The partial opt-outs from the Young Workers Directive, adopted by the UK in 1998, ended in June 2000. The government is now consulting on how to implement the remaining provisions of the Directive into UK law.
Younh workers are defined as being over the minimum school leaving age, but under 18.
The three areas which are likely to be introduced (by amendment to the Working Time Regulations) are:
• limiting young workers' working hours to 8 per day and 40 per week. There is no provision for averaging working hours over a period of time. However, the 8 / 40 hour maxima may be excluded when there are objective grounds
• prohibiting young workers from working between 12 midnight and 4am. Exemptions exist for the armed forces or where there are objective grounds. Amongst other things, this is likely to prevent young people from working in nightclubs or as DJs at discos.
• prohibiting young workers from working between EITHER 10pm and 6am OR 11pm and 7am - but there is greater scope for derogation.
The consultation period over the scope of any amendments to the Working Time Regulations closes on 30th March 2001.
More detail can be found on the DTI website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/individual/ywconsult.htm
Wednesday, 20 December 2000
Wednesday, 13 December 2000
Service Ban on Homosexuals to be removed
According to an article in today's Times reporting an interview with Geof Hoon, the Defence Secretary, the armed services are to lift the ban on homosexuals serving next month.
A new code of conduct will be published in January concerning behaviour standards irrespective of sexual orientation. This will state that behaviour alone will determine whether the sexuality of a man or woman will consitute grounds for dismissal. A known homosexual who conforms to standards of military discipline will be treated no differently from a heterosexual colleague.
This follows the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights on 27th September 1999 in the cases of Jeanette Smith, Graeme Grady, Duncan Lustig-Prean and John Beckett (see bulletin of that date) which held that the U.K. was in breach of article 8 of the ECHR (right to respect for family and private life).
Although this Code is welcome, the armed services continue to disciminate on grounds of gender (eg Sirdar v UK in which, last month, the European Court of Human Rights held that the refusal of the Royal Marines to employe a female chef was not incompatible with the Convention). No doubt this will be discussed at a government conference, being held tomorrow in Birmingham, on racial and sexual equality in the armed forces. However, Geoff Hoon is reported in The Times as indicating that "there might still be good reasons for doubting the wisdom of giving women front line combat roles.". He is quoted as saying "I'll look at it, but there is no presumption in favour of it."
Plus ca change...
PS - Just a reminder - the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 come into force on Wednesday - see bulletins dated 5th November and 25th October 1999
PPS - Please note that the advertisements which have appeared recently at the footer of some of these messages are imposed by the ListBot server (which I use for distributing these bulletins) and do not form part of these bulletins. I am arranging to have them removed, and they should not be appearing after Christmas.
A new code of conduct will be published in January concerning behaviour standards irrespective of sexual orientation. This will state that behaviour alone will determine whether the sexuality of a man or woman will consitute grounds for dismissal. A known homosexual who conforms to standards of military discipline will be treated no differently from a heterosexual colleague.
This follows the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights on 27th September 1999 in the cases of Jeanette Smith, Graeme Grady, Duncan Lustig-Prean and John Beckett (see bulletin of that date) which held that the U.K. was in breach of article 8 of the ECHR (right to respect for family and private life).
Although this Code is welcome, the armed services continue to disciminate on grounds of gender (eg Sirdar v UK in which, last month, the European Court of Human Rights held that the refusal of the Royal Marines to employe a female chef was not incompatible with the Convention). No doubt this will be discussed at a government conference, being held tomorrow in Birmingham, on racial and sexual equality in the armed forces. However, Geoff Hoon is reported in The Times as indicating that "there might still be good reasons for doubting the wisdom of giving women front line combat roles.". He is quoted as saying "I'll look at it, but there is no presumption in favour of it."
Plus ca change...
PS - Just a reminder - the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 come into force on Wednesday - see bulletins dated 5th November and 25th October 1999
PPS - Please note that the advertisements which have appeared recently at the footer of some of these messages are imposed by the ListBot server (which I use for distributing these bulletins) and do not form part of these bulletins. I am arranging to have them removed, and they should not be appearing after Christmas.
Thursday, 7 December 2000
Working Parents: Government reveals Green Paper
The government has, today, issued its proposals for Working Parents, in a document entitled "Work and Parents: Competitiveness and Choice".
A consultation paper will be issued within the next 3 weeks, to enable people to state which of the Government's proposals are preferred. The proposals include:
The Green Paper also includes several options on flexible working either through legislation or incentives to business including:
Given the overwhelming improbability of legislation before the general election, the Green Paper may be regarded by many as ammunition for campagining rather than an indication of impending change.
Further details can be found at http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/review.htm
A consultation paper will be issued within the next 3 weeks, to enable people to state which of the Government's proposals are preferred. The proposals include:
- two weeks paid paternity leave for fathers;
- lengthening the period maternity leave is paid to six months;
- extending unpaid maternity leave so a woman could stay at home for a year;
- sharing any increase on existing unpaid maternity leave equally between the mother and father;
- increasing the flat rate of maternity pay - currently £60.20 per week;
- allowing an adoptive parent - either male or female - to take paid leave similar to maternity leave when adopting a child; and
- increasing the amount of parental leave available to the parents ofdisabled children, currently 13 weeks.
The Green Paper also includes several options on flexible working either through legislation or incentives to business including:
- Giving mothers who return early from maternity leave the right to work reduced hours for the rest of that time;
- giving fathers the right to work reduced hours until the end of maternity leave;
- allowing both parents the right to opt to work reduced hours for as long as they wish, when the maternity leave period ends;
- giving all employers the right to refuse a request to work reduced hours if it would harm the business; and
- exempting employers with a certain number of employees from granting any requests to work reduced hours, except for mothers for a short time;
- a kitemark that organisations committed to an appropriate code might display with a mechanism for taking the kitemark away if opportunities for flexible working are removed. This would be backed up with a challenge fund for small businesses to meet some of the up front costs of providing more flexible working opportunities.
Given the overwhelming improbability of legislation before the general election, the Green Paper may be regarded by many as ammunition for campagining rather than an indication of impending change.
Further details can be found at http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/review.htm
Tuesday, 5 December 2000
Equal Treatment Framework Directive
Published at last! The English version of the Equal Treatment Framework Directive 2000 is now available, and is attached to this Email (128K - sorry about the length!) in .pdf format. You need Adobe Acrobat to read it.
