first_img 2008 Area:  202 m² Year Completion year of this architecture project Houses Save this picture!Courtesy of Jun Igarashi Architects+ 20 Share Projects ArchDaily Layered House / Jun Igarashi ArchitectsSave this projectSaveLayered House / Jun Igarashi Architects ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/148880/layered-house-jun-igarashi-architects-2 Clipboard “COPY” CopyHouses•Japancenter_img ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/148880/layered-house-jun-igarashi-architects-2 Clipboard Year:  Japan Text description provided by the architects. The site is located east of Hokkaido, the old city area of Saroma-cho with a road passing along the north side. The warehouses of the farm co-op are gathered along this street and there is high traffic density. The office of the farm co-op is to the East of the house with a warehouse is adjacent in the west. In the south, there is a small garden, and the clients parents own the house by the garden. Save this picture!SituationRecommended ProductsDoorsLinvisibileLinvisibile Curved Hinged Door | AlbaWoodParklex International S.L.Wood cladding – FacadeWoodLunawoodThermowood FacadesDoorsSolarluxBi-Folding Doors – EcolineI designed the space for this four-persons family in this place. I had the opportunity to solve the space by creating a connection with the outside by the buffering space which was used in other works at the time such as, Rectangle of Light and House of Trough. Save this picture!Courtesy of Jun Igarashi ArchitectsIn any kind of constitution, I think that the design of architecture is the act of making a certain closed-door room on earth. Even in Layered House I thought about the buffering space in it’s relation with the environment with the aim at the space and the creation of a new place.Save this picture!Floor PlanProject gallerySee allShow lessThe Canopy: Student Pavilion Erasmus University / NEXT Architects + MASS StudiesArticlesStar of Calendonia / Cecil Balmond and Charles JencksArticles Share “COPY” Architects: Jun Igarashi Architects Area Area of this architecture project CopyAbout this officeJun Igarashi ArchitectsOfficeFollowProductWood#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsResidential ArchitectureHousesWoodHousesJapanPublished on July 24, 2011Cite: “Layered House / Jun Igarashi Architects” 24 Jul 2011. ArchDaily. Accessed 12 Jun 2021. ISSN 0719-8884Read commentsBrowse the CatalogPartitionsSkyfoldIntegrating Operable Walls in a SpaceGlass3MSafety Window Films in Associated Watch and Jewelry BuyersFaucetshansgroheKitchen Mixers – Talis MWindowsAir-LuxSliding Windows for High-Rise BuildingsSignage / Display SystemsGoppionDisplay Case – B-ClassGlassLAMILUXGlass Roof PR60Manuals & AdviceSikaFirestop SystemsMetal PanelsAmerican MetalcraftRainscreen – RS300Curtain WallsRabel Aluminium SystemsMinimal Curtain Wall – Rabel 35000 Slim Super ThermalWaste Containers / Recycling BinsPunto DesignLitter Bin – PapilonSound BoothsFramerySoundproof Phone Booths – Framery OneCarpetsnanimarquinaRugs – ShadeMore products »Read commentsSave世界上最受欢迎的建筑网站现已推出你的母语版本!想浏览ArchDaily中国吗?是否翻译成中文现有为你所在地区特制的网站?想浏览ArchDaily中国吗?Take me there »✖You’ve started following your first account!Did you know?You’ll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.Go to my stream Layered House / Jun Igarashi Architectslast_img read more


Howard Lake | 25 May 1999 | News The Web address www.computer.com has just been sold for a remarkable $500,000. Internet company Zappy Zapolin bought the memorable address from a US man whose computer programmer wife suggested he might like to register such generic names in 1994. This beats the $150,000 paid for www.business.com in 1997.The Web address www.computer.com has just been sold for a remarkable $500,000. Internet company Zappy Zapolin bought the memorable address from a US man whose computer programmer wife suggested he might like to register such generic names in 1994. This beats the $150,000 paid for www.business.com in 1997.Sadly, it is unlikely that any charities are going to be able to sell any of their domain names at such profit. But you never know. If we hear about any entrepreneurial foresight by UK charities we’ll report it here. Advertisement AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving. Sticks and stones  17 total views,  1 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis read more


first_img  123 total views,  1 views today Advertisement The UK deadline for entries for the WeWork Creator Awards, which offer prizes of up to $360,000, is 24th August.The Creator Awards reward individuals and organisations, including non-profits, that bring new ideas into the world that make it a better place. Launched by WeWork this year, the global awards are taking place in eight regions (four in the US), starting in Washington D.C, in March, and with events in the UK, Mexico, Germany, and Israel later this year.WeWork is committing $20m to the awards, and there are three categories:The Incubate award: for great ideas that need some help getting started.The Launch award: for businesses that have created their idea or product, brought it to the world, but are learning as they grow and could use some help broadening their audience.The Scale award: for businesses that have a proven record of success and are ready for the next level of business.Artists and nonprofits will receive cash prizes, while entrepreneurs, startups, and other for-profit companies will receive SAFE investments, which will see WeWork invest in exchange for the right to purchase stock in a future equity round.Information on the awards and the application process is available on the Creator Awards website. Tagged with: competition Funding About Melanie May Melanie May is a journalist and copywriter specialising in writing both for and about the charity and marketing services sectors since 2001. She can be reached via www.thepurplepim.com. WeWork’s Creator Awards offer chance to win up to $360kcenter_img  124 total views,  2 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis8 AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis8 Melanie May | 11 August 2017 | Newslast_img read more


