Much domestic employment law legislation derives from European Law. Employment law is a devolved matter in the Northern Ireland Assembly.   Whilst part of the EU, Northern Ireland is obligated to implement employment legislation in a way that complies with European directives.  This has led to legislation like the Agency Workers (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2011, the Working Time Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998 and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE).

After Brexit, will employers be subject to less stringent employment laws?

Directives implemented in to Northern Irish law already are unaffected unless or until amended or repealed by the Northern Ireland Assembly. 

Complete freedom from the EU would mean that the Assembly would be free to change and/or repeal legislation enacted because of its membership of the EU.    This could mean for example, an end to the right for workers on sick leave to accrue annual leave. 

Whether or not changes are made will depend on:

1.       Political pressure:  for example, it is unlikely that the public would support an end to the right to paid annual leave, or a complete repeal of discrimination legislation.  There will also be political pressure from trade unions and pressure groups; and

2.       What agreements are made with Europe, for example if the UK elected to join the European Economic Area (EEA), like Lichtenstein or Norway, it would be likely to accept most EU  legislation.   If this approach was adopted, little if anything would change for employers.

However it should be remembered that a large proportion of employment laws are not enacted because of any European obligation, such as the Shared Parental Leave Regulations 2014, the Service Provision Change (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2006 and enhanced rights to apply for flexible working.    Much of the employment protection which flows from Europe reflects accepted standards of good employee relations.  In addition, Northern Ireland and UK legislation enhances the minimum rights required by EU Law.  An example of this is annual leave, where the Working Time Directive requires member states to provide for 20 days paid annual leave for workers, whilst the UK and NI legislation provides for 28 days paid annual leave.   

A repeal of TUPE would cause uncertainty in the business community because tenders will have been priced to take in to account commercial risks and TUPE obligations.  However there may be an opportunity to make TUPE more business friendly, for example by making it easier to harmonise terms and conditions following a TUPE transfer.    

It should also be remembered that many rights derived from European law have been incorporated in to contracts of employment.  Contractual rights cannot be unilaterally changed even if there is a change to legislation.  In addition, the right not to be unfairly dismissed, is unaffected by the UK’s EU status. 

It is likely that the UK/NI would need to demonstrate that it has minimum employment protections in place in order to make it a viable trading partner for other European member states.  Any changes will likely necessitate public consultation.  Nothing will change until Brexit actually occurs and it remains to be seen what freedoms the Assembly will have to change legislation and what public opinion will drive any such changes. 

Sharon McArdle

This article is intended for general information only. For specific advice on anything to do with employment law, please do not hesitate to get in touch.

“Do I have to advertise a job vacancy?”

This is a question we get asked a lot and we can understand why. Generally when we are asked this question, the employer will have someone in mind that would be well suited to the role. In these circumstances, the employer often wants to dispense with the time consuming process of a recruitment exercise and simply appoint the person who they believe will be suited to the role. The added benefit of this from the employer’s perspective is that the employer knows the applicant and believes they will fit well into the team and so there seems to be less risk that the appointment will not work out.

The short answer to the question is “no” as there is no law that says that a vacancy must be advertised. However, in spite of the apparent attraction of simply appointing someone that you know, there are a variety of reasons why we believe it is good practice to advertise a vacancy to as wide a pool of candidates as possible, including:-

1. By advertising widely, you increase the chances of appointing the right person. There may be an outstanding candidate for the position who you don’t know about and if you don’t advertise, you will lose out on the opportunity to recruit this top talent
2. Failing to advertise may be indirectly discriminatory. For example a small employer who recruits through word of mouth may find that everyone in the organisation is a member of the same few families or a friend of these families. If all the family members and their friends are of a particular religious belief despite the workplace being in a “mixed” area, then this recruitment practice is likely to perpetuate the under-representation of people of a particular religious belief in the workplace and is likely to be indirectly discriminatory.

As no two organisations are the same, the issue of how the employer should go about the recruitment process will vary depending upon the circumstances. There are a variety of ways that recruitment processes can be carried out. Each organisation should have its own recruitment and selection procedure and review this when a vacancy arises.