The main points are:
1) The UK must introduce legislation prohibiting discrimination in employment on grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.
2) The religion, belief and sexual orientation legislation must be in force by 2nd December 2003. The disability and age legislation must be in force by 2nd December 2006.
3) Positive action is expressly permitted.
4) There is a defence of 'genuine occupational requirement' for all types of discrimination.
5) There are specific defences for age discrimination, provided it can be shown to satisfy a legitimate employment policy. These defences include:
• remuneration conditions for young or older people;
• fixing of minimum conditions of age, professional experience or seniority for access to employment;
• fixing of minimum age requirements for training.
6) It is specifically stated that a mandatory retirement age is NOT to be regarded as age discrimination.
7) The burden of proof shifts to the employer once the employee has shown a prima facie case of less favourable treatment.
8) The Directive does not apply to the armed forces, but there are no other excluded sectors.
Interesting times ahead....
The main points are:
1) The UK must introduce legislation prohibiting discrimination in employment on grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.
2) The religion, belief and sexual orientation legislation must be in force by 2nd December 2003. The disability and age legislation must be in force by 2nd December 2006.
3) Positive action is expressly permitted.
4) There is a defence of 'genuine occupational requirement' for all types of discrimination.
5) There are specific defences for age discrimination, provided it can be shown to satisfy a legitimate employment policy. These defences include:
• remuneration conditions for young or older people;
• fixing of minimum conditions of age, professional experience or seniority for access to employment;
• fixing of minimum age requirements for training.
6) It is specifically stated that a mandatory retirement age is NOT to be regarded as age discrimination.
7) The burden of proof shifts to the employer once the employee has shown a prima facie case of less favourable treatment.
8) The Directive does not apply to the armed forces, but there are no other excluded sectors.
Interesting times ahead....
Equal Treatment Framework Directive
Employment Law (UK) List - http://www.danielbarnett.co.uk
I've had two Emails telling me that the Directive, attached to my last bulletin, was corrupted.
If anyone can't access it, it can be downloaded from:
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2000/l_303/l_30320001202en00160022.pdf
I've had two Emails telling me that the Directive, attached to my last bulletin, was corrupted.
If anyone can't access it, it can be downloaded from:
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2000/l_303/l_30320001202en00160022.pdf
Monday, 4 December 2000
New Guide on Parental Leave
A guide to maternity and parental leave rights, which apparently includes a section on time off for emergencies, has been launched today by the DfEE. The guide is aimed primarily at small businesses.
According to the DfEE press release, the guide can be found at http://www.employmentservice.gov.uk/ . However, it is not up there yet!
According to the DfEE press release, the guide can be found at http://www.employmentservice.gov.uk/ . However, it is not up there yet!
Friday, 1 December 2000
TUC Survey on Safety at Work
CONTENTS
1. TUC Survey on Safety at Work 2000 - stress at work major factor
2. New EAT decision
________________________________________
1. TUC Survey on Safety at Work 2000
This is an annual survey published by the TUC, after interviewing 9,000 safety reps. The reps identified the following as the major hazards at work:
(1) stress or overwork (identified by 66% of safety reps)
(2) back strain (44%)
(3) RSI (41%)
(4) Display Screen Equipment (36%)
(5) working alone (32%)
Of the reps who identified stress as a major hazard at work, they cited the following as the main causes:
(1) workload (cited by 74% of reps identifying stress as a major hazard)
(2) cuts in staff (53%)
(3) change at work (44%)
(4) long hours (39%)
(5) shift work (30%)
(6) bullying (30%)
________________________________________
2. New EAT Decisions
These cases are unreported (although some may be reported in due course). All transcripts can be found at http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/eat/eatjudgments.nsf.
Davis v Tibbett & Britten Group [29.2.2000, HHJ Collins]
An 9-month old decision, only just posted to the EAT website yesterday! The EAT says it is not necessary for an employer to obtain medical evidence, when dismissing for persistent absence, where the employee suffers from a series of transient illnesses rather than one long, ongoing, illness
1. TUC Survey on Safety at Work 2000 - stress at work major factor
2. New EAT decision
________________________________________
1. TUC Survey on Safety at Work 2000
This is an annual survey published by the TUC, after interviewing 9,000 safety reps. The reps identified the following as the major hazards at work:
(1) stress or overwork (identified by 66% of safety reps)
(2) back strain (44%)
(3) RSI (41%)
(4) Display Screen Equipment (36%)
(5) working alone (32%)
Of the reps who identified stress as a major hazard at work, they cited the following as the main causes:
(1) workload (cited by 74% of reps identifying stress as a major hazard)
(2) cuts in staff (53%)
(3) change at work (44%)
(4) long hours (39%)
(5) shift work (30%)
(6) bullying (30%)
________________________________________
2. New EAT Decisions
These cases are unreported (although some may be reported in due course). All transcripts can be found at http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/eat/eatjudgments.nsf.
Davis v Tibbett & Britten Group [29.2.2000, HHJ Collins]
An 9-month old decision, only just posted to the EAT website yesterday! The EAT says it is not necessary for an employer to obtain medical evidence, when dismissing for persistent absence, where the employee suffers from a series of transient illnesses rather than one long, ongoing, illness
Wednesday, 29 November 2000
Age Discrimination / New EAT decisions
CONTENTS
1. Age Discrimination - Awards of Excellence for Age Awareness
2. New EAT decisions
________________________________________
1. Age Discrimination - Awards of Excellence for Age Awareness
Margaret Hodge, Employment and Equal Opportunities Minister, has today awarded eight recruitment consultancies the first Age Diversity in Recruitment Awards of Excellence. This is part of the government's effort to ensure that business considers candidates on the basis of their skills and experience, and not their age.
Readers will recall that the government issued a Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment on 16th June 1999. This was in lieu of its pre-election promise to introduce age discrimination legislation (Hansard, 9th Feb 1996). However, the Code is voluntary only and appears to have had little effect. A survey by the Employers’ Forum on Age revealed that 3 in 10 employers had never heard of the Code, less than 1 in 10 intended to make any changes to the way they recruit and train, and 68% said that a voluntary code will make no difference to the way they run their business. According to a report in The Times (15th June 2000), the Prime Minister’s advisory unit on older people recommended that the Code of Practice be replaced with a statutory code.
The proposed EC Employment Framework Directive is due to be formally agreed within the next day or so, which will require member states to introduce age discrimination legislation by 2006.