first_img Pinterest Google+ Derry delegation presents City of Culture bid in Liverpool Twitter Twitter Facebook PSNI and Gardai urged to investigate Adams’ claims he sheltered on-the-run suspect in Donegal Pinterest News Dail to vote later on extending emergency Covid powers Facebook Previous articleKeavney says officers for merchant shipping could be trained in GreencastleNext articleMc Ginley calls for unity as Kenny remains on as FG leader News Highland center_img Dail hears questions over design, funding and operation of Mica redress scheme By News Highland – June 17, 2010 Man arrested in Derry on suspicion of drugs and criminal property offences released RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR HSE warns of ‘widespread cancellations’ of appointments next week WhatsApp WhatsApp Man arrested on suspicion of drugs and criminal property offences in Derry Derry has made its final bid for the title of UK Capital of Culture 2013.The bid team made a one-and-a-half-hour showcase to judges this morning at the O2 conference centre at Albert Dock in Liverpool, watched via a live online link by hundreds of supporters in the Nerve Centre, including local MP Mark Durkan.Mayor Cllr Colum Eastwood who attended todays final presentation in Liverpool, told Highland Radio News afterwards that this week has been a very good one for Derry, and that was reflected in their pitch…….[podcast]http://www.highlandradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/colm3pm.mp3[/podcast] Google+last_img read more


first_imgKnow the LawCan Divorced Wife Claim Right To Residence Under Domestic Violence Act? Ashok Kini17 Oct 2020 9:00 PMShare This – xThe Supreme Court in a recent judgment [Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja] held that a woman can claim right to residence in the houses owned by relatives as well. This means that, she can seek residence order with respect to property which belongs to in-laws, if she and her husband lived there with some permanency after marriage.What happens after divorce of a married couple? Can…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court in  a recent judgment [Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja] held that a woman can claim right to residence in the houses owned by relatives as well. This means that, she can seek residence order with respect to property which belongs to in-laws, if she and her husband lived there with some permanency after marriage.What happens after divorce of a married couple? Can a woman file a domestic violence complaint after divorce? Can she seek residence order even after the marriage is dissolved? These are some of the doubts which have arisen after the Supreme Court delivered this judgment.As per the definition clause in the DV Act, “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent. Further, “domestic relationship” is defined to mean a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by  consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family; “Shared household” means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household. This definition was interpreted in the Ahuja judgment by overruling restrictive interpretation in SR Batra vs. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169.Section 19 confers a woman the right to reside in a shared household. “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.” Section 12 enables an aggrieved person to present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act. Section 19 empowers the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order. Residence orders can be any of the following kind: (a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household; (b) directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household; (c) restraining the respondent or any of his relatives from entering any portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides; (d) restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing off the shared household or encumbering the same; (e) restraining the respondent from renouncing his rights in the shared household except with the leave of the Magistrate; or (f) directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require.There are divergent views expressed by High Courts on the issue whether a woman can file a complaint under Domestic Violence Act after divorce. Most of them refer to following two Supreme Court judgments in this regard.Subsequent Divorce Will Not Deny Benefit To Which Aggrieved Person Is Entitled: SC In Juveria CaseIn Juveria Abdul Majid Patni Vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori [2014(10) SCC 736] , the Supreme Court was examining the correctness of an order of Sessions Court which