Posts Tagged ‘Reverse’

Concerning the issue of race discrimination in the UK, employers must follow truthful, objective and rational redundancy procedures lest the capacity to defend against accusations of discrimination is lost. In race discrimination cases the burden of proof is placed on the employee. If an employee will establish a prima facie case primarily based on factual data suggesting there was direct or indirect discrimination, then the burden of proof may shift to the employer. Then, unless the employer will disprove the discrimination accusation, the claimant can surely win the case. This idea is referred to as the “reverse burden of proof” and was introduced in 2003 with the introduction of section 54A as an change to the Race Relations Act 1976 (‘RRA’).

A landmark case of racial discrimination in the UK was Chagger v Abbey National % & Hopkins of 2006, where the Employment Tribunal applied the reverse burden of proof provisions and also made an unprecedented compensation award of ?2.eight million.

The wording of section 54A moves the burden of proof to the employer solely in cases where there are allegations that the employer has committed an act of discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic or national origins. Discrimination on grounds of colour is not mentioned by the RRA 1976. In 2008, The Employment Charm Tribunal (EAT) thought of if Mr Chagger, the claimant in the Chagger v Abbey National percent & Hopkins case of 2006, was due the profit of the burden of proof being reversed, despite having remarked discrimination on the basis of color in his evidence before the Employment Tribunal.

The EAT’s transcript of proceedings shows that Abbey National, part of the Banco Santander Group, utilized Balbinder Chagger, of Indian origin, as a Trading Risk Controller, reporting into Nigel Hopkins. He earned a considerable quantity, around ?a hundred,000 per year. In 2006, Abbey National swiftly dismissed Mr Chagger ostensibly for reasons of redundancy, in an exceedingly scenario where the pool of choice was he and a white feminine colleague. Abbey National selected Mr Chagger for dismissal primarily based on criteria on which Mr Chagger scored lower as compared along with his white feminine colleague. Before his dismissal, Abbey failed to provide Mr Chagger with a ‘step one’ letter as needed under the statutory disciplinary and dismissal procedures. Consultations, but, were held with Mr Chagger. Within the run-up to his dismissal Abbey awarded Mr Chagger a performance connected bonus that was significantly lower than the previous year’s amount. Mr Chagger tried to resolve the issues surrounding his dismissal and bonus directly with Abbey National and his manager, Mr Hopkins, through the company’s internal complaints and grievance procedures. However, his issues were dismissed out of hand. He then began legal action on the idea of race discrimination and unfair dismissal against Abbey National and Mr Hopkins.

The Employment Tribunal found, amongst different things, that Mr Chagger had been unfairly dismissed and that Abbey National and Mr Hopkins had discriminated against him on the grounds of race in respect of his dismissal. The Tribunal asserted that the dismissal was unfair providing Abbey National failed to follow the relevant statutory procedures and as a result of the redundancy exercise had been a pre-determined arrange to remove Mr Chagger from his position; Mr Chagger had been picked on unfairly and the criteria used were too irrational, subjective and not measurable.

The dismissal was stained with race discrimination UK. The Tribunal mentioned a plethora of proof supporting this notion like the unfair redundancy method itself and Mr Chagger’s victimisation in it; the shortage of equal opportunities coaching for those utilized in senior and middle management at Abbey; Abbey National’s failure to reply to Mr Chagger’s race discrimination questionnaire and failure to look at the relevant code of practice. So, the Tribunal applied the reverse burden of proof provisions in section 54A of the Race Relations Act 1976. Abbey National and Mr Hopkins were unable to convince the Tribunal that their reasons for their shoddy treatment of Mr Chagger were not a matter of race discrimination UK.

The Tribunal ordered Abbey to re-instate Mr Chagger so as to remedy its wrongdoing. Abbey, however, refused to suits the Tribunal’s order. The Tribunal then ordered Abbey to pay Mr Chagger the unprecedented ?2.eight million in compensation for his loss on the idea that he had not been re-instated. This figure was primarily based on an estimate of loss of earnings for the remainder of his career.

Abbey National and Mr Hopkins appealed to the Employment Charm Tribunal (EAT) against the decision of race discrimination and the number of the compensation award.

Basically, almost about Mr Chagger’s plea, the EAT said it had been clear that the discrimination carried out was primarily based on race, color and ethnic or national grounds. Once the relevant case law had been reviewed and therefore the wording of the EU Directive examined, the EAT said it had been inconceivable that the Race Equality Directive wasn’t proposed to use to discrimination on grounds of colour. Whereas it had been doable to discriminate on the grounds of race or ethnic origin without discrimination on the ground of color, the reverse was not therefore; discrimination on the ground of color that may not additionally properly be characterised as discrimination on the ground of race and/or ethnic origin was inconceivable. So, the EAT upheld the original Tribunal’s findings of race discrimination and Abbey National’s appeal on the race discrimination verdict failed.

Abbey National’s appeal on the unprecedented size of the compensation award was accepted and the EAT sent back (‘remitted’) the compensation to the first Employment Tribunal for reconsideration on the idea of the likelihood of Mr Chagger leaving Abbey National’s employment in any event.