________________________________________
2. New EAT Decisions
These cases are unreported (although some may be reported in due course). All transcripts can be found at http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/eat/eatjudgments.nsf.
Adegbite v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [14.11.2000, Bell J.]
The Applicant appealed on the basis that, in a long(ish) race discrimination case, her comparatively inexperienced trade union representative was against a very experienced employment Counsel and was thus at a disadvantage, leading to a possible perception of bias. The EAT rejected this argument, holding that the parties chose their own representatives and the informality of tribunal hearings did not lend themselves to such arguments. The EAT also endorsed the Chairman's power when limiting the length of a representative's cross-examination.
Chelsea Village Management Ltd -v- Omar Ali [1.11.2000, HHJ Wilson]
The Applicant was awarded approx. £22,000 in a race discrimination case. Although the appeal was allowed on the merits on the grounds of insufficient reasoning, the EAT specifically stated that the failure to set out the factors for, and the different heads of, the award rendered the decision on quantum flawed.
Professional Development & Selection Ltd. -v- Wahab [26.10.2000, Mr Commissioner Howell]
The employer attended a full hearing without any witnesses, having been erroneously informed by his solicitors that it was a directions hearing only and that he needed neither witnesses nor legal representation. The chairman, who was sitting alone, rejected an application for an adjournment. The EAT remitted the substantive case to a fresh tribunal on the basis that the chairman had not properly considered whether it was appropriate for him to hear the case alone. It did not comment on whether the refusal of the adjournment was a wrongful exercise of discretion.
1. Age Discrimination - Awards of Excellence for Age Awareness
2. New EAT decisions
________________________________________
1. Age Discrimination - Awards of Excellence for Age Awareness
Margaret Hodge, Employment and Equal Opportunities Minister, has today awarded eight recruitment consultancies the first Age Diversity in Recruitment Awards of Excellence. This is part of the government's effort to ensure that business considers candidates on the basis of their skills and experience, and not their age.
Readers will recall that the government issued a Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment on 16th June 1999. This was in lieu of its pre-election promise to introduce age discrimination legislation (Hansard, 9th Feb 1996). However, the Code is voluntary only and appears to have had little effect. A survey by the Employers’ Forum on Age revealed that 3 in 10 employers had never heard of the Code, less than 1 in 10 intended to make any changes to the way they recruit and train, and 68% said that a voluntary code will make no difference to the way they run their business. According to a report in The Times (15th June 2000), the Prime Minister’s advisory unit on older people recommended that the Code of Practice be replaced with a statutory code.
The proposed EC Employment Framework Directive is due to be formally agreed within the next day or so, which will require member states to introduce age discrimination legislation by 2006.
________________________________________
2. New EAT Decisions
These cases are unreported (although some may be reported in due course). All transcripts can be found at http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/eat/eatjudgments.nsf.
Adegbite v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [14.11.2000, Bell J.]
The Applicant appealed on the basis that, in a long(ish) race discrimination case, her comparatively inexperienced trade union representative was against a very experienced employment Counsel and was thus at a disadvantage, leading to a possible perception of bias. The EAT rejected this argument, holding that the parties chose their own representatives and the informality of tribunal hearings did not lend themselves to such arguments. The EAT also endorsed the Chairman's power when limiting the length of a representative's cross-examination.
Chelsea Village Management Ltd -v- Omar Ali [1.11.2000, HHJ Wilson]
The Applicant was awarded approx. £22,000 in a race discrimination case. Although the appeal was allowed on the merits on the grounds of insufficient reasoning, the EAT specifically stated that the failure to set out the factors for, and the different heads of, the award rendered the decision on quantum flawed.
Professional Development & Selection Ltd. -v- Wahab [26.10.2000, Mr Commissioner Howell]
The employer attended a full hearing without any witnesses, having been erroneously informed by his solicitors that it was a directions hearing only and that he needed neither witnesses nor legal representation. The chairman, who was sitting alone, rejected an application for an adjournment. The EAT remitted the substantive case to a fresh tribunal on the basis that the chairman had not properly considered whether it was appropriate for him to hear the case alone. It did not comment on whether the refusal of the adjournment was a wrongful exercise of discretion.
Monday, 27 November 2000
ET costs increase to £10,000
As leaked to this morning's Daily Telegraph(!), at midday the DTI formally announced the proposed new changes to Employment Tribunal powers.
The main changes, which are expected to come into force in early Spring 2001, are:
• an increase in the costs limit for frivolous, vexatious etc. behaviour from £500 to £10,000. Although the press release does not make this clear, presumably tribunals will retain the power to send costs to the county court to be assessed. A new power will be introduced to allow tribunals to take into account the unreasonable behaviour of representatives;
• a new power for tribunals to strike-out cases which have no real prospect of success;
• an increase in the deposit for weak cases (after a PHR) from £150 to £500;
• measures to increase tribunal case management.
Draft Regulations will be published early in the New Year.
The main changes, which are expected to come into force in early Spring 2001, are:
• an increase in the costs limit for frivolous, vexatious etc. behaviour from £500 to £10,000. Although the press release does not make this clear, presumably tribunals will retain the power to send costs to the county court to be assessed. A new power will be introduced to allow tribunals to take into account the unreasonable behaviour of representatives;
• a new power for tribunals to strike-out cases which have no real prospect of success;
• an increase in the deposit for weak cases (after a PHR) from £150 to £500;
• measures to increase tribunal case management.
Draft Regulations will be published early in the New Year.
New ACAS Arbitration Scheme
The DTI announced today that ACAS is introducing a new arbitration scheme, for unfair dismissal claims only.
It will provide a cheap(!) and informal alternative to tribunal hearings. One advantage is that the arbitration is confidential, ie not in the public doman like tribunal hearings.
ACAS will be producing formal guidance on the scheme in due course.
It will provide a cheap(!) and informal alternative to tribunal hearings. One advantage is that the arbitration is confidential, ie not in the public doman like tribunal hearings.
ACAS will be producing formal guidance on the scheme in due course.
Friday, 24 November 2000
Guide for Employees taking Industrial Action
The DTI has today published a guide for employees / trade union members who are considering taking industrial action.
Entitled 'Industrial Action and the Law (PL869 REV4), it can be downloaded from http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/union/employees-pl869.htm
Entitled 'Industrial Action and the Law (PL869 REV4), it can be downloaded from http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/union/employees-pl869.htm
Thursday, 23 November 2000
Legal Aid Available for ETs in Scotland
It is expected that legal aid will be available for ETs in Scotland (not England or Wales) from 15th January 2001.