dismissed an application filed under the Domestic Violence Act as not maintainable. Examining the provisions of the Act, the court held that an act of domestic violence once committed, subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the liability of the respondent from the offence committed or to deny the benefit to which the aggrieved person is entitled under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 including monetary relief under Section 20, Child Custody under Section 21, Compensation under Section 22 and interim or ex parte order under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.In the above judgment, the Court had also noticed its earlier decision in Inderjit Singh Grewal vs. State of Punjab and another, (2011) 12 SCC 588. In that case, the Supreme Court had held that ‘Application to Magistrate” under the Domestic Violence Act challenging a ‘sham’ divorce was not maintainable. The court had quashed the complaint filed by the wife. In Juveria, the court said that the law laid down in Inderjith is not applicable for thep purpose of determination of the issues involved in it.Rajasthan HCIn Sabana @ Chand Bai & Anr vs Mohd.Talib Ali [2013], the Rajasthan High Court considered this issue. The Division Bench held that it “is not necessary that the applicant-woman should have a marriage or relationship in the nature of marriage existing and subsisting with the respondent as on the date of coming into force of the Act or at the time of filing of the application under Section 12 of the Act before the Magistrate for one or more reliefs as provided for under the Act. In other words, the aggrieved person, who had been in domestic relationship with the respondent at any point of time even prior to coming into force of the Act and was subjected to domestic violence, is entitled to invoke the remedial measures provided for under the Act.” The Special Leave Petition filed against this judgment was dismissed in limine by the Supreme Court in 2018.Telangana HCA division bench of Telangana High Court, in Mohd. Kaleem vs Waseem Begum, held that it is not necessary that the woman should have a marriage subsisting and existing with the respondent at the time of filing of an application under Section 12 of the Act. Mere grant of a divorce would not absolve the petitioners from the criminal misdeeds allegedly committed by them during the existence of a domestic relationship between the parties. The bench held that the domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and respondent did not cease upon her obtaining a divorce and the DVC is maintainable in relation to the past acts of domestic violence allegedly committed by the respondent. Punjab and Haryana HC The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Neha Chawla vs Virender Chawla [2019], held that there is no such rule that divorce between a couple would absolutely debar a wife from invoking provisions of Domestic Violence Act and that in certain exceptional circumstances, a wife, despite her divorce, may still be able to make out a case for grant of relief. However, on facts, the court observed that the complaint filed by the woman against her brothers-in-law under provisions of Domestic Violence Act, filed after a decade of dissolution of her marriage with her husband and also after death of her husband, especially when no FIR for any offence u/s 406 or 498-A had ever been lodged at the instance of wife, has has to be held as an abuse of process of law.In an earlier judgment, Amit Agarwal And Ors vs Sanjay Aggarwal [2015]. the High Court had held that domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the respondent must be present and alive at the time when the complaint under Domestic Violence Act is filed. Taking note of the definition of the ‘aggrieved person and ‘domestic relationship’, Justice Anita Chaudhary made these observations: “The use of the word is any woman ‘who is’ or ‘has been’. Both the expressions are in the present tense. The legislature has not used the word ‘who was’ or ‘had been’. This means the domestic relationship has to be in the present and not in the past. The definition requires that on the date Act come into force, the woman should be in domestic relationship. “The definition clearly speaks of a domestic relationship between two persons who live or have at any point of time lived together in a shared household and are related by marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage. This definition also speaks about the existence of a relationship by marriage or a relationship in the nature of marriage at the time. The expression used is ‘are related’ by marriage. The expression by the legislature is not ‘were related’. From the bare reading of these two provisions it is apparent that the intention of the legislature is to protect those women who are living in a domestic relationship. ” It is to be noted that , in this case, the complaint under the DV Act was preferred after the decree of divorce had been granted.  Calcutta HCIn Prabir Kumar Ghosh & Ors vs Jharna Ghosh [2015], the Calcutta High Court has held that a divorced wife cannot claim right to residence under section 17 and consequently a residence order under section 19. However, the Court observed that a divorce decree does not disentitle a women from being an “aggrieved person” under the Act of 2005.  