8044584e

7 Ways to settle a Construction Dispute

Tue, 29 Jan 2019 14:52:25 GMT

A party to a construction contract has a range of options for the resolution of dispute. Litigation remains a mechanism for deciding and resolving disputes. Increasingly popular however are the different forms of alternative dispute resolution, such as adjudication, arbitration, mediation, expert determination, conciliation, mini trial or negotiation to name but 7 of the procedures available.

A major advantage of adjudication is that construction contracts have a statutory right to adjudication even if the contract does not expressly empower it.

Where the dispute is of a sensitive commercial nature the confidentiality of Adjudication proceedings can be an advantage. As in Arbitration the dispute can be determined by a technical expert without a public hearing. A private hearing is also available in mediation, negotiation and expert determination.

The adjudication procedure is clear and an advantage over alternative forms such as expert determination where the procedure can be less structured. The HGCR Act [1] sets out a tight timetable for adjudication. Unless the time period is extended, there must be an adjudicators’ decision within 28 days of service of the referral notice. While a case originated in the courts or arbitration can take a considerable time, in some cases years to conclude.

Given the tight time constraints adjudication can sometimes be seen to produce a quick decision rather than the right decision, especially as an appeal on fact or law from the adjudicator’s judgment is not available.

The adjudication can however be flexible to the parties’ requirements, the parties can if agreed increase the time parameters depending on the intricacy or volume of material to be considered. The 28-day adjudication time frame can be increased by a further 14 days if the referring party agrees and can be further increased as necessary if agreed by the parties

In most cases, adjudication will be a fraction of the cost of litigation or arbitration. However, an adjudicator cannot order legal costs to be paid by either party unless both parties have contracted that the adjudicator has such a power.

Whilst mediation or negotiation of a dispute is relatively inexpensive, private and flexible there is no guarantee of a resolution. While the decision of an adjudicator will be temporarily binding, and produces a quick settlement to the dispute, a party can still decide to take the dispute to Arbitration or Litigation.

A perceived disadvantage of adjudication is that it might be used as preparation for a final resolution through litigation or arbitration. Parties may be concerned about divulging a significant aspect of their argument in case the dispute proceeds to trial. However, if a party has a solid case then disclosure of the merits is only likely to promote a settlement.

The referring party can prepare a detailed case to submit to adjudication at their ease, which can be viewed by some as an ambush. Section 108 (2) of the HCGR Act provides that a party may give notice ‘at any time’. Respondents however may not be prepared or able to respond inside the required timeframe so they are at a disadvantage without sufficient time to deal with the response or view and reply to further information arising. Statutory Adjudication can therefore present a potentially significant tactical advantage to the referring party.

As part of our Management Consultancy services Vinco London Consulting can help construction businesses and trade subcontractors understand the options and benefits of Alternative Dispute Resolution available to them.

Contact us for further information we would love to hear from you

Telephone: 0207 183 7722
www.vincolondon.co.uk/contact-us

[1] The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996

l10

How to Leverage your Employer Brand when recruiting and interviewing your future employees

Wed, 23 Jan 2019 11:49:28 GMT

You only have one opportunity to make a first impression. Your brand in the talent market needs therefore to be exceptional. In the present digital age candidates first impressions can be communicated to the potential employee pool in an instant. These initial interactions between candidates and your business set the tone for the future relationship and perception of your business.

One of the most important decisions an individual can make is their choice of career path and employer. When asking people to commit to you and your business It is essential to recognise how your business is perceived and how the touch points along the recruitment process can build the confidence in candidates to put their trust in you and become ambassadors of your business brand.

When planning an employment interview the following points should be considered;

Interview planning

Think about the employee you are looking for? Formulate a job description and an employee key skills specification. Use these to identify clear criteria upon which candidates can be assessed.

Rank the criteria according to its importance. For example, a Plumber might need technical knowledge (weighted 9), then Customer skills (weighted 6), followed by, reliability (weighted 7) and so on.

Which selection methods will you use?

Preliminary written information can be obtained from applicants and used to create a shortlist. An application form or CV will offer basic information on qualifications and experience. The interview can then explore these in more depth.

Send written instructions to applicants

Let them know when the interview will be held, what time to arrive and who to ask for.

Make sure applicants have a job specification and know what the job requires. Tell applicants the format of the interview and if they need to do any preparation.