Friday, 17 November 2000
TUC calls for Email Code at Work
The TUC and the Industrial Society are, at today's (Friday's) TUC Conference on Human Rights, calling on employers to sit down with unions and draw up Codes of Practice for their staff on Email usage. They have jointly produced a set of guidelines of do's and don'ts regarding the sending and receiving of emails.
The guidelines suggest that any code of practice should set out to encourage responsible behaviour, good management practice and safeguard worker privacy. Policies should:
• warn users that emails may be electronically scanned for obscene, indecent, racist or illegal remarks
• allow for the occasional and reasonable personal use of email, as long as this does not interfere with an employee's work
• give assurances that emails between union reps and members will not be monitored or read by managers
• remind employees that their emails may be checked by others at work if they are unexpectedly absent or have gone on leave without leaving forwarding arrangements.
TUC General Secretary John Monks said: "Good relationships at work are based on trust. The recent regulations have left many employees worried that managers might be snooping on their personal emails. And employers fear that if they open any email containing private information, they could be breaching the Human Rights Act. But instead of reacting by banning the personal use of email at work, it makes more sense for employers to consult with their workforce and draw up guidance which protects and reassures everyone."
Industrial Society Chief Executive Will Hutton said: "The explosion of new technologies in the workplace has risks as well as rewards. Employers are increasingly aware of `cyberliability' and email abuse and are using more covert and intrusive methods of surveillance. While employers have legitimate interests to protect, over zealous monitoring can undermine employees' dignity and autonomy within the workplace. It is essential that employers develop sensible solutions with their employees to promote good practice in this area, based around openness, consent and consultation with their employees."
The TUC guidelines say that employers need to protect themselves and their staff from abusive or obscene email, but that this should not be at the expense of employee privacy. Good employers with email policies will usually seek the consent of an employee before monitoring takes place, and only act after a complaint has been received.
The guidelines suggest that any code of practice should set out to encourage responsible behaviour, good management practice and safeguard worker privacy. Policies should:
• warn users that emails may be electronically scanned for obscene, indecent, racist or illegal remarks
• allow for the occasional and reasonable personal use of email, as long as this does not interfere with an employee's work
• give assurances that emails between union reps and members will not be monitored or read by managers
• remind employees that their emails may be checked by others at work if they are unexpectedly absent or have gone on leave without leaving forwarding arrangements.
TUC General Secretary John Monks said: "Good relationships at work are based on trust. The recent regulations have left many employees worried that managers might be snooping on their personal emails. And employers fear that if they open any email containing private information, they could be breaching the Human Rights Act. But instead of reacting by banning the personal use of email at work, it makes more sense for employers to consult with their workforce and draw up guidance which protects and reassures everyone."
Industrial Society Chief Executive Will Hutton said: "The explosion of new technologies in the workplace has risks as well as rewards. Employers are increasingly aware of `cyberliability' and email abuse and are using more covert and intrusive methods of surveillance. While employers have legitimate interests to protect, over zealous monitoring can undermine employees' dignity and autonomy within the workplace. It is essential that employers develop sensible solutions with their employees to promote good practice in this area, based around openness, consent and consultation with their employees."
The TUC guidelines say that employers need to protect themselves and their staff from abusive or obscene email, but that this should not be at the expense of employee privacy. Good employers with email policies will usually seek the consent of an employee before monitoring takes place, and only act after a complaint has been received.
Thursday, 16 November 2000
Responses to Tribunal Review consultation
Yesterday the Lord Chancellor's Department published the results of the responses to the Tribunal Review consultation. Sir Andrew Leggatt, heading the Review team (see bulletin 18/5/00), is due to report to the Lord Chancellor by April 2001.
The responses can be seen at www.tribunals-review.org.uk
Almost 300 responses were received. The review dealt with all tribunals - thus covered (eg) educational needs tribunals, mental health tribunals, the Child Support Agency, immigration tribunals, rent review tribunal as well as employment tribunals.
I summarise some of the important responses (so far as they apply to ETs):
Jurisdiction
Most of the jurisdiction comments related specifically to employment tribunals. Many responses thought that ETs should:
• become the forum for litigation instituted by the employer, not just the employee;
• hear all cases involving contractual jurisdiction, whether or not the employee remained in employment and including restrictive covenants;
• therefore have authority to grant injunctive relief;
• be enabled to make recommendations to the employer to improve work practices (as well as awarding compensation) after a successful unfair dismissal claim;
• have an increased limit on claims (particularly basic and compensatory awards) or an unlimited jurisdiction;
• be the starting point for ALL discrimination claims (including discrimination re goods and services), although there should be the possibility of transfer to the county court;
• take the work of the reserve forces appeal tribunals.
There was some comment about the overlap between DDA cases in the ETs, and PI actions in the county court, but no firm recommendations were made.
Costs
A (small) minority of those responding said that tribunals should have a general power to award costs. Employment tribunals were specifically mentioned as being a venue where the limited costs powers were not effectively used in practice. In particular, it was suggested that the late withdrawal of an employment application should ordinarily attract cost sanctions.
It was noted that employment tribunals were amongst the most expensive of all tribunals, with costs for employers sometimes running into tens of thousands of pounds.
Procedure
For employment tribunals, formal procedures were appropriate. Oral hearings, rather than paper submissions, were desirable.
The significant majority wished to retain employment tribunals as separate bodies (even if in favour of merging other types of tribunals).
Impartiality
A significant minority thought that tribunals (generally - not limited to ETs) were not, or not perceived as, independent. The main problems revolved around appointment procedures and the inherent lack of independence in the wing members (again, not specifically ETs).
The responses can be seen at www.tribunals-review.org.uk
Almost 300 responses were received. The review dealt with all tribunals - thus covered (eg) educational needs tribunals, mental health tribunals, the Child Support Agency, immigration tribunals, rent review tribunal as well as employment tribunals.
I summarise some of the important responses (so far as they apply to ETs):
Jurisdiction
Most of the jurisdiction comments related specifically to employment tribunals. Many responses thought that ETs should:
• become the forum for litigation instituted by the employer, not just the employee;
• hear all cases involving contractual jurisdiction, whether or not the employee remained in employment and including restrictive covenants;
• therefore have authority to grant injunctive relief;
• be enabled to make recommendations to the employer to improve work practices (as well as awarding compensation) after a successful unfair dismissal claim;
• have an increased limit on claims (particularly basic and compensatory awards) or an unlimited jurisdiction;
• be the starting point for ALL discrimination claims (including discrimination re goods and services), although there should be the possibility of transfer to the county court;
• take the work of the reserve forces appeal tribunals.