According to the court, Section 17 right to residence could not be claimed since it is restricted to a woman in a domestic relationship and not to one who had been in such a relationship, e.g., a divorced wife.  Continuity of joint residence in a shared household or domestic relationship inter se is not a sine qua non for the perpetration of domestic violence to an aggrieved person in the form ‘economic abuse’ under the Act, the Court had observed.Kerala HCJustice K. Harilal of Kerala High Court, in Sulaiman Kunju Vs. Nabeesa Beevi (2015) 3 KLT 65, has held that a divorced wife is not entitled to get any of the reliefs under Section 19 [Residence Orders]. The judge noticed that the second limb of the definition of ‘domestic relationship’  specifically signifies that the first limb attracts when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. It was held that a divorced wife does not satisfy the second limb of the definition of the domestic relationship.In 2016, Justice Sunil Thomas, in Bipin vs. Meera, held that even a divorced wife is entitled to initiate proceedings under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of D.V Act to seek appropriate reliefs. “Any act of violence which satisfies the definition of Section 3 of the Act and has a rational nexus to the past matrimonial relationship, or which arises therefrom or as a sequel to that relationship should conceptually fall within the provisions of Domestic Violence Act…” , the court had held.Bombay HCIn 2019, the Bombay High Court in  Sadhana vs. Hemant, held that domestic violence complaint is not maintainable if there was no domestic relation on the date of filing of the complaint under the DV Act. In another case [ Atmaram vs. Sangita], the court held that wife is entitled to reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act if she continued to cohabit with her husband(ex) post-divorce.Gujarat HCIn Kanji Parmar vs. Urmila [2019], the Gujarat High Court held that a divorced wife who has remarried cannot invoke provisions of Domestic Violence Act against her erstwhile husband. The Court, taking note of Juveria, opined that, after divorce takes place between husband and wife, the provisions under “the Act” cannot be invoked.Many HCs Followed SC’s Juveria Judgment To Hold That A Complaint After Divorce Is MaintainableThe Andhra High Court in Challa Sivakuma vs..Challa Anita, referring to Juveria judgment, held that the plea of non- existence of domestic relationship at present cannot be taken as an exception to entertain the quash petition. The Gauhati HC, in Rahul Biswas vs Khusbu Das [2019] , observed that one can invoke the provisions of the D.V. Act despite Civil Court decree of divorce, if such incident of domestic violence, subsists prior to the filing of the petition. The Chattisgarh High Court, in Ajay Kumar Reddy & Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh [2017] held that, in case of divorcee wife, the complaint by the divorcee wife under the provisions of the Act, shall be maintainable so far it relates to divorced husband for lawful responsibilities arising out of the marriage that existed between them at one point of time. The Madras High Court, in Varalakshmi vs Selvam [2019] held that once the marriage is admitted and the decree of divorce is admitted, even the divorced wife is also entitled to file a petition under Domestic ViolenceConclusionAlthough it was held by the Supreme Court in Juveria that a divorce decree could not extinguish the benefits and liabilities flowing out of Domestic Violence Act, many High Courts have expressed discordant notes by distinguishing it. Some High Courts have followed the Supreme Court judgment as it is, but some others have observed that a Domestic Violence Complaint filed after divorce is not maintainable. Even in Juveria, the Supreme Court has not examined whether a divorced wife, if held to be an ‘aggrieved person’ for the purpose of Domestic Violence Act, can claim right to residence under Section 17, in the house belonging to her ex-husband/ In-Laws. ? I hope that this controversy will be soon resolved in an appropriate case.  Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more


first_imgNews UpdatesCOVID-19- Delhi Government Announces Weekend Curfew In National Capital; Essential Services Exempted Nupur Thapliyal15 April 2021 1:37 AMShare This – xThe Delhi Government on Thursday announced weekend curfew in the national capital in view of the continuous surge in covid-19 cases over the past few weeks. The decision came after Delhi Chief Minister, Arvind Kejriwal was addressing a media briefing today. The said announcement was made after Arvind Kejriwal’s meeting with Delhi LG Anil Baijal.It has however been stated that essential…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Delhi Government on Thursday announced weekend curfew in the national capital in view of the continuous surge in covid-19 cases over the past few weeks. The decision came after Delhi Chief Minister, Arvind Kejriwal was addressing a media briefing today. The said announcement was made after Arvind Kejriwal’s meeting with Delhi LG Anil Baijal.It has however been stated that essential services shall remain exempted from the weekend curfew. The Government has also announced that curfew passes shall be issued for the purposes of marriages which have been already planned. Delhi CM announced that people attending such weddings in Delhi will be issued e-passes in order to facilitate their movements during the weekend