Businesses are exploiting a loophole in the law banning the supply of strike-breakers by employment agencies, says Thompsons, the UK’s largest firm of
trade union and employment rights lawyers.

Agency staff are being switched from their normal duties to work undertaken by employees on strike to get round the law, according to Thompsons. It urges the government to make it crystal clear that under Regulation 7 of the Conduct of employment agencies and employment businesses regulations 2003, agency staff originally supplied for other purposes should not be used to perform the duties of strikers. At the moment some businesses are subverting the intention of the regulation.

Thompsons believes there should be a duty on any employer to inform an employment agency if the workers it supplies may be used to perform the duties of strikers.

There should also be a fast-track procedure for Investigating complaints by unions.
At the moment unions are invariably unable to seek redress during industrial action because of the time taken to conduct inquires.

Richard Arthur of Thompsons said: “It can take months to conduct an official investigation into complaints. By then the damage — as far as unions are concerned — has been done.

“We have found by using the Freedom of Information Act that there has been no prosecution under Regulation 7 since the legislation came into force in April 2004.
That fact speaks for itself.”

www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ntext/loophole-for-strike-breakers.htm

Read more Comments (0)

Oil prices pared gains on Wednesday, after bouncing above 71 dollars in earlier trade, despite a larger-than-expected drop in crude reserves in key energy consumer the United States.

New York's main contract, light sweet crude for August delivery rose 20 cents to 70.09 dollars a barrel.

Brent North Sea crude for August delivery advanced 25 cents to 69.55 dollars.

The US government's Department of Energy (DoE) said American crude oil reserves tumbled 3.7 million barrels in the week ending June 26.

That was the fourth weekly drop in a row and contrasted with market expectations for a lighter decline of 2.1 million barrels, according to analysts polled by Dow Jones Newswires.

The DoE added that US gasoline or petrol stocks rose 2.3 million barrels, and distillates, which include diesel and heating duel, increased by 2.9 million barrels last week.

Prices had sunk Tuesday from eight-month peaks above 73 dollars after new data showed a plunge in American consumer confidence.

"Crude oil tumbled from an eight-month high as US consumer confidence declined in June, indicating lower fuel demand," said BetOnMarkets analyst David Evans.

"Oil prices are likely to continue to trade around the 70 dollar level, as traders are worried that the economy has not hit bottom," he added.

Some analysts expect that the rebound in crude prices, coming mainly on the back of investors looking for an alternative to equities, will be temporary amid fresh worries about US energy demand.

Figures released on Tuesday by the Conference Board, a business research group, showed that US consumer confidence sank in June as Americans fretted about the recession and vanishing jobs.

The Conference Board's consumer confidence index retreated to 49.3 points in June from a revised 54.8 in May, an eight-month high. Most analysts expected a much stronger reading of 55.3 points.

Oil jumped dramatically -- by 40 percent, or more than 20 dollars -- in the second quarter on rising confidence that the global slump is easing.

In early trading on Tuesday, Brent oil had struck 73.50 dollars -- the highest level since last October -- as the market was propelled by tensions in key crude producer Nigeria.

Nigerian rebels on Monday announced a new raid against a Shell oil facility and said they had killed at least 20 soldiers in a gun battle, a claim denied by the security forces.

While a Shell spokesman confirmed the raid and said it had caused a loss of production, Nigeria's combined police and army joint task force (JTF) denied there had been any clash with the rebels.

The Niger Delta has since 2006 been rocked by violence by armed groups who say they are fighting for a greater share of the region's oil wealth for the local population.

Read more Comments (0)

The U.S. House of Representatives on Friday narrowly passed a bill aimed at capping and reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and lowering the country's dependence on foreign oil, in what experts say a critical step toward tackling climate change.

The bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES Act), was passed by a vote of 219-212 after hours of bitter debate.

SIGNIFICANT MEANING

As the biggest economy in the world with the highest per capita carbon dioxide emissions, what the U.S. does in its response to climate change will have a direct bearing on the international community's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, analysts said.

They added that any substantive progress at the Copenhage climate change talks scheduled for December this year will hinge to a large extent on whether Washington agrees to set mandatory emissions targets.

Under the administration of former U.S. President George W. Bush, the U.S. climate policy aroused deep disappointment and great dismay in the international community. The Bush administration also withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, making the U.S. a target of criticism at almost all climate negotiations.

After taking office in January this year, the new U.S. government took a stance in stark contrast to that of the previous administrations. The passage of the bill is considered to be a personal triumph for President Barack Obama, as he has made great efforts to push the House of Representatives to pass the historic bill.

Praising the House for passing the legislation, Obama said: "It's a bold and necessary step that holds the promise of creating new industries and millions of new jobs, decreasing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil."

He said such a bill will finally spark a clean energy transformation and help the U.S. lead the global economy in the 21st century.

It is "the most important energy and environmental legislation in the history of our country," said Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts, "It sets a new course for our country, one that steers us away from foreign oil and towards a path of clean American energy."

