judge's verdict

The judge held that Orchard Construction had not been responsible for any delay that entitled Peter Gallant to terminate the contract and it was not the case that Orchard could not complete the contract within a reasonable time.

Peter Gallant's action in excluding Orchard Construction from the site was unjustified and amounted to repudiation of the contracts, which Orchard had had to accept. Orchard was therefore entitled to recover its loss of profit for uncompleted work.

Finally, it was found that Peter Gallant's allegations of defective work were unfounded, particularly where Orchard Construction had agreed to carry out any remedial works free of charge as necessary.






Sumner Regional Medical Center plans 90 layoffs
Do the math before listing son on house deed

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Ex-employee jailed for £32,700 theft from builders merchant

A woman who stole ВЈ32,700 from Parker Severn builders merchants has been jailed for 20 months at Nottingham Crown Court.

Louise Wood, 40, an account manager at the firm in Bulwell, Nottinghamshire, stole the money in ВЈ500 chunks over a 16-month period.

She hid the scam by setting up a false bank account, but was found out by a colleague who covered for her when she went on holiday.

The family-owned Parker Severn went into administration in October, though this had little to do with Wood's theft.

The 25-year-old firm had a turnover of ВЈ2.5m at the time the administrators were called in.

 






Some cut retirement savings back
Prospect of firing key worker can paralyze entrepreneurs

Laid-off pipefitters consider legal action against Fabricom Suez

A group of 37 pipefitters are threatening to launch employment tribunal claims against M&E specialist Fabricom Suez after they were laid off last week.

The men were given their cards on a ВЈ180m power plant near Slough being built by Japanese contractor Takuma.

The workers claimed they had not been adequately consulted by Fabricom before being shown the door.

One said: "This came completely out of the blue. Most of us affected have been working here for at least six months and there is still plenty of work to do.

"We're not going to stand for this and will be taking them to a tribunal."

Fabricom's Human Resources department declined to comment. A site source for the firm said: "There has been plenty of consultation over this and we have gone through the right procedures.

"Labour needs change all the time on a big job like this."

The redundant workers are now consulting with union leaders at Unite and the GMB.

One said: "Most of the people shown the door were union members and won't take this lying down."






Picketers doubt Vought can keep up
Some Spring Hill GM workers face year-end layoffs

'Kosovan Mafia' claims discrimination by FM Conway

Six Kosovan pavers are claiming racial and trade union discrimination by their former employer FM Conway at the Central Employment Tribunal in Holborn, London.

The men, now unemployed, had worked on an Islington Council utilities contract for six years, but claim that Dartford-based FM Conway started victimising them after taking over the contract in January 2008.

The Kosovans claim that FM Conway wanted them to work 'self-employed' on piecework when they wished to remain PAYE employees. They were dismissed in June 2008 on what they claim were 'trumped-up' charges that they were blackmailing the company with the intention of extorting money.

The men also claim that they were called 'Kosovan Mafia'.

The tribunal will take place on 3 and 4 December.






Analysts debate wisdom of GM-Chrysler merger