curfew.Auditioriums, gyms, malls, spas etc will remain closed and cinema theatres will be allowed to function with 30% capacity. The Delhi Government has also announced that the restaurants will not be allowed for the purpose of dine in facility, however, home delivery or take away facilities will be permitted. According to the briefing, it has also been announced that only one weekly market per municipal zone shall be allowed to open per day in place of the present scenario wherein around 4 to 5 weekly markets were earlier allowed to remain open in a week. During the briefing, the Delhi CM also informed that there is no shortage of Covid-19 beds in Delhi hospitals and that there are more than 5000 beds available in the hospitals. Moreover, it has also been stated that these new set of restrictions are necessary for general public in order to curb the spread of rising coronavirus pandemic.Delhi reported 17,282 fresh cases of COVID-19 on Wednesday, the highest single-day surge in the capital since the pandemic started.Click here to download the orderSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more


first_img Comments are closed. Prepare to fightOn 1 Oct 2003 in Personnel Today Previous Article Next Article Related posts:No related photos. Theforthcoming changes to employment legislation may provide a rich source forlitigation. Preparation is the key to coping successfully with these changes,says Sarah Johnson Inthe last census, 0.7 per cent of the population gave their religion as JediKnight. Some might see refusing such a devotee time off to go to a Star Warsconvention as discriminatory under the forthcoming Employment Equality(Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (RBR). However, employers can take heartas tribunals will probably take a pragmatic approach and be unsympathetic toclaims based on belief in The Force. Other cases will be less straightforward. Aimedat protecting employees against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination,harassment and victimisation on the grounds of sexual orientation, religion orbelief, the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 (SOR)comes into force on 1 December this year; the RBR the following day. Theseregulations also provide protection after the employment has ended. Theregulations have been introduced to implement European Council Directive2000/78/EC.CurrentpositionItis not unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, providedthat the discrimination is not gender-based. Roderick Macdonald claimed he hadsuffered sex discrimination when forced to leave the Royal Air Force because ofhis homosexuality. However, as a homosexual woman would have been required toleave the RAF, there was no breach of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (Macdonaldv Advocate General for Scotland, Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School[2003] UKHL 34). Transsexuals are protected under The Sex Discrimination(Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999.TheRace Relations Act 1976 does not specifically cover religion, but outlawsdiscrimination based on ethnic origins. This protects Sikhs and Jewish people:they are defined by common ethnic origins and are racial groups, not justreligious groups.  Muslims are notdeemed a separate ethnic group and are not protected (although discriminationagainst Muslims may be indirect race discrimination, depending on theracial/ethnic mix of a business’s employees).Discriminationon the grounds of sexual orientation, religion or belief may breach the HumanRights Act 1998, at least where public authorities are concerned, and thedismissal of employees based solely on their sexual orientation, religion orbelief is likely to be unfair. Other protections include some shop workers’rights to refuse to work on Sundays. SexualorientationUnderthe SOR it will be unlawful to discriminate against a person on the basis oftheir sexual orientation towards persons of the: same sex; opposite sex; orsame and opposite sex. The Government’s explanatory notes state that the SOR donot cover “sexual practices and preferences (eg sado-masochism andpaedophilia)”. Religionor belief‘Religionor belief’ is any religion, religious belief or similar philosophical belief.No list of protected religions or beliefs is given. Philosophical or politicalbeliefs are not covered unless similar to a religious belief. Factorsconsidered when deciding what is a religion or belief may include: collectiveworship; a clear belief system; profound belief reflecting way of life; or viewof the world. Religion may cover druids, rastafarians, atheists, fringereligions and cults. The RBR exclude discrimination based on the religion orbelief of the discriminator.Manifestationsof belief‘Manifestations’of a religion or belief will be protected. Employers may need to be flexible toaccommodate cultural or religious holidays, restrictions on working hours,dietary requirements and prayer room facilities. The regulations will makeissues such as dress codes, time off and office banter more difficult to dealwith, particularly when balancing the workforce’s competing interests.Whowill be covered?Theregulations cover discrimination in employment, contract work, certainoffice-holdings and partnerships; by trade organisations, bodies conferringqualifications, employment agencies, certain vocational training providers andfurther and higher education institutions. Police constables, barristers