Brock receives energy efficiency rebate of more than 138000

admin gfcnhr , , , , , , , , ,

Horizon Utilities chief conservation officer Brian Smith, Tom Saint-Ivany, associate vice-president, Facilities Management, and David Balasiak, project manager, Campus Planning, Design and Construction, hold a provincial energy rebate cheque for more than $138,000. Brock University’s commitment to energy efficiency has a resulted in a rebate of more than $138,000 from a provincial program.Brock received the money Monday after completing six lighting retrofit projects that qualified for the saveONenergy Equipment Replacement Incentive Initiative rebate through the Ontario Power Authority and Horizon Utilities.Horizon Utilities chief conservation officer Brian Smith said Brock has been a great partner in committing to energy efficiency projects.“(They) will not only benefit the students here, but the community at large,” he said before presenting Brock with a cheque for $138,662.30 at Monday’s Senior Administrative Council meeting.Two of the projects that met ERII criteria included replacing fixtures and lamps in the Aquatic Centre and campus-wide, and replacing almost 6,000 old fluorescent ballasts and lamps, especially important in older areas of the campus.“The newer lamps offer a better quality of light, a whiter colour, lower operating costs and longer life too, ” said David Balasiak, Brock project manager, Campus Planning, Design and Construction. “(That) results in lower maintenance costs since our electricians won’t have to change failed lamps or ballasts as often.”

You May Also Like..

ICL aims to cut call centre staff turnover

first_imgICL aims to cut call centre staff turnoverOn 23 Oct 2001 in Personnel Today Comments are closed. ICL has changed its call centre policy in a bid to slash employee turnoverin the coming year. Under the new approach, staff are assessed by the number of calls they solverather than the number of calls they take. The initiative was piloted in four of ICL’s seven UK call centres. It cutstaff turnover from 24 to 6 per cent and resulted in a 20 per cent rise incustomer satisfaction. Peter Richardson, HR director for infrastructure and operations at ICL,expects the scheme to cut staff turnover at call centres from 20 per cent tothe company’s average of between 11 and 13 per cent. He said, “There is no reason why call centre staff turnover should beworse than the rest of the business. Twenty per cent is too high and I expectthe management scheme to make a big dent in the staff turnover rate.” The new approach makes call centres more customer focused and will cut thenumber of calls staff have to handle as problems are solved more effectively. Previous Article Next Article Related posts:No related photos.last_img