One final point we always make when asked this question is that if the employer has someone in mind for the role, they should encourage that person to apply. If they are indeed the right person, this will be shown through the recruitment process, which will serve to confirm the employer’s view and will also give the comfort of knowing that the recruitment process complied with the law and best practice and gave the employer the best chance of recruiting the best person for the role. This is also a good process for the new employee to go through as they have the assurance of having been selected as the most suitable candidate following an open recruitment process.

This article is intended as a guide and for general information only and is not a substitute for taking specific advice relating to your situation. For specific advice regarding this or any other issue relating to employing people, please do not hesitate to contact us

For almost four years the issue of how to calculate holiday pay for workers who earn commission as part of their remuneration package has been disputed in the case of Lock v British Gas. Mr Lock argued that, as his package was made up of a basic salary plus commission on sales, his pay during periods of annual leave should reflect his basic pay plus commission and not just his basic pay. His employer argued that he was only entitled to basic pay during periods of annual leave.

The case has been from the Employment Tribunal to the European Court of Justice and back to the Employment Tribunal, who found in favour of Mr Lock. Now the Employment Appeals Tribunal (“EAT”) has dismissed the appeal brought by British Gas and confirmed that, where a worker earns commission as part of their remuneration package, their holiday pay during periods of annual leave should reflect their average pay during periods in work, rather than be restricted to their basic salary.

In a similar case, Bear Scotland v Fulton, the EAT has previously ruled that holiday pay must be calculated to include a worker’s overtime payments as well as pay for basic contractual hours where the employee is required to work overtime.

The recent judgment of the EAT confirms what has been reasonably clear for some time – that when an employee is on holiday, they should be paid what they would have earned if they had been at work.

Any employer with employees regularly earning commission or being paid for overtime who simply pays basic pay during periods of annual leave is at risk of being the subject of an unlawful deductions from wages claim. If you have not already done so, now is the time to check to make sure that how you are paying holiday pay is in compliance with the law.

This article intended as a guide and for general information only and is not a substitute for taking specific advice relating to your situation. For specific advice regarding this or any other issue relating to employing people, please do not hesitate to contact me.

For the first edition of Mark’s Monthly in 2016, I thought I would share some advice that may be of help to managers in the New Year and that is that you should address any small concerns over an employee’s conduct or performance early in an informal manner.

Very often it is difficult to deal with concerns over performance or minor conduct matters. However, issues such as a lack of attention to detail, poor timekeeping, a below average attendance record and too much use of mobile phone in the workplace can have a negative impact on productivity and can affect morale so should be dealt with at an early stage.

Too often I have seen managers neglect to address minor issues at an early stage. The effect of this is that the issue “snowballs” and resentment builds up, leading to a bigger problem down the line.

The Codes of Practice on dealing with disciplinary issues in the workplace (the LRA Code in Northern Ireland and the ACAS Code in GB) advocate dealing with minor issues of performance and conduct in an informal manner. Very often all that is required is a quiet word where the manager flags up that they have noticed a certain issue and pointing out the improvement that is required. If this leads to the desired improvement, then that is the best outcome for all concerned. The employee is spared from formal disciplinary proceedings and the manager and colleagues of the employee benefit from the improvement. Only if improvement is not forthcoming or not sustained should a manager then consider moving to a formal disciplinary process for a minor performance or misconduct offence.

So, my message to managers this year is to nip issues in the bud early before they become bigger problems down the line. A quiet, informal conversation at an early stage usually benefits everyone involved and prevents the issue becoming a bigger one with more serious consequences.

Of course, as ever, I can be contacted for advice in relation to anything contained in this article or anything else to do with the law and good practice around employing people. Have a great 2016.

This article intended as a guide and for general information only and is not a substitute for taking specific advice relating to your situation. For specific advice regarding this or any other issue relating to employing people, please do not hesitate to contact us.

With just a few weeks of work left until Christmas, attention is turning to the Christmas party in workplaces up and down the country. Without wanting to dampen the party mood, it would be useful to take a few minutes to consider some matters that may cause an employer difficulty and think about steps to mitigate against any risks.

While the office Christmas party has the potential to be a great time of fun and enjoying each other’s company, it can also be fraught with difficulty for employers. When alcohol is involved, people sometimes act in ways that they would never behave in the workplace. The Christmas party is an extension of the workplace and an employer can be liable for the actions of employees in work Christmas parties.