andadvocates are covered. Job applicants and employees are protected to determinewho should be offered work, terms and benefits, promotions, training, transferand dismissal. Providing a discriminatory reference for an ex-worker, evenwhere the relationship ends before the regulations come into force, could alsobe unlawful.Thoseworking wholly or partly in Great Britain are protected. Even those workingwholly outside Great Britain could claim, provided that certain conditions aremet. Multi-national businesses may face a risk of claims from those posted tointolerant countries. One way around this may be to ensure those recruited towork overseas are engaged by an overseas-registered subsidiary company with noplace of business in Great Britain.Perception,discrimination against others and liabilityWhathappens if a heterosexual woman is not promoted because her manager believesshe is a lesbian, or a Christian is dismissed because his employer believes heis a Buddhist? It will be unlawful because direct discrimination can includediscrimination based on perceived sexual orientation, religion or belief, evenif that perception is wrong.  Directdiscrimination against someone based on the sexual orientation, religion orbelief of someone else is also covered – if an employee is treated badlybecause he has bisexual friends, he will be protected. Employerswill be liable for employees’ discriminatory acts carried out in the course ofemployment, unless they have taken such steps as were reasonably practicable toprevent employees from acting in a discriminatory way. Burdenof proofTosucceed on a tribunal claim, the complainant will have to prove facts fromwhich the tribunal could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation,that the respondent has committed (or is liable for) a discriminatory act. Ifthe complainant does this, the respondent will be liable, unless it proves thatit did not commit (or should not be treated as having committed) that act. DefencesThereis generally no justification defence to direct discrimination claims. However,discrimination may be lawful: –for reasons of national security and positive action –where being of a particular sexual orientation, religion or belief is a genuineand determining (ie, decisive) occupational requirement, it is proportionate toapply that requirement and the person to whom that requirement is applied doesnot meet it or the employer is not satisfied (on a reasonable basis) that thatperson meets it  –in religion or belief cases, where the employer has an ethos based on religionor belief the genuine occupational requirement need not be a determining factor,although it must still be proportionate to apply it (so, a Catholic school maybe entitled to require Catholic religious education teachers, but not Catholicmaths teachers) –in sexual orientation cases, “organised religions” may apply a sexual orientationrequirement in order to comply with their doctrines or avoid conflicting withthe strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of theirfollowers, and –in sexual orientation cases, where benefits provided are dependent on maritalstatus. Providing pension benefits only for a deceased employee’s widow(er)will not be discriminatory, but providing the benefits to unmarried oppositesex partners and not same-sex partners will be. Indirectdiscrimination will be lawful if applying the provision, criterion or practicewas a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.  Gettingit wrongComplaintsof discrimination will normally have to be made to the tribunal and withinthree months beginning when the act complained of was done. Tribunals will hearcomplaints out of time if they consider it just and equitable to do so.Compensation, including awards for injury to feelings, can be ordered. Awardsare not capped. Tribunals may also make a declaration or recommendation andaward interest, but cannot order reinstatement.Questionnairescan be served by those believing they have suffered discrimination orharassment. Adverse inferences may be drawn, if there is a deliberate failure toreply without reasonable excuse within eight weeks of a questionnaire’s serviceor where a reply is evasive or equivocal.Compromiseagreements (COT3s where Acas is involved) will be required validly to contractout of claims.AcasguidanceAcashas published draft guidance on the regulations, available on its website(www.acas.org.uk). This gives tips, examples and frequently asked questions andanswers. The RBR guidance includes information on commonly practised religionsand beliefs, with festival details. Acas’s guidance is not legally binding, butcan be taken into account by tribunals.Action–Circulate Acas’s guidance to managers and staff.–Amend equal opportunities policies to prohibit discrimination on the grounds ofsexual orientation, religion or belief. –Train employees so they are familiar with and understand the equalopportunities policy and what is acceptable behaviour at work. This will helpdefend claims that an employer is liable for its employees’ behaviour.–Ensure staff understand that, if they discriminate, they could be personallyliable and ordered to pay compensation to victims themselves.–Ensure policies are enforced and those acting in breach are disciplined fairlyand consistently so policies are taken seriously.–Update diversity monitoring to include sexual orientation, religion and belief.