The Interview itself

Start by welcoming the candidate, put the candidate at ease and outline the structure of the interview. Introduce the other interviewers and explain each person's role and contribution to the interview.

Ask questions to check information provided on the CV or application form and probe any gaps in the candidate's career. Ask for details about levels of responsibility, such as the budget and size of projects.

Build on the information in the CV and the responses already given. Ask candidates to:

· identify their most important experiences;

· discuss the skills they need to develop;

· outline how they will add value to the company if they get the job.

Give more detail on the scope of the job and your expectations. Invite questions on the nature of the job, the terms and conditions, or the company. Ask candidates if they have any comments or if there is anything they wish to ask.

Testing should be a central part of your selection process, helping you check the claims made on applicants' CVs. If you have no experience of the candidate's field of expertise, get someone who has to help you test.

For example:

Test accountancy personnel by printing off a sample profit and loss table and asking them to identify problem areas. You can use psychometric tests to measure candidates' general aptitude, specific skills and personal qualities.

Bring the interview to an end

Establish whether or not the candidate is interested in the position. Confirm that referees may be contacted and tell the candidate how and when the decision will be made. Check you have accurate contact details.

Decision time

Assess the evidence for each candidate against the selection criteria using a scoring system to turn observations into numbers. This makes it easier to compare candidates. Calculate a score and multiply the score for each of the criteria by the appropriate weighting and total the results. Candidates who do not achieve the required standard should be discounted at this stage. Make your decision based on the candidates' weighted scores and any other evidence you have collected, combined with your judgement.

Make it clear if the offer is contingent on matters which you have not yet been able to assess such as references or a qualifications check. Back up any phone calls with written confirmation. Try to provide brief, factual and helpful feedback to unsuccessful candidates.

Conclusion

One of a business’s biggest assets will be its key people. A business’s ideal position is to retain key people and employees. The irony is however that retaining people begins with their recruitment. It is essential therefore that the image you present to candidates is an honest reflection of the business the candidate will be joining. Recruitment is the beginning of the employees’ journey and sets the tone and relationship of their relationship with the business. Get the right people on the bus and the rest will follow

As part of our Management Consultancy services Vinco London Consulting help businesses understand and maximise value from the recruitment process.

Contact us for further information we would love to hear from you

Telephone: 0207 183 7722
www.vincolondon.co.uk/contact-us

The history and development of statutory adjudication as a means of resolving UK construction disputes

Wed, 23 Jan 2019 11:34:56 GMT

Adjudication has been an option in selected standard construction contracts for some years. This contractual right first occurred in 1976 when amendments were incorporated into The Green Form of Nominated subcontract and the Blue Form of Domestic Sub Contract. These forms applied to contracts under the 1963 edition of the Joint Contract Tribunal (JCT).

Sir Michael Latham was commissioned on 8 July 1993 to write a report into how the Construction industry could work more effectively. One of his tasks was to consider “current procurement and contractual arrangements”. Latham titled his response ‘Constructing the Team’, publishing it in July 1994.

The implementation of statutory adjudication under Section 108 of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCR Act) was one of the fundamental recommendations of the Latham Report (1994). Latham envisaged a cost-effective alternative to expensive drawn-out litigation or arbitration in construction disputes.

The HGCR Act 1996 sets out a system structure for adjudication. All construction contracts must meet this minimum requirement. Should a construction contract fail to meet these minimum standards then the Statutory Instrument 1998 No 649 ‘The Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998’ will apply and outline the detailed rules and procedures available.

The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 makes certain amendments to the 1996 Act. Most notably contracts entered into after the 2009 Act came into force no longer need to be evidenced in writing for the 1996 and 2009 Act to apply.

In the first major case on adjudication under the 1996 Act , Dyson J described the history and development of statutory Adjudication when he said;

“The intention of Parliament in the Act was plain. It was to introduce a speedy mechanism for settling disputes and construction contracts on a provisional basis, and requiring the decision of adjudicators to be enforced pending the final determination of disputes by arbitration, litigation or agreement”

Statutory Adjudication has become and remains one of the foremost means of dispute resolution in the UK construction industry.

As part of our Management Consultancy services Vinco London Consulting can help construction businesses and trade subcontractors understand the options and benefits of Construction Adjudication available to them.