If alcohol is permitted, employees should be encouraged to drink in moderation. Employees should be reminded in advance of the party of the organisation’s policies on equal opportunities and anti-harassment. A wise employer will remind employees that any actions that could be deemed to be aggressive or threatening or may constitute harassment of another employee will be dealt with immediately in accordance with the disciplinary procedure and may warrant dismissal.

Employers who take all reasonable steps to ensure that employees are protected from harassment will have a statutory defence to any Tribunal claim brought by an employee who feels that they have been the victim of harassment. It is therefore important to take some time to remind employees of the relevant policies and their specific applicability to the Christmas party. Employees should also be advised that they can be held personally liable for acts of discrimination and/or harassment against other members of staff.

So, from an employment law perspective, the message ahead of the Christmas party is simple – have a good time but make sure you treat everyone with the same dignity and respect that you show from 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday.

Have a great Christmas!

This article is intended as a guide and for general information only and is not a substitute for taking specific advice relating to your situation. For specific advice regarding this or any other issue relating to employing people, please do not hesitate to contact us.

A wise employer will take steps to mitigate against the risk of disputes arising in the workplace.  Examples of this include recruiting the correct person in the first place to try to ensure that the right type of person is recruited to fit in with the others in the organisations. Clear communication regarding what is expected regarding performance as well as the organisation’s rules and procedures is important. It is also important to have a culture of openness where hopes, disappointments, frustrations, development needs and other matters can be discussed honestly on a one to one and/or team level.

However, no matter how hard we try, we cannot completely eliminate conflict in the workplace. Every employer will at some stage have to deal with a performance or misconduct issue, a dispute between employees or a grievance. So, when these issues arise, how should they be tackled?

There are statutory procedures for dealing with disputes in the workplace and these are backed up in some detail by the Labour Relations Agency Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. Where an employer wishes to address an issue it has with the performance or conduct of an employee, the disciplinary procedure applies. Where the employee wishes to complain about a matter relating to their work, the grievance procedure applies.

The Labour Relations Agency’s Code of Practice encourages employers and employees to resolve matters informally in the first instance where possible. This might involve a manager having a quiet word with an employee about a minor misconduct matter (such as poor timekeeping or making too many personal phone calls during working hours) or an employee speaking to their manager to try to resolve an issue that has caused the employee difficulty. If the informal discussion resolves the issue, then there is no need to move on to the formal process. If the informal discussion does not lead to resolution or if informal resolution is not appropriate because of the nature of the matter (e.g. a harassment complaint or an allegation of theft), then the legislation and Code of Practice set out a process that should be followed. This process applies whether the employer is instigating a disciplinary procedure or the employee is raising a grievance. The procedure is as follows:-

-          The complaint / issue is set out in writing

-          A meeting is convened (at which the employee has the right to be accompanied by a work colleague or trade union representative)

-          The employee receives the outcome in writing from the employer

-          If the employee is dissatisfied with the outcome (s)he may submit an appeal in writing

-          An appeal meeting is convened (if possible, the appeal is heard by a more senior manager)

-          The chair of the appeal meeting submits a written appeal outcome and the process is at an end

The procedure outlined above allows both parties to consider the issue properly in advance of a meeting to discuss the matter. In addition, the entitlement to a written outcome allows the employee a chance to reflect on the outcome and the reasons for it before deciding whether or not to appeal.

Employers should note that if an employee is dismissed without the employer having followed the procedure outlined above, the dismissal will be found to have been automatically unfair. In addition, Industrial Tribunals have the power to increase compensation by up to 50% as a penalty against the employer for a failure to follow the statutory dismissal procedure.

Following the procedure outlined in this article will ensure that employers comply with legal requirements in relation to dispute resolution and should also help to ensure that disputes, when they arise, are dealt with in a fair and reasonable manner.

This article intended as a guide and for general information only and is not a substitute for taking specific advice relating to your situation. For specific advice regarding this or any other issue relating to employing people, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Employees have a right to paid annual leave. The statutory minimum holiday entitlement for an employee is 5.6 weeks. For a full time employee working a Monday to Friday job, this equates to 28 days’ paid holiday in the year. Employees working less than a five day week are entitled to a pro rata number of days’ annual leave.