Nobel Peace Prize laureate and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore posted a statement on his Website saying the measure represents "an essential first step towards solving the climate crisis." Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to draw attention to the destructive potential result of global warming.

Eileen Claussen, president of U.S. think tank Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said the bill has "international implications."

"Enactment of a comprehensive energy and climate bill along the lines of the ACES Act will finally allow the United States to help lead the efforts toward a global agreement in which the major economies of the world, both developed and developing, play their part to address climate change, " Claussen said in a statement.

MAIN PROVISIONS

The bill calls for a 17 percent reduction in emissions of heat-trapping gases from the 2005 levels by 2020. That is less ambitious than the target of 20 percent initially sought, but slightly more aggressive than the approximately 15 percent that President Obama has proposed.

The bill sets further pollution reduction goals -- 42 percent by 2030 and 83 percent by 2050, with the latter just slightly higher than what Obama has suggested.

It establishes a cap-and-trade program to control climate-altering emissions, allowing companies to meet emission-limiting targets by investing in offset projects such as tree planting and forest protection.

The legislation also dictates an increase in the use of renewable energy sources and sets new efficiency standards for buildings, lighting and industrial facilities.

The bill requires new buildings to be 30 percent more energy-efficient by 2012 and 50 percent more efficient by 2016.

By 2020, electric utilities must produce at least 15 percent of their power from renewable sources such as wind and solar energy, according to the bill.

DEEP RIFTS

The fact that the bill was narrowly passed reveals the rifts between Democrats and Republicans. After the bill's passage, Democrats hailed the legislation as historic, while Republicans said it would damage the economy without solving the nation's energy woes.

Democrats said the bill will create more "green jobs," decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oils and convert the U.S. economy to a more efficient one.

"Just remember these four words for what this legislation means -- jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. Let's vote for jobs," Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi exhorted her colleagues minutes before the vote.

However, Republicans warned the measure would send energy costs skyrocketing and denounced it as "the biggest job-killing bill that has ever been on the floor of the House."

The controversy surrounding the bill was self-evident in the House, where only eight Republicans joined 211 Democrats in favor, while 44 Democrats joined 168 Republicans in opposition.

Big compromises are needed to heal the deep rifts.

One big compromise involved the near total elimination of an administration plan to sell pollution permits to raise more than 600 billion dollars over a decade, and the money would be used to finance continuation of a middle class tax cut.

However, after heated debate, the plan was changed whereby about 85 percent of the permits are to be given away rather than sold, a concession to energy companies and their allies in the House -- and even that is uncertain to survive in the Senate.

In order to protect consumers from rising energy costs, the bill also requires giving rebates and credits to low-income households.

After the passage of the bill, Obama said: "Now it's up to the Senate to take the next step." The U.S. Senate is expected to try to write its own version of a climate change bill, and whether the bill can manage its way through the Senate by the end of this year remains uncertain.

by Ren Haijun
China View

Read more Comments (0)

Mark Serwotka, general secretary, is currently visiting Palestine as part of a delegation hosted by the Palestine General Federation of Trade Unions. Each day Mark will post his reflections on the visit.

Click the link below then click Palestine Blog

http://www.pcs.org.uk/

Read more Comments (0)

Credit card companies have been accused of flouting consumer protection law by denying refunds to shoppers and holidaymakers owed money for goods or services that were faulty or not delivered.

Under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, card providers are supposed to provide refunds if you buy any item costing between £100 and £30,000 on a credit card and the goods are defective or do not turn up. This lifeline means that if you order something and the retailer goes bust, you can still claim back your money from the card company.

However, legal experts warn of a growing tendency for providers to try to wriggle out of making repayments under false pretences. Some customers report being told that claims are void because they failed to notify the card company within a set period — normally 90 days. Legally, however, customers have six years to claim, even if they no longer use the card.

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has experienced a 50 per cent jump in complaints linked to section 75. Martyn James, of the FOS, says: “Between 50 and 75 claims related to section 75 are being lodged each week, driven by the economic situation. As more suppliers go out of business a growing number of people are having to rely on credit card companies to provide refunds and are coming to the FOS when their claims are rejected.”

Tesco Personal Finance and Lloyds are among the worst for rejecting claims for compensation, say lawyers, though the lenders deny this.

Helen Lacey, of Which?, the consumer organisation, says: “We have seen a real increase in calls from members complaining about their credit card providers rejecting their claims for spurious reasons.”

Though some experts believe that the economic downturn has led some companies to attempt to limit refunds, poor training and a misunderstanding of consumer law may also be responsible for the increase in disputes.

Ingrid Gubbay, of Hausfeld & Co, the consumer and human rights law specialist, says: “I have seen customers who were made to respond to an overwhelming number of letters from credit providers. This points to either a lack of training of customer service staff or a deliberate policy to avoid paying legitimate claims in the hope that claimants will give up and go away. These increasingly routine avoidance tactics at best deny the underlying purpose of section 75 and at worst are a clear breach of the Consumer Credit Act and financial services regulation.”