Contact us for further information we would love to hear from you

Telephone: 0207 183 7722
www.vincolondon.co.uk/contact-us

Window analysis as a mechanism to avoid or pursue a delay claim in construction

Tue, 22 Jan 2019 10:38:23 GMT

The best approach for a contractor in avoiding a claim or demonstrating a delay is to simply keep clear records of any issues or events as they develop. Site diaries, timesheets or photographs may all be important evidence of a contractor’s entitlement to loss and expense.

The Society of Construction Law's Delay and Disruption Protocol at Paragraph 17.1 of the second edition reinforces the need for accurate records. If accurate and complete records are maintained, the causal link between an employer risk event and the resultant loss suffered should be able to be established, without the need to make a global claim.

Window analysis can then be used to identify the project critical path by dividing the project into useful time slices or windows of typically monthly periods. Time impact analysis can update the planned programme and then ‘impact’ it with any delay events, ideally evidenced by contemporaneous records. Delay analysis can then be applied to each time slice to determine the cause of the delays and highlight any concurrency.

Utilising time windows helps delay analysis especially on large or complex projects. This can help in the determination of a dispute by identifying and explaining the impact of any delays. Each time slice identifies the planned practical completion date at the start and end of the period, along with the actual critical path. The analysis highlights any critical delay or acceleration during the time slice. Whilst the windows together chart the project from start to finish on a "real time" basis.

When determining a dispute, the courts will seek wherever possible to reject the concept of theoretical delay and seek evidence of specific events which result in delay. Window analysis provides a technique for organising and analysing project delays. This allows a party to successfully present detailed information in a coherent and evidenced claim, satisfying the requirements of a successful concurrent delay claim and where appropriate potentially avoiding the need for a global claim.

As part of our Management Consultancy services Vinco London Consulting help construction businesses and trade subcontractors build and develop systems based on sound business practices. Improving business performance to navigate the tricky commercial issues that can arise.

Contact us for further information we would love to hear from you

Telephone: 0207 183 7722
www.vincolondon.co.uk/contact-us

Global Claims in Construction Contracts.

Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:12:58 GMT

A Global Claim usually arises where a party struggles to demonstrate that specific breaches by the employer caused specific loss to the contractor. A Global Claim will identify a number of causes of delay and disruption and claim for loss and expense on that basis. The party therefore seeks compensation for a group of Risk Events but cannot demonstrate a direct link between the loss incurred and the individual Risk Events.

The Court in Walter Lilly and Co Ltd v Mackay [1] took the opportunity to clarify the law on global claims which has been has been the subject of much debate over the last few years. Setting out the principles that a contractor must satisfy to bring a successful global claim.

The principal issue with global claims is that, for a contractor to be successful with a claim for loss and expense, typically they are required to demonstrate a causal link between the monies claimed and each specific event that has created this loss. In a global claim the contractor does not, evidence a direct link between a loss incurred and a specific event.

Global claims must however be evidenced as a matter of fact. Therefore, the contractor has to prove, on the balance of probabilities that events arose which permit them to claim loss and expense. Those events created disruption or delay and this caused the contractor to incur loss or expense.

In issuing a global claim, there is no obligation to go further and demonstrate that it is impossible to link a specific breach with a specific loss in the usual way. However, if a contract comprises a restriction on global claims then the conditions of the contract must be fulfilled, otherwise such claims will be denied.

In the case Walter Lilly, it was established that a global cost claim is acceptable in principle. A contractor is not prevented from pursuing a global claim where specific costs can be linked to specific loss events but the court is likely to be more sceptical about a global claim in such circumstances. Such claims present increased evidential difficulties. A party will have to prove that the loss suffered was not inevitable, tenders were suitably priced and there were no other factors which caused the loss. Whilst the employer will probably counter by proposing and evidencing that the contractors tender was priced so low that the loss was inevitable.

Global claims are not total claims. Where any loss events cannot be claimed these events can simply be removed from the global claim, with just loss from events for which the contractor is permitted to claim remaining. Also, where the contractor has generated the “impossibility of disentanglement” themselves a global award is also still obtainable

In overview the case of Walter Lilly and Co Ltd v Mackay [2] clarified 3 main developments in relation to global claims.

1. It is not necessary for a contractor to demonstrate that a specific event cannot be linked with a specific time or money consequence.

2. Global claims are not deemed to be unsuccessful simply because they encompass an event which is not attributable to the employer, any matters for which the employer is not accountable should simply be removed from the global claim.