Statutory annual leave entitlement is inclusive of any bank, public holidays or other fixed closures determined by the employer. If a company gives only the statutory minimum amount of annual leave and that company closes on 8 bank / public holidays in a year, this means that a full-time employee working for that employer will have 20 days’ annual leave to be taken at times during the year that are mutually convenient for the employer and employee. As an aside, it is worth noting that, unless the contract of employment provides to the contrary, there is no automatic right to any particular bank holiday off work for employees employed in the private sector.

Sometimes employees will not avail of their full annual leave entitlement and will request payment in lieu of holidays that had been accrued by the end of the year but not taken. Often this will seem like an attractive proposition for both the employer and the employee. From the employee’s perspective, this will lead to additional income and, from the employer’s perspective, there is no need to arrange for cover for the individual as they will not be taking holiday. This can be particularly attractive to an employer in very busy periods.

Employers should however note that the purpose of the law granting employees a statutory minimum number of weeks’ paid holiday in the year is to enable the employee to benefit from paid time away from the workplace. There are sound health and safety reasons for providing employees with this entitlement and there can be dangers to health and wellbeing if people do not take sufficient time off work during the year. For this reason, the law does not allow the employer and employee to contract out of the statutory minimum holiday entitlement. The exception to this is where the employment relationship is terminating. In these circumstances, if the employee has taken less leave than has been accrued in the portion of the year in which they have worked, the employer should make a payment in lieu of accrued holiday upon termination of the employment.

Employers can adopt a “use them or lose them” policy and are not obliged to police employees to make sure that they avail of their full entitlement but they cannot encourage an employee to take less than the statutory minimum holiday entitlement by paying in lieu of accrued holidays.

If an employee has a contractual entitlement to more holidays than the statutory minimum, the employer and employee can make their own arrangements for the scenario whereby an employee has accrued annual leave by the end of the year that they have not taken. So, for instance if an employee has a contractual entitlement to 35 days’ holiday in the year and takes 30 days, the employer can agree to pay the employee in lieu of the extra week’s holiday that has been accrued but not taken. There is no obligation to do this but there is nothing wrong with it either. If an employee working a 5 day week has an entitlement to 35 days’ holiday in the year and only takes 25 days, then the employer may only pay in lieu of 7 days’ accrued holiday as paying in lieu of holidays up to 28 days in the year would not be permitted.

Annual leave is a complex area and tends to raise all sorts of enquiries and cause a lot of confusion and readers are encouraged to take specific advice on their situation if there is a query relating to a particular individual and their annual leave entitlement.

In my role as an employment lawyer, I often come across the same mistakes being made by various employers in how they manage the employment law / HR function in their organisation. Often, in the hectic day to day activities of running a business, it can be easy to neglect some basic things that all employers should consider in managing their people. This short article highlights some of the easily avoided mistakes that I come across regularly and gives some guidance on how to avoid falling into these traps.

Failing to issue written terms and conditions

The law requires employers to issue a statement of main terms of employment to all employees. This must specify what the terms and conditions are around issues such as hours of work, rate of pay and holiday entitlement.

Quite apart from being a legal requirement, it makes good sense to write down the terms of employment. A mobile phone contract is in writing so how much more important is it that the terms of a contract of employment should be written down?  In addition to the terms that the law says must be written down, an employer has an opportunity to draft further helpful clauses into a contract, including terms relating to confidentiality, recoupment of training fees, the right to implement reduced working hours and covenants restricting the employee’s after the employment has come to an end.

An employer who fails to write down the terms of employment not only fails to comply with the law but also deprives the employee and the organisation of certainty over what the precise terms of employment are. This is more likely to result in confusion and disputes arising. Taking some time to write down the terms of employment at the outset is a simple step that should not be avoided.

In addition to the statement of main terms of employment, it is useful to issue a policy handbook, setting out the organisation’s position on matters such as how sickness is managed, as well as setting out rules on matters such as mobile phone use, computer use and social media. Investing a little time in issuing these policies to employees is helpful in creating certainty over what each party’s rights and responsibilities are.

Failing to deal with issue early

It can be difficult to address performance concerns or minor misconduct issues and often employers are reluctant to have difficulty conversation with employees. However, failing to tackle matters early on can lead to frustration building on the part of the employer while the employee may continue to be unaware that there is a problem. If an employer has an issue with an employee’s performance or conduct at work, it should be addressed immediately.