Advisers from Pinsent Curtis Biddle answer questions

first_imgAdvisers from Pinsent Curtis Biddle answer questionsOn 1 May 2003 in Personnel Today Comments are closed. Related posts:No related photos. Advisers from Pinsent Curtis Biddle answerquestionsChristopher Mordue on grievance proceduresQ The new statutory discipline, dismissal and grievance procedures comeinto force in April 2004. Is there anything employers should be doing toprepare? A The new statutory procedures under the Employment Act 2002 will beone of the most fundamental employment law reforms for many years, impacting onthe day-to-day management of all employment disputes. Breach of the procedureswill significantly affect both liability and compensation in tribunal cases.The importance of these reforms makes it essential employers prepare well inadvance. Some details of the new procedures and how they work will only beclear once the regulations are published. But the basic scheme is reasonablyclear and there are a number of steps employers should now be considering. The new procedures will apply to all employees and become part of theircontract of employment. The discipline and dismissal procedure applies to allforms of disciplinary action, even oral warnings, and to all dismissals. Breachby the employer will mean that any dismissal is automatically unfair. What’smore, compensation will be increased by at least 10 per cent and possibly by 50per cent. The statutory grievance procedure will need to be followed by all employeesbefore they make any complaint to an employment tribunal. Breach of theprocedure will lead to any damages awarded (for example, an award fordiscrimination) being increased by 10 to 50 per cent. In advance of these changes, employers need to carefully review theirexisting procedures to ensure compliance with the new statutory scheme. Theyneed to consider how (if at all) they will reflect the contractual status ofthe new procedures in their contracts of employment and procedural documents.They also need to carefully review and reconsider how they deal with employmentdisputes in practice. For example, the new procedures require employers tostart the dismissal or disciplinary process by explaining, in writing, thecircumstances that have led them to consider dismissing or disciplining theemployee. Employers also need to carefully review how disciplinary anddismissal hearings are conducted, what information is provided to the employeeand at what stage, and the length of time taken for each stage. Employers must also consider whether they need any new dismissal procedures,in particular, for dealing with performance issues, ill-health terminations andredundancies, and whether they need to adopt any new grievance procedures todeal with specific types of complaints. For example, many employers alreadyhave specific procedures for dealing with allegations of sexual or racialharassment and it may be appropriate to introduce specific procedures for othertypes of complaint. The new statutory scheme threatens to punish basic procedural errors veryharshly. Therefore, it is vital for employers to effectively communicate thenew statutory procedures to line managers. This can be accomplished through trainingand written guidance on how to deal with disciplinary cases, grievances and thevarious forms of dismissal. This training and guidance should also cover otherrelevant employment law risks, such as unfair dismissal law more generally anddiscrimination complaints. Employers should also prepare for far heavier use of their grievanceprocedures once the new rules take effect. One issue is of time and resources –are there enough trained managers at each level of the grievance procedure tohear the grievances? Will appeals impact particularly heavily on the time ofsenior managers, who might then have to give evidence in employment tribunalcases? If so, could the procedure be changed to spread the time burden moreeffectively? A further change to be introduced under the Employment Act 2002 relates tothe statutory statement of main terms and conditions of employment. Currently,there is no real sanction for a failure to provide this statement or for afailure to keep it up-to-date. From next April, employers will face a ‘fine’ ofup to two weeks’ pay for such breaches. Employees will have no free-standingclaim for this amount. However, if the employee wins any kind of tribunal case,the tribunal must then assess whether or not the obligation to provide andmaintain an accurate statement has been breached and, if so, can impose thefine. Claire Newberry on sex discriminationQ We seconded employees to a joint venture company; the joint venturepartner provided the management team. Now, one of our female employees hasresigned and complained of sex discrimination by a manager. It seems she raiseda grievance against her supervisor and the manager dealt with her grievanceless favourably than he dealt with another raised against the same supervisorby a man – who is also one of our employees. Are we liable for the actions of amanager who isn’t even one of our employees? A Your company may well be liable for the actions of the manager,even though it does not employ him. In a recent and similar case (Victor-Davisv Hackney London Borough Council, 2003, All ER (D) 318, Feb), the manager was acontractor and not an employee of the council. As soon as the council formedthe view that the contractor manager had behaved inappropriately, it tookappropriate steps to deal with the situation. The council assumed that withoutknowledge, it would not be held liable for the inappropriate acts of thecontractor manager. The tribunal agreed. However, it was overruled by theEmployment Appeal Tribunal. The EAT provided guidance in dealing with such situations. The properapproach to determine your company’s liability is to consider whether or notthe manager was acting on authority conferred by your company when he allegedlycommitted the discriminatory act. Your joint venture partner provided theentire management team. It would appear that in carrying out normal managementactivities, the manager was acting on authority conferred (explicit or implied)by your company. Handling a grievance may be classed as normal managementactivities, so your company may well find itself liable for a discriminatoryact committed by a non-employee. The Victor-Davis case concerned sex and race discrimination, but the EAT’sguidance could also be applied to non-discrimination cases. So, the conduct ofan agency manager, say, could saddle an employer with liability forconstructive unfair dismissal. All the more reason, then, for employers tothink carefully before conferring authority on non-employees. If this cannot beavoided, then such arrangements need to be carefully structured so thatresponsibilities are thoughtfully allocated, and that all three parties(employees, managers and employers) know where those responsibilities lie.Finally, an employer who confers authority to manage on a non-employee needs amechanism for addressing any management failures. In the case of your company,this would be by having complaints about the manager dealt with by your jointventure partner as a disciplinary/performance issue. John McMullen on TUPE reformsQ What is the position with regard to the reform of TUPE and when will ithappen? A The reform of TUPE should be regarded as a jigsaw puzzle containinga number of pieces. First, on 13 February 2003, the office of the Deputy PrimeMinister published details of a code of practice applicable to local authoritytransfers of employees to a private or voluntary sector partner as part of acontract to provide any local public service. The code will ensure that contractors confirm their obligations to protectthe terms and conditions of transferring local government employees, includingthe right to ongoing access to the local government pension scheme or to analternative good quality occupational pension scheme. The guide will also applyto new joiners, who must be offered new terms and conditions that are overallno less favourable than those of transferred employees. New joiners will alsohave to be offered a reasonable pension provision which may either bemembership of the local government pension scheme, membership of a good qualityemployer pension scheme or membership of a stakeholder pension scheme with anemployer contribution. Further information can be obtained from the officialwebsite ( As for the TUPE regulations themselves, on 14 February 2003, the secretaryof state for trade and industry announced new regulations would be published indraft during the first half of 2003, with a view to placing them beforeParliament in the autumn of 2003, coming into effect in spring 2004. But thecoverage of occupational pension rights under TUPE will be consideredseparately and to a longer timescale as part of the pensions review being takenforward by the Government’s Green Paper Pensions in the Workplace published on17 December 2002. The TUPE revisions, it is promised, will include giving more comprehensivecoverage to service contracting operations (not including those involving highlevel ‘professional services’) with the aim of improving the operation of themarket and promoting business flexibility; introducing a requirement on the oldemployer (transferor) to notify the new employer (transferee) of the employmentliabilities that will be transferring, thus increasing the transparency of thetransfer process and combating “sharp practice”; clarifying thecircumstances in which employers can lawfully make transfer-related dismissalsand negotiate transfer-related changes to terms and conditions of employmentfor economic, technical or organisational (ETO) reasons; and introducing newflexibility into the regulations application in relation to the transfer ofinsolvent businesses, promoting the ‘rescue culture’. Christopher Booth on dependants leaveQ Over the last three months, my PA has been absent from work on a dozenor so occasions in order to look after her son, who has been diagnosed withhaemophilia. While I am sympathetic about her reasons for being absent, and Iam aware that employees have a right to time off to look after dependants, Ineed my PA at work. A An employee is entitled to take a reasonable amount of time offduring working hours in order to take action that is necessary: – to provide assistance when a dependant falls ill, gives birth or isinjured – to make arrangements for the provision of care for a dependant who fallsill The right does not apply unless the employee tells her employer the reasonfor their absence as soon as reasonably practicable and how long they expect tobe absent. In Qua v John Ford Morrison Solicitors, EAT 884/01, the EAT gave someguidance on the determination of a ‘reasonable’ amount of time off in order totake action which is ‘necessary’. – Factors taken into account will include the nature of the incident thathas occurred, the relationship between the employee and the dependant, and theextent to which anyone else was available to help – In determining what is the reasonable amount of time off, this is aquestion of fact for the tribunal in every situation, but the disruption orinconvenience caused to an employer’s business by the absence are irrelevant.However, an employer can take into account the number and length of previous absencesas well as the dates when they occurred, in order to determine whether the timeoff on a subsequent occasion is reasonable and necessary – The right to time off to “provide assistance” does not enableemployees to take time off to provide the care themselves, beyond thereasonable amount necessary to enable them to deal with the immediate crisis.The statute envisages some temporary assistance – The statute contemplates a reasonable period of time off to enable anemployee to deal with a dependant who has fallen ill unexpectedly. Once it isknown the dependant is suffering from an underlying medical condition – whichis likely to cause regular relapses – such a situation no longer falls withinthe scope of the statute once arrangements have been made for the provision ofcare for that dependant, unless there is some disruption of those arrangementsthat necessitates input from the employee. Previous Article Next Articlelast_img