Often claims are rejected on the basis of obscure points. Ms Lacey explains: “Some people have been told that their claims are not valid because they purchased their goods outside the UK; others that the claim has been rejected because the trader has gone out of business — again not true.”

Other excuses include companies insisting that items bought as part of a set have to be claimed for separately. For example, the lender might say that a dinner set bought as a wedding present has to be split into individual plates, cups and saucers. The claim is then turned down because each of these items is worth less than £100.

Ms Gubbay says: “In our opinion the loss should be based on the retail price that was paid.”

Another ruse is to reject a claim because you have changed your credit card provider since buying the goods. However, the provider of the card used to buy the goods remains liable, even if you are no longer a cardholder, and should provide a refund.

Sometimes, companies insist that you can claim for money that you have lost but not for losses made by friends or family, even though you used the same card to make the transaction. This could arise when a card is used to book a family holiday and the travel company then goes bust.

Ms Gubbay says: “This is complete nonsense if you can prove the loss by showing the purchase of the tickets with separate family names or bank statements that correspond with the amount claimed.”

There is no doubt that the growing number of companies going bust has contributed to the jump in claims and disputes. But section 75 also protects consumers who buy goods or services from solvent companies. A common ploy is to tell customers that they must first seek a refund or obtain a court judgment against the supplier. However, the law states that the customer can choose whether to claim against the supplier, the card issuer or both.

It is not only credit card borrowers who are protected by section 75. The law applies to other credit agreements, such as many car loans arranged through dealers. Hire purchase agreements may also be covered, but it may be hard to claim if you have not kept up with the payments, as the car does not belong to you until it is paid off.

If an agreement is covered, it will usually say something like “this agreement is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974” in the terms and conditions.

Since a landmark House of Lords ruling in 2007 it has been possible to claim for goods or services bought abroad — in person when travelling or on holiday or on the internet. Before the ruling, refunds were made at the lender’s discretion.

Debit cards, store cards and charge cards are not covered. However, anyone who uses a Visa debit card is protected by its Chargeback scheme. The scheme applies to all Visa debit cards, and can also be used for Visa credit card purchases where section 75 is not applicable, such as for goods costing less than £100. It also covers prepaid Visa cards and Visa Electron purchases where the goods do not arrive, arrive damaged or are not as described.

Payments made through online payment systems such as PayPal are not covered by section 75 but should be covered by Chargeback. It also provides protection if your card is used fraudulently.

To make a claim using Chargeback, customers must contact the card issuer, which then contacts the company’s payment-processing bank to reclaim the money. You should receive your money even if the company that sold the goods has gone bust.

Unlike section 75, there is a 120-day time limit on Chargeback claims, which starts from the day that you become aware of a problem or, in the case of something like flights with an airline that goes out of business, from the day that the flight was to depart.

To claim compensation using section 75 or Chargeback, you must prove breach of contract. This is clearcut if the goods or services were not delivered, but it is not so straightforward if you are claiming that the goods were not of a satisfactory quality or not as described.

If the dispute boils down to a question of taste, or simply to disappointment with the goods or services, a claim is unlikely to be successful. The FOS reports the case of a woman who made a claim because her new haircut, paid for by credit card, did not suit her. Unsurprisingly, the claim was rejected.

Do not give up if a claim is turned down. If you experience difficulties, contact Citizens Advice (www.citizens advice.org.uk), Consumer Direct (consumerdirect.gov.uk) or Which? Legal Service (whichlegalservice.co.uk).

Your card company has eight weeks to respond to a complaint. If it fails to do so, or rejects your complaint, you can take your case to the FOS. Visit financial-ombudsman.org.uk or call 0845 0801800.

Case study: “Barclaycard gave us the brush-off”

Richard Mack and his wife, Helen, both 34, considered taking Barclaycard to the small claims court for refusing to refund €1,215 (£1,000) that they paid to a timeshare company.

In October 2007 the couple, from Liverpool, used their credit card to pay a Gibraltar-based company called etoo. It said that it had a buyer for their timeshare in Florida and that a deposit was needed as insurance.

However, the promised buyer never materialised and when the Macks tried to get back their deposit the company failed to return their calls. This prompted them to contact their card provider, Goldfish, which said that they would be able to file a section 75 claim if their deposit wasn’t returned after 12 months. They waited patiently and in November went back to Goldfish, which was now owned by Barclaycard. Last month Barclaycard rejected the claim, arguing that there was no breach of contract.

Mr Mack, who works in the car industry, says: “They gave us the brush-off after making us wait for six months.”

However, last week, after The Times intervened, Barclaycard agreed to a refund.

How to make a claim

• First write to your card provider. Include related paperwork and state that the provider is liable for your claim under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act.

• You have six years (five in Scotland) from the date of the breach of contract — when the seller failed to provide the goods — to make a claim.

• If your claim is rejected, you have six months to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service (financial-ombudsman.org.uk). You can also complain to the FOS if the card company does not deal with your claim within eight weeks.

Read more Comments (0)