3. The contractor must evidence that loss would not have been suffered in any event

Global claims remain a potentially perilous strategy however as they will invariably be subject to attack by the employer. A contractor is still required to evidence and prove his claim as a matter of fact, a problematic undertaking when there is an absence of direct causal links.

Telephone: 0207 183 7722
www.vincolondon.co.uk/contact-us

[1] [2012] EWHC 1773 (TCC)

[2] [2012] EWHC 1773 (TCC)

The concept of Concurrent Delay in construction contracts.

Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:08:21 GMT

Concurrent delay refers to a period of project overrun, resulting from two or more causes of delay which are of approximately equal causative potency and are felt at the same time [1] .

In the case of concurrent delay, both parties claim delay. Typically, the contractor will claim an extension of time and damages for delay in respect of an employer risk event. Whilst the employer opposes this entitlement to liquidated damages based on a contractor risk event.

The familiar rule is the “prevention principle “. An employer cannot claim liquidated damages for late completion if the employer has by act or omission prevented the contractor from completing on time, accordingly for this reason most construction contracts include an extension of time mechanism.

The challenge Concurrent delay presents in the application of a contractual extension of time is whether the contractor is entitled to an extension of time where both the employer and contractor have caused the period of delay in question?

In the case of Henry Boot Construction Ltd v Malmaison Hotel (Manchester) Ltd [2] , it was held that in cases of concurrent delay, the contractor is permitted an extension of time and therefore a defence to the employer’s claim for liquidated damages, but the contractor is not entitled to seek time-related costs. The court went on to hold that it was a question of fact whether a relevant event had caused or was likely to cause delay to the works beyond the completion date. Creating the curious position that the cause of delay is treated as a question of fact, which usually requires satisfaction of the “but for” test. The rudimentary common law test for factual causation is the “but for” test. However, in the case of concurrent delay, both competing causes of delay cannot pass the “but for” test because the delay would have occurred anyway even in the absence of the other cause.

In Saga Cruises BDF Ltd v Fincantieri Spa [3] , Fincantieri’s defence claimed the completion date had been delayed by two concurrent events, one the employer’s responsibility and the other the contractor’s responsibility, therefore no liability for liquidated damages should arise in respect of that period notwithstanding the concurrent effect of the contractor risk event.

The act relied upon must actually prevent the contractor from carrying out the works within the contract period, or, in other words, must cause some delay. Concurrent delay is defined as: “…a period of project overrun which is caused by two or more effective causes of delay which are of approximately equal causative potency.” [4] The court highlighted the distinction between an employer’s risk event which actually causes delay to completion and a situation where an employer culpable delay makes no difference to the completion date due to the fact that works have already been delayed by a contractor risk event. Therefore, unless there is a concurrency actually affecting the scheduled completion date, the contractor cannot claim the benefit of it.

Contact us for further information we would love to hear from you

Telephone: 0207 183 7722
www.vincolondon.co.uk/contact-us

[1] Saga Cruises BDF Ltd v Fincantieri Spa [2016] EWHC 1875 (Comm)

[2] (1999) 70 Con LR 32

[3] [2016] EWHC 1875 (Comm)

[4] Saga Cruises BDF Ltd v Fincantieri Spa [2016] EWHC 1875 (Comm)

The thorny issue of Liquidated damages being void for uncertainty

Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:00:11 GMT

Liquidated and ascertained damage (LAD) clauses are a standard feature of published forms of construction contracts. LAD’s are pre-determined damages established at the formation of the contract, based on a calculation of the actual loss that is likely to be suffered if a party breaches a specified term of the contract, usually a failure to achieve practical completion by the completion date set out in the contract.

Parties obtain the benefit of certainty from the stipulated damages payable should there be a breach of contract. In Cavendish Square Holding BV v El Makdessi and Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [1] , the Supreme Court stated: "In a negotiated contract between properly advised parties of comparable bargaining power, the strong initial presumption must be that the parties themselves are the best judges of what is legitimate in a provision dealing with the consequences of breach." [2]

However certainty not rigidity is the goal therefore If construction is hindered or delayed by a 'relevant event' such as a client variation or adverse weather that impacts on the Practical Completion date, an extension of time may be granted, allowing the contractor to make a claim for loss and expense.

LAD’s should be an identifiable and genuine pre-estimate of the loss that would be suffered in the event of a delay, therefore the presumption is that liquidated and ascertained damages are not enforceable if they constitute a penalty [3] . Liquidated damages might include rental charges for temporary accommodation or prolonged storage costs. They are usually set as an ascertained daily or weekly amount with more complicated formulae where works are phased, or there will be partial possession.

In the case of Cavendish Square Holding BV v El Makdessi and Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] [4] the Supreme Court held that the test is not just whether the amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or that the clause is a deterrent, as this can be a legitimate clause intended to influence a party’s performance. The test is based on whether a clause is “unconscionable or extravagant” [5] , does it have a legitimate commercial purpose to protect against a demonstrable consequences that would flow from breach.

Where a damages clause is disputed there is often a dual attack on the grounds that an LAD clause is

1. A penalty and therefore unenforceable, and

2. That it is too uncertain and inoperable in its meaning and effect, to be applied.

In these circumstances, depending on the facts presented the courts may find that the clause is not enforceable.

Taylor Woodrow Holdings v Barnes & Elliott Ltd [6]

By an agreement of 4 August 2000, executed as a deed, Taylor Woodrow Holdings and George Wimpey (Southern) Limited employed Barnes & Elliott to carry out complete design, refurbishment and conversion works. The project was to create 64 duplexes out of a former psychiatric hospital, and to provide new ancillary amenities such as parking spaces for both visitors and residents, bin stores, footpaths, garages and safe vehicular and pedestrian access.

The contract was a JCT Standard Form of Building Contract with Contractors Design (1998 edition), subject to amendments made by the parties. The planned completion date for the project was on or about 3 December 2001 however delays occurred and the works were not completed until June 2002.

The agreed preliminary issues that were raised for determination by the arbitrator were:

(1) Is the liquidated damages provision valid or is it void for uncertainty or inoperable?

(2) Is the liquidated damages provision a genuine pre-estimate of the loss and enforceable or a penalty and unenforceable?

The arbitrator determined that the liquidated damage provision was not valid and that it was void for uncertainty and was inoperable. He also concluded that the liquidated damages provision was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, but a penalty and therefore unenforceable.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was heard by Judge Wilcox Queens Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court). It was established that the project works were divided into six sections and the contract provided for sectional completion. Judge Wilcox held that Clause 24 which governed liquidated damages, was void for uncertainty; and “incapable of operation”. “The contents of any section and the mechanism for ascertaining a section was not contained in the contract, there was therefore no basis for triggering the operation of cl 24 since it would be uncertain what had remained not done and when”. [7]

Upon reviewing Clause 17.1.4 of the contract, it was also found to be inoperable as where partial possession was given, the proportionate relief from LADs was incapable of calculation. Any LAD’s, referred to living units, however comprised, and would not bear a proper relationship to the extent of the section not taken into possession.

The contract was a JCT contract, subject to amendment and it endeavoured to provide for sectional completion. However the sectional completion supplement published by the joint contract tribunal for this purpose was not used. Judge Wilcox stated “The dangers inherent in not using this are exemplified in this case. It is for the court applying business common sense and meaning to the construction of commercial documents to endeavour to avoid frustrating the reasonable expectations of the businessman. But it is not for the court, however, to re-write the contract. The provisions of the contract considered by the arbitrator, in my judgment, cannot be characterised as ambiguous. They were in fact uncertain and inoperable. There is no question, in my judgment, of the contra proferentum rule applying in this case. That applies only where there is a clearly identified ambiguity” [8] .

In finding that the contract was void for uncertainty Judge Wilcox held it was not necessary to consider the second matter because “the first matter disposes of this appeal”.

How does this fit with previous and subsequent case law?

Customarily the courts, have not been enthusiastic to determine that a contract is entirely or in part void and inoperable for uncertainty. If the court can sensibly identify the intent of the parties from the contract, or any other admissible evidence, the court will give effect to that intention [9] . For the courts to do this though coherent contract drafting is required, the parties’ intention must be ascertainable and operable. In the case of Arnhold & Co Limited v The Attorney of Hong Kong (1989) [10] the contract provided for minimum and maximum liquidated damages but failed to identify the procedure for determining actual damages. The LAD provisions were therefore inoperable and void for uncertainty.

Where sectional completion is employed upon a project there is a propensity for increased confusion. In the case of Liberty Mercian Ltd v Dean & Dyball Construction Ltd [2008] [11] the disputed contract contained provisions for sectional completion. The Contractor argued that the sectional completion schedule in the contract was void for uncertainty because there was no provision in the contract detailing the effect of delayed completion upon the outstanding sections of the works. In such circumstances, the courts may find that the clause is inoperable and void for uncertainty, such a challenge is however difficult to maintain in practice. It was held that although the contract did not state that “a culpable delay under Section 1 would give rise to a culpable delay for Sections 2 to 5” [12] , when considering the contract as a whole, this was what the parties intended. The sectional completion schedule was not void for uncertainty and was therefore operable and enforceable. The Court took a purposive approach to interpret a problematic contract clause in a purposive way to ensure that the contract did not fail.

Practical implications when drafting Liquidated damages provisions

There can be prudent commercial reasons for contracts to provide different completion dates for different parts of a project rather than one completion date for the entire project. It is essential to ensure that these dates are clearly expressed in the contract and are not simply dealt with in the specification or employer’s requirements. When drafting provisions it is crucial to comply with the correct contract formalities and make clear express provision for sectional completion dates in the contract. The scope of works of any section must be unmistakably defined or it will be problematic, if not impossible, to ascertain the scope of works of a particular section.

If the scope of works are uncertain, there is a serious risk that the completion dates, and thus liquidated damages provisions, may be void for uncertainty. This will be increasingly important where it could be argued that works are not included within a defined section or alternatively the scope of sections overlay or are interdependent of each other. To evade any dispute that Liquidated damages are void for uncertainty or amount to a ‘penalty’ Good practice dictates that a record of how Liquidate damages have been calculated is maintained along with the basis for how damages are apportioned between the different sections.

Where a contract allows for sectional completion, liquidated damages provisions must be expressed so as not to represent a global sum for the whole contract, this could constitute an unenforceable penalty. LAD provisions must relate to the late completion of the particular section of the works to which it applies [13] . Where partial possession is planned, the liquidated damages' provision must be reduced pro-rata whenever such possession is taken.

Attention and management of the inherent perils of late changes to the scope of work made after the contract has been agreed, must be carefully reviewed to ensure that the liquidated damages provisions continue to serve the desired purpose.

Sound understanding of the project, scope of works and good old fashion drafting will ensure provisions are clear and a genuine pre estimate of loss. Ensuring that LAD provisions give effect to the parties intention and remain certain and operable.

Contact us for further information we would love to hear from you

Telephone: 0207 183 7722
www.vincolondon.co.uk/contact-us

[1] [2015] UKSC 67

[2] Cavendish Square Holding BV v El Makdessi and Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ( Paragraph 35, judgment .)

[3] Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage and Motor Co [1915] AC 79

[4] [2015] UKSC 67

[5] [2015] UKSC 67

[6] [2004] EWHC 3319 (TCC)

[7] Taylor Woodrow Holdings v Barnes & Elliott Ltd [2004] EWHC 3319 (TCC)

[8] Taylor Woodrow Holdings v Barnes & Elliott Ltd [2004] EWHC 3319 (TCC)

[9] Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1997] UKHL 28.

[10] 47 BLR 129

[11] [2008] EWHC 2617 (TCC)

[12] Liberty Mercian Ltd v Dean & Dyball Construction Ltd [2008] EWHC 2617 (TCC)

[13] Bramall and Ogden v Sheffield City Council (1983) 29 BLR 73

How to Leverage your Employer Brand when recruiting and interviewing your future employees

Mon, 21 Jan 2019 14:41:32 GMT

When planning an employment interview the following points should be considered;

Interview planning

Think about the employee you are looking for? Formulate a job description and an employee key skills specification. Use these to identify clear criteria upon which candidates can be assessed.

Rank the criteria according to its importance. For example, a Plumber might need technical knowledge (weighted 9), then Customer skills (weighted 6), followed by, reliability (weighted 7) and so on.

Which selection methods will you use?

Send written instructions to applicants

Let them know when the interview will be held, what time to arrive and who to ask for.

Make sure applicants have a job specification and know what the job requires. Tell applicants the format of the interview and if they need to do any preparation.

The Interview itself

Build on the information in the CV and the responses already given. Ask candidates to:

· identify their most important experiences;

· discuss the skills they need to develop;

· outline how they will add value to the company if they get the job.

For example:

Bring the interview to an end

Decision time

Conclusion