Often an informal conversation is all that is needed to bring a matter to the employee’s attention and the desired improvement follows. If this improvement is not forthcoming, more formal action may be required. Too often I have consulted with employers who have not dealt with matters early and instead allowed problems to fester. These employers then feel that the employee is no longer suitable for employment but have not at any point addressed the matter with the employee. Inevitably in these circumstances there is frustration to only be starting a process of performance management which, if it had been started early on, then either the performance would have improved or the employer would already be well on their way to fairly terminating the employment having taken the employee through the appropriate performance management / disciplinary procedures.

Failing to follow the statutory dismissal procedure

Despite the dismissal procedure having been in place for more than 10 years and clear guidance being issued by the Labour Relations Agency in Northern Ireland and ACAS in GB, far too many employers still dismiss employees without following the minimum procedures set out in law.

The procedures are not difficult to follow. An employer must write to the employee, setting out the allegations and/or circumstances that have led to the employer contemplating dismissing the employee. A meeting must be convened to discuss the matter. The employee has the right of accompaniment at that meeting. After the meeting, the employer must write to the employee with the outcome and offer the right of appeal. If the employee appeals, an appeal hearing must be arranged. Again the employee has the right of accompaniment and a written outcome must be issued.

A dismissal that fails to follow this procedure is automatically unfair. Too often employers compromise what would otherwise have been a fair dismissal by failing to follow the dismissal procedures. This leads to losing Tribunal claims and, to make matters worse, Tribunals can increase compensation as a penalty for the employer failing to follow the statutory dismissal procedure.

These are three of the most common errors employers make in managing the employment law / HR function. All three can be easily avoided by taking a little time and following a fair process. Cutting corners to get desired short-term outcomes often leads to longer term difficulty.

This article intended as a guide and for general information only and is not a substitute for taking specific advice relating to your situation. For specific advice regarding this or any other issue relating to employing people, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Everyone falls ill from time to time and employers should understand that there will be occasions when employees are off work due to sickness. However, a good attendance record from employees is essential to the smooth running of any organisation. When employees are absent on sick leave, this is not only a difficulty for the absent employee but also for their colleagues who often find that they have more work to do to cover for the absent employee. For the smooth running of the organisation, it is essential that absence management is handled in a pro-active manner.

Reporting absence

Employees should be made aware of what reporting mechanism is in place for them if they are absent from work. This should be set out in an absence policy and it is important to ensure that a copy of this is easily accessible to employees so that they know who to contact if they cannot attend work due to sick leave. It is usually best to require employees to telephone their line manager personally where possible so that as much information as possible can be gathered about the sickness absence and the expected duration of the absence.

Keeping in touch during a period of absence

Employers are often nervous about keeping in touch with employees, in case they are accused of harassing a sick employee. However, lack of contact or involvement could lead to an employee feeling that the employer does not care.  Appropriate contact is essential. If the contact is supportive and caring, and focused on supporting the employee, there should be no difficulty with it.

If the absence is for a lengthy period of time, it is important to keep in touch with the employee to remind them that you care about their welfare and to keep them updated about changes in the workplace. Ongoing contact is also important to ensure that the employer always has the most up to date information and is working from an informed stance when considering timescales for a return to work and whether any adjustments can be made to facilitate a return to work.

Employees should be made aware of their responsibility to keep in contact during their sickness absence, although an employee who is seriously ill is unlikely to be able to comply with normal reporting requirements.

Sometimes employees request that the employer does not make contact during sickness absence. It is important to establish the reason for this request as it may identify that there is an issue in work that is contributing to the employee’s ill-health and, if the employer is aware of this, steps can be taken to address the issue and work towards a resolution and the employee’s return to work.

Seeking medical opinion

It can be helpful to take advice from a sick employee’s doctor regarding the employee’s condition, expected timeframe for recovery and whether you can do anything to assist the employee in returning to work. It may also be appropriate to consider arranging an assessment with an occupational health doctor. Your employee does not have to give permission for you to write to their doctor or consent to you obtaining a report from an independent doctor but if consent is refused, you can tell the employee that you may have to reluctantly make decisions regarding their employment without the benefit of medical opinion.

Returning to work

The absence management process does not end when the employee returns to work. The employee’s line manager should conduct a return-to-work interview with the employee after their absence, so that the employee is aware that their absence has been noted and so that any support the employee might need upon returning to work can be identified. The return-to-work interview also gives the line manager the opportunity to raise any concerns about the absence, particularly if the employee has a poor attendance record. A written record should be kept of the return-to-work interview.

Terminating employment

If, having conducted enquiries and sought medical opinion, it is apparent that there is little reasonable prospect of the employee returning to work, the employer may consider terminating the employment by reason of the employee no longer being capable of doing the job. Great care should be taken when exploring this option. The statutory dismissal procedure should be followed in full and employers should be conscious of the need to explore whether reasonable adjustments could be made to accommodate an employee’s return to work. There is a specific duty to make reasonable adjustments for employees who are disabled.

Disciplinary action

Persistent absence can be addressed by using the disciplinary process. An employee should be made aware that there are concerns about his or her attendance before the disciplinary process is invoked. The employee should be aware that a lack of improvement in attendance might result in disciplinary action being taken.

If there has been a serious breach of the absence policy, an employer might consider whether this amounts to gross misconduct and should result in summary dismissal. A typical example of this may be where the employee informs the employer that they are ill and then is spotted working elsewhere while off work on sick leave.

Conclusion

Absence management is difficult. While procedures are important, it is also vital to exercise common sense and discretion and deal with matters on a case by case basis. It is not possible to provide a comprehensive checklist of actions to take in relation to every absence. If an employer is concerned about an employee’s attendance record, either through a long term absence or persistent short term absences, specific advice should be sought on the particular situation.

This article intended as a guide and for general information only and is not a substitute for taking specific advice relating to your situation. For specific advice regarding this or any other issue relating to employing people, please do not hesitate to contact us.

It is extremely important that the nature of the relationship is clear from the outset when bringing someone into your organisation. The correct status must be applied. It is particularly important where there is a desire to appoint someone on a self-employed basis that a careful analysis of the relationship is carried out to ensure that the person is in fact self-employed. Attaching self-employed status to someone who is, in practice, an employee, can have costly implications – both in terms of HMRC and in Employment Tribunal proceedings.

While there are clear advantages to having the benefit of engaging someone’s services without them accruing employment rights, there can be draw-backs too. For instance, a self-employed person will usually have their own insurance costs and be using their own equipment in carrying out the work and so will usually require a higher rate of pay than an employee performing a similar role. Further, it is much more difficult to control the activity of a self-employed person than it is to exercise control over an employee’s activities.

As with many things relating to employment law, the issue of employment status is complicated. Even something as seemingly basic as identifying whether someone is employed or self-employed is not as straightforward as most people think. There is no one sentence definition of an employee. There are certain requirements that must be present for an employment relationship to be established. The person must perform the work personally, the employer must exercise a degree of control over the activities of the individual and there must be mutual obligations on both sides – on the employer to provide work and pay and on the employee to perform work for pay.

What the parties call the relationship is not determinative. What is important is what is going on in practice on a day to day basis. A business owner might think someone is self-employed and get a nasty surprise when the individual subsequently claims that they have employment status with all the rights that go with it and a Tribunal finds that the individual has been unfairly dismissed.

While there is no single test for defining employment status, there has been some good guidance arising out of case law where the point has been argued.

An individual is likely to be found to be self-employed if:-

-          He can send a substitute to carry out the work on his behalf

-          He uses his own equipment in carrying out the duties

-          He has his own public liability / professional indemnity insurance

-          He sets his own hours

-          He carries out work for several different businesses

An individual is likely to be found to be an employee if:-

-          He has to carry out the work personally

-          He uses the business’ equipment and works under the business insurance

-          The business sets the hours of work and rate of pay

-          The business owner / manager can give him other duties and bring him in on other tasks

-              He works only (or primarily) for the business

Whichever arrangement a business owner decides upon at the outset, it is important to record the terms of the engagement in writing so that, at the very least, the intentions of the parties are clear from the start.

Whether you are thinking of engaging someone on an employment contract or as a self-employed associate, please do not hesitate to get in touch for advice to ensure the correct decision is made and the contract reflects the reality

This article is intended as a guide and for general information only and is not a substitute for taking specific advice relating to your situation.

.