Aryzta announces plans to raise £715m in capital

first_imgAryzta is aiming to raise around £715m as part of plans to strengthen its presence in the frozen bakery market.The move follows a profit warning in May and announcement of plans to reduce costs over the next three years as the business comes under pressure from increased labour and ingredient costs.In a statement issued this morning (13 August), the company said it had undertaken a detailed review of its capital structure and would now approach shareholders with a view to raising €800m (£715m).The additional funding will be used primarily to reduce debt, which Aryzta said would give it the strategic and financial flexibility it needed to implement its business plan and focus on the frozen bakery market.Aryzta also reported that trading in its fourth quarter had been in line with expectations and with the guidance it gave in its profit warning in May.The company added that it remained committed to its previously announced €1bn deleveraging plan, made up of a combination of cash flow generation and at least €450m of asset disposals. Aryzta said it had made solid progress with disposal of non-core assets and that it still planned to dispose of its stake in French retail group Picard.“A significantly improved capital structure will provide Aryzta with the means to continue to take the necessary steps to reposition the business and deliver on our strategy,” said Aryzta chief executive Kevin Toland.“Over the medium term, we expect to generate significant cash flow, which will be applied towards continued net debt reduction and to resource selective growth opportunities.”In April, Aryzta appointed former Frieslandcampina chief operating officer Gregory Sklikas as CEO of its European business.last_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *