Many employers offer fixed term contracts which can provide certainty of employment for a specific length of time, however, it is important to remember that they come with certain strings attached. With increasing length of service comes increasing employment rights.  After two years service there is the right to claim unfair dismissal and redundancy pay.  After four years service under successive fixed term contracts, according to the Fixed Term Employees Less Favourable Treatment Regulations 2002, a worker is deemed to be a permanent employee unless that can be objectively justified.

Many organisations rely on external funding and issue successive fixed term contracts accordingly hoping that the precarious nature of the funding process can be classed as objective justification.  However the case of Ball v Aberdeen provided definitive ruling that this is not correct.  It has implications for many educational, public sector organisations and charities that tend to issue fixed term contracts.

Fixed term employees have the right to be treated the same as a permanent employee doing the same or similar work.  The regulations protect them from any detriment linked to their fixed term status.  The exception is where that treatment can be objectively justified. Fixed term workers are entitled to the same level of benefits as their permanent comparator.  If this is not possible the employer may have to increase the salary of the fixed term worker in order to compensate them for their loss.

The non renewal of a fixed term contract is a dismissal in law and requires a fair procedure to be followed ie letter, meeting, appeal. If a fair procedure is not followed there is a risk that the worker can claim unfair dismissal if they have two years service.

In a redundancy situation an employer is more likely to terminate fixed term employees.  Potentially they risk a claim of unfair dismissal that the workers have been dismissed because they are temporary.  Employers should therefore mix fixed term workers with permanent employees in the redundancy pool.

Employers should beware of giving notice early before the end of a fixed term contract ends.  The fixed term worker could claim for breach of contract if there is no clause in the contract that will allow early termination.  The worker could be awarded the full amount of the wages they would have earned had the contract remained in force by an employment tribunal.

Tattoos have been growing in popularity in recent years.  In the past they have always been associated with a stereotype – the macho man often with a thuggish image – a convict, a biker, a rocker or a rebel.   Even the latin word for tattoo is stigma. Tattoos date back many thousands of years; a mummified body found in the Austrian/Italian alps dating back over 3000 years BC carried the marks of tattoos.

The sterotypical image of the tatto appears to be changing with many young people, in particular, increasingly getting their bodies covered in ornamental art encouraged by celebrity role models such as David Beckham.  It is estimated that one in five people in the UK now have a tattoo.

My own son spent over £200 last year getting his right upper arm covered in a large tattoo (I am not a fan).  He works in a professional role in an office environment and had the sense to ensure that the image is covered by a shirt sleeve even if rolled up.  His actions copy those of Winston Churchill who had an anchor on his forearm which was always well hidden (surprisingly he copied his own mother who had a snake tattooed on her wrist).

Nevertheless tattoes in the workplace can be frowned upon. Whilst they may be acceptable in creative industries, in the corporate world they remain a thorny issue.  It is freedom of choice and expression to acquire body art but it has to be balanced with the need to fit into the world of work. In 2012 the Metropolitan police banned employees from getting visible tattoos or they would face disciplinary action.

Research done by the British Sociological Association found that regardless of how intellectual and skilled a person is, if they have a visible tattoo at interview the likelihood of ruining their chances is very high with potential employers viewing them as dirty or unsavoury.  It is all about corporate image and perception which continues to fuel stereotyping more likely with the older generation of managers.  Having a tattoo does not affect a person’s ability to do a job and indeed many professionals do have tattoos, they are just well hidden.  Nevertheless at interview first impressions are vital.

Research carried out by the University of St Andrew interviewed recruiters in a bank, council,prison, university and bookseller to find out their view on job applicants with tattoos.  Opinions included a statement that a tattoo would stop an applicant being recruited to the tattoo being the first thing discussed when the applicant left the room detracting from the discussion of job ability.  Other opinions included that customers might think a tattooed member of staff as being abhorrent, repugnant, unsavoury and untidy.  The programme Tattoo Addiction aired on Channel 4 showed Paul who displayed a tattooed face discussing how difficult it was to find a job.

Having a policy on body art is not discriminatory.  Employers have the right to provide guidelines to staff on this subject and whilst a whole policy need not be dedicated to this, clauses could be inserted into a dress code.