Jeff Patterson has been writing articles online for nearly 2 years now. Not only does this author specialize in Mens Issues, you can also check out his latest website about

Braun Electric Toothbrush Which reviews and lists the best
Braun Power Toothbrush

Reverse Logistics is slowly but steadily moving towards of path of being an integral part of the total supply chain management. Known to a very few in the past, today it is important for long term success of any business venture and especially to online business whether it’s a  B2C (e.g. retail), B2B ( e.g. wholesale) or a C2C (e.g. auctions and information portals) enterprise. Reverse logistics is the perfect example of the concept of recycling for maximal benefit. Some people also call it the trash to cash theory.

Reverse logistics involves using unused, returned, broken goods, and scraps to run backwards in the supply chain to get value from them.  Though the process may sound absurd to those who have not implemented it, it indeed has long term benefits for manufacturers, suppliers and distributors.

Reverse logistics has been especially beneficial in today’s scenario where the price of fuel, oil and also other commodities are rising steeply like never before. So, even scraps that have added up to the total production cost are further used for the maximal benefit of the company.

So, crucial has reverse logistics today become that there are special service providers that deal exclusively in this sphere of supply chain management. Their main purpose is to help manufacturers and suppliers find potential buyers for products like defective or broken which would otherwise become useless trash. It is interesting to note here that recent survey has shown that some retailers can recover up to 0.3% of annual sales by availing the services of reverse logistics.

So, where and how do you find quality reverse logistics service provider? Well, the answer is simple. All smart retailers go for the online source. This is because here you would get access to the best ones at just one place. All you have to do is prepare a checklist of your individual requirements that suit your business type and select one accordingly. Reuse of products through reverse logistics also helps in contributing substantially towards reducing landfill fodder and thus enhancing eco-friendliness in the long run. So, resort to this service right away to get the maximum from recycling and reusing!

Hi, I am Mike Arthur; expert in Reverse Logistics

One of the most under used and perhaps under rated techniques that all sales reps have in their bag is the power of reverse psychology. When I refer to this, I do not mean the art of manipulating a customer, but rather the ability to help a customer see a bigger picture that will lead you to a sale and a long lasting customer relationship.

Let me use an example to illustrate what I mean. I work for a company that sells a product to their customers for a 3 year term. After the 3 year term, we go back into that customer and try and get them to sign up for another 3 years. Typically we do quite well and have somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% renewal rate.

We had a big customer that was neglected for a whole three years. They had 4 different reps over that period of time, none of which spent much time with them. And to make matters worse, our company had just bought a company that competed with a subset of their product offering. I was given the job of going in and “fixing” the mess as it was called and renewing this contract.

The first meeting I had with them, did not start out very well. I had just begun my presentation about the 2 options that they had for renewal, when I was cut off and told in no uncertain terms that they would not be renewing their contract. They then began to spend the next 10 minutes telling me everything that was wrong with my company and why they would begin to migrate to our competitors’ products and services. I remember sitting there and thinking to myself, “oh boy if I don’t find a way to get them beyond this, we are in a whole heap of trouble”.

After I listened intently, I began the process of reverse psychology. “Listen, I understand that my company has not treated you how you deserve and if I were you I would do the same thing. It is for this reason that I will present you with Option 3, the do nothing Option. You have the rights to our current product set, I suggest you stay at that level for the next 2 or 3 years and we can re-evaluate your technology needs in the future. This way you do not continue to pay us money, for something that we are not helping you use or get the most out of. I only want to ensure that you are able to utilize our products and services and get a return for your business. If we cannot do that, we do not deserve your business.”

You should have seen the reaction to this in the room. My colleague who was in the room and who was counting on his renewal commissions was about ready to jump across the table and choke me, but for me the most important thing to watch was the customer. There were 4 representatives from them in the room. I’m sure they had prepared for this meeting, they were prepared with who was going to play which role and what they were going to tell us about why they would not renew. When we entered the room their body language was hostile, they were all on edge and not one of them had a warm look on their face. As soon as I said this, I watched their reactions. They all sat back in their chairs, they relaxed, they had won after all. I had as much as admitted defeat.

This is when I used the following line. “I only ask one thing for option 3 and one thing only. We may not have treated you like one, but you have been a good customer to us for the last 3 years. I ask that you spend a little time with me over the next couple of weeks and allow me to go through the financials of the decision to do nothing. I want to make sure that your business case for not renewing is solid, so that no one can come back to you in the future and say that you made a bad decision, that you cost your company more money in the long run. Is that fair to ask?”

There was not one of them in the room that did not feel that was a fair ask by me. So over the next 4 to 6 weeks, I spent time with them, not telling them why they should renew, but telling them why they shouldn’t renew. You want to know the amazing part? They actually began attacking and finding flaws in my reasons for them not to renew. And after this time, the discussions turned from not renewing, to renewing only if they saved at least 10% over what they were spending in the past. The final result was that we not only resigned this customer, but we found a way to partner with them, we helped them grow their business and they signed a new contract with us that was double what their old one was.

Some people will say that I did manipulate them. I do not think that personally. I used an old trick that my parents used to use on me when I was a kid. Tell me what I wanted to hear and then use reasoning to convince me that what I wanted to hear wasn’t right. They never told me that it was wrong, as I never told my customer that it was wrong. They would lead the horse to water and allow me to make my own conclusions. It’s a powerful trick that when employed correctly can lead to great results. Oh yeah and that customer, their 3 year renewal just passed again. This time our conversation was a lot better, and we renewed them again.

Mike Austin is a sales professional who has successful negotiating with many of the fortune 500 companies. He has a proven track record of delighting his customers, growing sales in new and existing territories and is a co-founder of http://www.ChallengingCustomer.com