–Review contracts and handbooks to ensure they are not discriminatory. Forexample, can rights to time off for religious observance, dependants andspecial leave; dress codes; travel expenses; benefits for children and familybe justified? –Review recruitment advertisements, application forms and interview questions.Advertisements should be accessible to a diverse section of the public. Beflexible about interview times. –Informal recruitment methods, such as word of mouth, may increase the risk ofclaims because of lack of diversity. Similar principles apply to training,transfer and promotion. Decisions should be transparent and based on objectivecompetence-related factors. –Review the skills required and selection criteria used in making employmentdecisions; if unjustified, they may discriminate indirectly.–Avoid asking personal questions that may be viewed as discriminatory. Focus onthe skills required for the job.–Introduce proper job descriptions, performance and development reviews. –Encourage people to contact a named person in confidence if they have concernsabout discrimination and ensure that person is trained for the role.–Ensure anyone raising concerns in good faith is not victimised.–Hold exit interviews when staff leave, giving them the opportunity to highlightconcerns about the working environment.–Ensure references are fair and balanced.–Consider work premises: should space be set aside for a prayer room; docatering facilities embrace a range of dietary requirements?Theregulations confer new rights but leave many issues open to question, providinga rich source for litigation. Preparation is the key to coping successfullywith the changes.SarahJohnson is a senior solicitor in the employment department at Mancheslast_img read more


first_imgThe Phase 1 of the Core Project involves the development and production of the Southwark, Blythe and Elgood fields through five wells Subsea 7 to support the development of Phase 1 of Core Project offshore UK. (Credit: SUBSEA 7) Subsea 7 has been awarded an engineering, procurement, construction and installation (EPCI) contract by Independent Oil and Gas (IOG) for the subsea, umbilicals, risers and flowlines (SURF) work on Phase 1 of Core Project in the UK Southern North Sea (SNS).The contract award follows the recent approval by the UK Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) for the Phase 1 field development plan.The Phase 1 of the Core Project involves the development and production of the Southwark, Blythe and Elgood fields through five wells. The produced gas is planned to be transported via the Thames Pipeline to onshore.Subsea 7 to build flow lines between Southwark, Blythe and Elgood fieldsUnder the contract, Subsea 7 will be responsible for the project management, engineering, procurement, construction and installation of flow lines between the Southwark, Blythe and Elgood fields.The scope the contract includes installation of 6km extension to the Thames Pipeline to the Southwark platform, a 25km line connecting the Blythe platform to the Thames Pipeline, and a 9km pipeline and an umbilical connecting the Elgood field to the Blythe platform, and associated subsea structures and tie-ins.IOG CEO Andrew Hockey said: “We are pleased to be working with Subsea 7, a globally recognised leader in offshore energy services, for the SURF scope of Phase 1 of our core UK SNS gas development.“They will be an important contractor for IOG in ensuring safe and efficient Phase 1 execution, which includes the offshore pipelay campaign being prepared for the second half of this year.“We have already been working with Subsea 7 for several months under a pre-contractual arrangement and with the contract now finalised we look forward to further developing our constructive relationship.”Subsea 7 has already commenced the project management and detailed engineering at its office in Aberdeen. Offshore activities are planned to start in 2020.last_img read more


first_imgDonna Spiegelman, professor of epidemiologic methods at Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH), has received a Director’s Pioneer Award from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). One of 10 researchers honored, Spiegelman is believed to be the first epidemiologist and biostatistician, and the first faculty member from a school of public health, to receive the award.The five-year $500,000 prize recognizes “individual scientists of exceptional creativity, who propose pioneering, and possibly transforming, approaches to major challenges in biomedical and behavioral research,” according to the NIH website. Recipients, along with other awardees in the NIH Common Fund High-Risk High-Reward program, will be honored at a symposium held December 15-17 at the NIH.Spiegelman intends to use this opportunity to focus on the development of new methods needed to advance the field of implementation science — an area of research that seeks to establish through rigorous quantitative methods which public health interventions directed at achieving the same goal are most effective in the real world.She will develop a software and data platform for monitoring and evaluating large-scale disease prevention projects in real time. The methods in this toolkit will be general enough to be applicable to a variety of types of interventions, such as those aimed at preventing obesity, reducing maternal mortality, and increasing the use of cleaner cooking stoves in developing countries. Read Full Storylast_img read more