There was some comment about the overlap between DDA cases in the ETs, and PI actions in the county court, but no firm recommendations were made.
Costs
A (small) minority of those responding said that tribunals should have a general power to award costs. Employment tribunals were specifically mentioned as being a venue where the limited costs powers were not effectively used in practice. In particular, it was suggested that the late withdrawal of an employment application should ordinarily attract cost sanctions.
It was noted that employment tribunals were amongst the most expensive of all tribunals, with costs for employers sometimes running into tens of thousands of pounds.
Procedure
For employment tribunals, formal procedures were appropriate. Oral hearings, rather than paper submissions, were desirable.
The significant majority wished to retain employment tribunals as separate bodies (even if in favour of merging other types of tribunals).
Impartiality
A significant minority thought that tribunals (generally - not limited to ETs) were not, or not perceived as, independent. The main problems revolved around appointment procedures and the inherent lack of independence in the wing members (again, not specifically ETs).
Friday, 20 October 2000
Various matters
CONTENTS
1. Whistleblowing case
2. Anti-Discrimination Directive
3. Advertisement - CPD service
________________________________________
1. Whistleblowing Case
John Bowers QC of Littleton Chambers has sent me a transcript of an employment tribunal decision relating to an important point of principle in whistleblowing cases.
The tribunal held that the Public Interest (Disclosure) Act 1998 protects employees who make protected disclosures prior to the date the Act came into force. On the facts, the employee made a protected disclosure about four months before the Act came into force. A year later (after the Act had come into force), the employer relocated him to a different department (which was said to be a detriment).
The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction under PIDA 1998 to consider the employee's complaint, despite the protected disclosure occurring prior to the Act coming into force.
Edgar v Meteorological Office, Employment Tribunal (London central) chaired by Mrs JR Hill on 5th October 2000, sent to the parties on 11th October 2000.
________________________________________
2. Anti-Discrimination Directive
Many readers will have read in the news that the EC has now approved the long-awaited Employment Framework Directive. According to press reports, it requires all member states (including the UK) to introduce legislation:
• prohibiting discrimination against workers on grounds of religion and sexual orientation by 2003; and,
• prohibiting discrimination against workers on grounds of disability and age by 2006. Note that although the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 may comply with the requirements of the Directive, rumour has it that there is no 'small employer' exemption within the Directive - thus the DDA will have to be amended to apply to all employers, not just those with over 15 employees.
I have not yet seen a copy of the Directive. Once I have a copy, it will be made available via this mailing list.
________________________________________
3. Advertisement
1. Whistleblowing case
2. Anti-Discrimination Directive
3. Advertisement - CPD service
________________________________________
1. Whistleblowing Case
John Bowers QC of Littleton Chambers has sent me a transcript of an employment tribunal decision relating to an important point of principle in whistleblowing cases.
The tribunal held that the Public Interest (Disclosure) Act 1998 protects employees who make protected disclosures prior to the date the Act came into force. On the facts, the employee made a protected disclosure about four months before the Act came into force. A year later (after the Act had come into force), the employer relocated him to a different department (which was said to be a detriment).
The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction under PIDA 1998 to consider the employee's complaint, despite the protected disclosure occurring prior to the Act coming into force.
Edgar v Meteorological Office, Employment Tribunal (London central) chaired by Mrs JR Hill on 5th October 2000, sent to the parties on 11th October 2000.
________________________________________
2. Anti-Discrimination Directive
Many readers will have read in the news that the EC has now approved the long-awaited Employment Framework Directive. According to press reports, it requires all member states (including the UK) to introduce legislation:
• prohibiting discrimination against workers on grounds of religion and sexual orientation by 2003; and,
• prohibiting discrimination against workers on grounds of disability and age by 2006. Note that although the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 may comply with the requirements of the Directive, rumour has it that there is no 'small employer' exemption within the Directive - thus the DDA will have to be amended to apply to all employers, not just those with over 15 employees.
I have not yet seen a copy of the Directive. Once I have a copy, it will be made available via this mailing list.
________________________________________
3. Advertisement
REMINDER
The current session of the Employment Law (UK) mail list CPD Scheme closes on 1st November 2000, when the answers to this quarter's questions will be published.
It is now possible to obtain CPD hours for receiving these bulletins.
How does the Scheme work?
By answering multiple choice questions based on the employment law bulletins sent out in the previous 3 months, you can obtain 2 CPD hours each quarter.
The questions (and an archive of the last 3 months' bulletins) are available at www.cpdpoints.co.uk
The number of CPD hours awarded depends on the number of correct answers to the multiple choice questions, as follows:
5 or more correct (out of 12) - 1 CPD hour
7 or more correct (out of 12) - 1.5 CPD hours
9 or more correct (out of 12) - 2 CPDhours
How much does it cost?
There is no charge for attempting the questions.
Your score (and number of CPD hours to which that entitles you) will be sent to you by Email. You may then, if you wish, purchase the CPD hours for a fixed fee of £100+VAT.
How do I answer the questions?
The questions, and an answer form, are available online at www.cpdpoints.co.uk . All the answers can be found in the Employment Law (UK) bulletins as sent over the last few months. If you have not retained them(!), copies can be found on www.cpdpoints.co.uk .
For those who do not have access to the internet, a list of the questions will be distributed by Email next week.
The answers will be published on 1st November 2000. New sets of questions, based on the preceding 3 months' bulletins and entitling you to obtain yet more CPD hours, will be produced every quarter.
www.cpdpoints.co.uk and the CPD assessment scheme are adminstered by Employment Law Services Limited. Employment Law Services Limited is accredited by the Law Society as an authorised provider of CPD courses.
The current session of the Employment Law (UK) mail list CPD Scheme closes on 1st November 2000, when the answers to this quarter's questions will be published.
It is now possible to obtain CPD hours for receiving these bulletins.
How does the Scheme work?
By answering multiple choice questions based on the employment law bulletins sent out in the previous 3 months, you can obtain 2 CPD hours each quarter.
The questions (and an archive of the last 3 months' bulletins) are available at www.cpdpoints.co.uk
The number of CPD hours awarded depends on the number of correct answers to the multiple choice questions, as follows:
5 or more correct (out of 12) - 1 CPD hour
7 or more correct (out of 12) - 1.5 CPD hours
9 or more correct (out of 12) - 2 CPDhours
How much does it cost?
There is no charge for attempting the questions.
Your score (and number of CPD hours to which that entitles you) will be sent to you by Email. You may then, if you wish, purchase the CPD hours for a fixed fee of £100+VAT.
How do I answer the questions?
The questions, and an answer form, are available online at www.cpdpoints.co.uk . All the answers can be found in the Employment Law (UK) bulletins as sent over the last few months. If you have not retained them(!), copies can be found on www.cpdpoints.co.uk .
For those who do not have access to the internet, a list of the questions will be distributed by Email next week.
The answers will be published on 1st November 2000. New sets of questions, based on the preceding 3 months' bulletins and entitling you to obtain yet more CPD hours, will be produced every quarter.
www.cpdpoints.co.uk and the CPD assessment scheme are adminstered by Employment Law Services Limited. Employment Law Services Limited is accredited by the Law Society as an authorised provider of CPD courses.
Tuesday, 17 October 2000
Phone Tapping
Rumour has it that my previous bulletin demonstrated quite how complicated employment law has become - being a mass of unreadable garbage!
What it should have contained was the text of the Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice)(Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000 (mentioned in my bulletin dated 5th October). It has now been published and is reproduced with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Please find the Regulations attached in HTML format.
What it should have contained was the text of the Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice)(Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000 (mentioned in my bulletin dated 5th October). It has now been published and is reproduced with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Please find the Regulations attached in HTML format.
Thursday, 5 October 2000
New Regulations on Email and Telephone Monitoring
The Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice)(Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000 have been published under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
Apart from having an impressive title, the Regualations set out the circumstances in which an employer can record or monitor employees' communications (such as Email or telephones) without the consent of either the employee or the other party to the communication.
These circumstances are very wide, and they include:
It is necessary under the Regulations for employers to take reasonable steps to inform employees that their communications might be intercepted. This reinforces the need for all employers to introduce an Email / internet policy for their workers.
The Regulations come into force on 24th October 2000.
www.incomesdata.co.uk) for notifying me of these Regulations>
________________________________________
Apart from having an impressive title, the Regualations set out the circumstances in which an employer can record or monitor employees' communications (such as Email or telephones) without the consent of either the employee or the other party to the communication.
These circumstances are very wide, and they include:
- for recording evidence of business transactions;
- ensuring compliance with regulatory or self-regulatory guidelines;
- maintaining the effective operation of the employer's systems (eg preventing viruses);
- monitoring standards of training and service;
- preventing or detecting criminal activity;
- preventing the unauthorised use of the computer/telephone system - ie ensuring the employee does not breach the company's Email or telephone policies.
It is necessary under the Regulations for employers to take reasonable steps to inform employees that their communications might be intercepted. This reinforces the need for all employers to introduce an Email / internet policy for their workers.
The Regulations come into force on 24th October 2000.
________________________________________
ADVERTISEMENT
New CPD Scheme launched for this list
It is now possible to obtain CPD hours for receiving these bulletins.
How does the Scheme work?
By answering multiple choice questions based on the employment law bulletins sent out in the previous 3 months, you can obtain 2 CPD hours each quarter.
The questions (and an archive of the last 3 months' bulletins) are available at www.cpdpoints.co.uk
The number of CPD hours awarded depends on the number of correct answers to the multiple choice questions, as follows:
5 or more correct (out of 12) - 1 CPD hour
7 or more correct (out of 12) - 1.5 CPD hours
9 or more correct (out of 12) - 2 CPDhours
How much does it cost?
There is no charge for attempting the questions.
Your score (and number of CPD hours to which that entitles you) will be sent to you by Email. You may then, if you wish, purchase the CPD hours for a fixed fee of £100+VAT.
How do I answer the questions?
The questions, and an answer form, are available online at www.cpdpoints.co.uk . All the answers can be found in the Employment Law (UK) bulletins as sent over the last few months. If you have not retained them(!), copies can be found on www.cpdpoints.co.uk .
For those who do not have access to the internet, a list of the questions will be distributed by Email next week.
The answers will be published on 1st November 2000. New sets of questions, based on the preceding 3 months' bulletins and entitling you to obtain yet more CPD hours, will be produced every quarter.
www.cpdpoints.co.uk and the CPD assessment scheme are adminstered by Employment Law Services Limited. Employment Law Services Limited is accredited by the Law Society as an authorised provider of CPD courses.
New CPD Scheme launched for this list
It is now possible to obtain CPD hours for receiving these bulletins.
How does the Scheme work?
By answering multiple choice questions based on the employment law bulletins sent out in the previous 3 months, you can obtain 2 CPD hours each quarter.
The questions (and an archive of the last 3 months' bulletins) are available at www.cpdpoints.co.uk
The number of CPD hours awarded depends on the number of correct answers to the multiple choice questions, as follows:
5 or more correct (out of 12) - 1 CPD hour
7 or more correct (out of 12) - 1.5 CPD hours
9 or more correct (out of 12) - 2 CPDhours
How much does it cost?
There is no charge for attempting the questions.
Your score (and number of CPD hours to which that entitles you) will be sent to you by Email. You may then, if you wish, purchase the CPD hours for a fixed fee of £100+VAT.
How do I answer the questions?
The questions, and an answer form, are available online at www.cpdpoints.co.uk . All the answers can be found in the Employment Law (UK) bulletins as sent over the last few months. If you have not retained them(!), copies can be found on www.cpdpoints.co.uk .
For those who do not have access to the internet, a list of the questions will be distributed by Email next week.
The answers will be published on 1st November 2000. New sets of questions, based on the preceding 3 months' bulletins and entitling you to obtain yet more CPD hours, will be produced every quarter.
www.cpdpoints.co.uk and the CPD assessment scheme are adminstered by Employment Law Services Limited. Employment Law Services Limited is accredited by the Law Society as an authorised provider of CPD courses.
Tuesday, 3 October 2000
Company Directors and Doctors' Working Hours
CONTENTS
1. Minimum wage and company directors
2. ECJ Decision - Doctors' maximum working hours
________________________________________
1. Minimum Wage and Company Directors
An Inland Revenue agreed guidance note on the impact of the minimum wage on company directors has been issued by the Tax Faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
The note is particularly useful for its guidance on when a director is also an employee.
It can be downloaded from http://www.taxfac.co.uk/facultypublications/documents/11-520-1.doc
________________________________________
2. ECJ Decision - Doctors' maximum working hours
The ECJ has, this morning, handed down its decision in Sindicator de Medicos de Asistencia Publica v Spain.
It held that Spanish primary care doctors are subject to the maximum 48-hour week.
The important sections of the judgment, which is available at http://www.curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?lang=en&num=79998996C19980303&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET&where=() ,are to hold/confirm that:
1. Minimum wage and company directors
2. ECJ Decision - Doctors' maximum working hours
________________________________________
1. Minimum Wage and Company Directors
An Inland Revenue agreed guidance note on the impact of the minimum wage on company directors has been issued by the Tax Faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
The note is particularly useful for its guidance on when a director is also an employee.
It can be downloaded from http://www.taxfac.co.uk/facultypublications/documents/11-520-1.doc
________________________________________
2. ECJ Decision - Doctors' maximum working hours
The ECJ has, this morning, handed down its decision in Sindicator de Medicos de Asistencia Publica v Spain.
It held that Spanish primary care doctors are subject to the maximum 48-hour week.
The important sections of the judgment, which is available at http://www.curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?lang=en&num=79998996C19980303&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET&where=() ,are to hold/confirm that:
- trainee doctors are not subject to the 48-hour week, they being a specific exemption from the Working Time Directive;
- doctors who are 'on-call' at a health centre are counted as working, for the purpose of the Working Time Directive;
- doctors who are 'on-call' away from a health centre (ie at home) are not counted as working, for the purpose of the Working Time Directive;
- doctors who are 'on-call' at night are not rendered 'night workers' simply by reason of the Directive.
ADVERTISEMENT
New CPD Scheme launched for this list
It is now possible to obtain CPD hours for receiving these bulletins.
How does the Scheme work?
By answering multiple choice questions based on the employment law bulletins sent out in the previous 3 months, you can obtain 2 CPD hours each quarter.
The questions (and an archive of the last 3 months' bulletins) are available at www.cpdpoints.co.uk
The number of CPD hours awarded depends on the number of correct answers to the multiple choice questions, as follows:
5 or more correct (out of 12) - 1 CPD hour
7 or more correct (out of 12) - 1.5 CPD hours
9 or more correct (out of 12) - 2 CPDhours
How much does it cost?
There is no charge for attempting the questions.
Your score (and number of CPD hours to which that entitles you) will be sent to you by Email. You may then, if you wish, purchase the CPD hours for a fixed fee of £100+VAT.
How do I answer the questions?
The questions, and an answer form, are available online at www.cpdpoints.co.uk . All the answers can be found in the Employment Law (UK) bulletins as sent over the last few months. If you have not retained them(!), copies can be found on www.cpdpoints.co.uk .
For those who do not have access to the internet, a list of the questions will be distributed by Email next week.
The answers will be published on 1st November 2000. New sets of questions, based on the preceding 3 months' bulletins and entitling you to obtain yet more CPD hours, will be produced every quarter.
www.cpdpoints.co.uk and the CPD assessment scheme are adminstered by Employment Law Services Limited. Employment Law Services Limited is accredited by the Law Society as an authorised provider of CPD courses.
New CPD Scheme launched for this list
It is now possible to obtain CPD hours for receiving these bulletins.
How does the Scheme work?
By answering multiple choice questions based on the employment law bulletins sent out in the previous 3 months, you can obtain 2 CPD hours each quarter.
The questions (and an archive of the last 3 months' bulletins) are available at www.cpdpoints.co.uk
The number of CPD hours awarded depends on the number of correct answers to the multiple choice questions, as follows:
5 or more correct (out of 12) - 1 CPD hour
7 or more correct (out of 12) - 1.5 CPD hours
9 or more correct (out of 12) - 2 CPDhours
How much does it cost?
There is no charge for attempting the questions.
Your score (and number of CPD hours to which that entitles you) will be sent to you by Email. You may then, if you wish, purchase the CPD hours for a fixed fee of £100+VAT.
How do I answer the questions?
The questions, and an answer form, are available online at www.cpdpoints.co.uk . All the answers can be found in the Employment Law (UK) bulletins as sent over the last few months. If you have not retained them(!), copies can be found on www.cpdpoints.co.uk .
For those who do not have access to the internet, a list of the questions will be distributed by Email next week.
The answers will be published on 1st November 2000. New sets of questions, based on the preceding 3 months' bulletins and entitling you to obtain yet more CPD hours, will be produced every quarter.
www.cpdpoints.co.uk and the CPD assessment scheme are adminstered by Employment Law Services Limited. Employment Law Services Limited is accredited by the Law Society as an authorised provider of CPD courses.
Monday, 2 October 2000
Human Rights Act [autoreply 021000]
Just in case anyone has missed it, the Human Rights Act 1998 comes into force today.
Copies are available of my article 'Employment Law and Human Rights', which was published in ELA Briefing in March 2000, on my website . Alternatively, to obtain a copy in Word format (56K) by Email, just reply to this Email (ensuring that the phrase 'autoreply 021000' appears in the subject line) and it will be sent automatically.
Copies are available of my article 'Employment Law and Human Rights', which was published in ELA Briefing in March 2000, on my website . Alternatively, to obtain a copy in Word format (56K) by Email, just reply to this Email (ensuring that the phrase 'autoreply 021000' appears in the subject line) and it will be sent automatically.
Discrimination against Gays now Unlawful
The transcript of MacDonald v Ministry of Defence (EAT, 17th September 2000) has just been published.
The EAT has departed from previous authorities which hold that discrimination against homosexuals does not fall within the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
It held that the word 'sex' in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is ambiguous - potentially including sexual orientation as well as gender. Despite the previous authorities to the contrary, it held that it is obliged to look at rights under the European Convention of Human Rights when, in two recent cases (Lustig-Prean and Salgueiro da Silva Mounta v Portugal), the European Court held that discrimination against homosexuals offended articles 8 (right to respect for privacy) and 14 (right not to be discriminated against when enjoying Convention rights) respectively.
Due to these new authorities, it was time to reconsider the traditional UK approach.
Accordingly, when considering a case of discrimination against a homosexual employee, the correct comparator under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is now a heterosexual (be it male or female) rather than a homosexual of the opposite gender.
The transcript can be downloaded from:
http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/eat/eatjudgments.nsf/faf4a44f36aa53fc80256794004040c2/fcac7ff40afaec3c8025696c0039e3c0?OpenDocument
Note: if the link does not work (it may be too long for some browsers), try http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/eat/eatjudgments.nsf
The EAT has departed from previous authorities which hold that discrimination against homosexuals does not fall within the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
It held that the word 'sex' in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is ambiguous - potentially including sexual orientation as well as gender. Despite the previous authorities to the contrary, it held that it is obliged to look at rights under the European Convention of Human Rights when, in two recent cases (Lustig-Prean and Salgueiro da Silva Mounta v Portugal), the European Court held that discrimination against homosexuals offended articles 8 (right to respect for privacy) and 14 (right not to be discriminated against when enjoying Convention rights) respectively.
Due to these new authorities, it was time to reconsider the traditional UK approach.
Accordingly, when considering a case of discrimination against a homosexual employee, the correct comparator under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is now a heterosexual (be it male or female) rather than a homosexual of the opposite gender.
The transcript can be downloaded from:
http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/eat/eatjudgments.nsf/faf4a44f36aa53fc80256794004040c2/fcac7ff40afaec3c8025696c0039e3c0?OpenDocument
Note: if the link does not work (it may be too long for some browsers), try http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/eat/eatjudgments.nsf
Friday, 29 September 2000
Minimum Wage
CONTENTS
1. TIGER - the minimum wage website
2. Recent EAT Decisions
________________________________________
1. TIGER - the Minimum Wage website
The DTI has today (Friday) launched 'TIGER' (Tailored Interactive Guidance on Employment Rights) at www.tiger.gov.uk
The site contains interactive and easy to use information on the national minimum wage, including a detailed yet accessible analysis of people to whom the minimum wage applies, and a 'ready-reckoner' for calculating whether employees are receiving the minimum wage.
The site asks users to state whether they are employers or employees, and guides them down a series of easily understood questions to the information they seek.
It is anticipated that the website will be expanded over time to deal with all aspects of employment rights.
________________________________________
2. New EAT Decisions
Moores v Bude-Stratton Town Council [Lindsay P., 27th March 2000]
A town councillor was extremely rude to a council employee, entitling him to resign and claim constructive dismissal. The issue was whether the Council was vicariously liable for the repudiatory conduct of the individual councillor. The employment tribunal, and the minority member of the EAT, held that councillors were not analagous to employees and a Council was not analagous to an employer - hence no vicarious liability and the claim must fail. The majority of the EAT (including Lindsay P.) held that vicarious liability existed, that the repudiatory conduct of a single counciller was capable of breaching trust and confidence, and the employee was entitled to terminate his contract of employment with the Council.
Martyres v Connex South-East [HHJ Wilson, 24th May 2000]
A single employee did not consent to a change to electronic payment of wages, which his trade union had accepted by conduct. He brought a claim for unlawful deduction from wages. The EAT held (unsurprisingly!) that there had been no deduction, since electronic payment is a proper substitute for putting money in a pay packet. More importantly, the EAT stated that where a collective agreement exists, an individual employee abdicates his right to object and loses any veto he may have to changes in his terms of employment if there were no such collective agreement.
1. TIGER - the minimum wage website
2. Recent EAT Decisions
________________________________________
1. TIGER - the Minimum Wage website
The DTI has today (Friday) launched 'TIGER' (Tailored Interactive Guidance on Employment Rights) at www.tiger.gov.uk
The site contains interactive and easy to use information on the national minimum wage, including a detailed yet accessible analysis of people to whom the minimum wage applies, and a 'ready-reckoner' for calculating whether employees are receiving the minimum wage.
The site asks users to state whether they are employers or employees, and guides them down a series of easily understood questions to the information they seek.
It is anticipated that the website will be expanded over time to deal with all aspects of employment rights.
________________________________________
2. New EAT Decisions
Moores v Bude-Stratton Town Council [Lindsay P., 27th March 2000]
A town councillor was extremely rude to a council employee, entitling him to resign and claim constructive dismissal. The issue was whether the Council was vicariously liable for the repudiatory conduct of the individual councillor. The employment tribunal, and the minority member of the EAT, held that councillors were not analagous to employees and a Council was not analagous to an employer - hence no vicarious liability and the claim must fail. The majority of the EAT (including Lindsay P.) held that vicarious liability existed, that the repudiatory conduct of a single counciller was capable of breaching trust and confidence, and the employee was entitled to terminate his contract of employment with the Council.
Martyres v Connex South-East [HHJ Wilson, 24th May 2000]
A single employee did not consent to a change to electronic payment of wages, which his trade union had accepted by conduct. He brought a claim for unlawful deduction from wages. The EAT held (unsurprisingly!) that there had been no deduction, since electronic payment is a proper substitute for putting money in a pay packet. More importantly, the EAT stated that where a collective agreement exists, an individual employee abdicates his right to object and loses any veto he may have to changes in his terms of employment if there were no such collective agreement.
Tuesday, 19 September 2000
No further employment legislation
The government appears to have confirmed that no further employment legislation is planned during this parliament. I reproduce the press release (issued because of the fuel crisis) below:
.............................................................................
Press release - 19/9/00
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Stephen Byers today said
that no further changes are planned to employment law, following the
recent fuel protests.
After the first meeting of the Fuel Taskforce Mr Byers said:
"Contrary to speculation we are not considering changes to the
employment rights and responsibilities of employees in the oil
sector. We have said on a number of occasions that the Employment
Relations Act is the final piece of significant employment
legislation for this Parliament - that remains the position."
.............................................................................
.............................................................................
Press release - 19/9/00
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Stephen Byers today said
that no further changes are planned to employment law, following the
recent fuel protests.
After the first meeting of the Fuel Taskforce Mr Byers said:
"Contrary to speculation we are not considering changes to the
employment rights and responsibilities of employees in the oil
sector. We have said on a number of occasions that the Employment
Relations Act is the final piece of significant employment
legislation for this Parliament - that remains the position."
.............................................................................
Wednesday, 13 September 2000
New statutory instruments
CONTENTS
1. New statutory instruments
2. ET decision in Virdi v Metropolitan Police
________________________________________
1. New Statutory Instruments
Three new statutory instruments published today, none of which are likely to make anyone faint with excitement! They are...
• The Employment Code of Practice (Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers) Order 2000 (SI 2000/2241) - brings the revised Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers into force on 18th September 2000
• The Employment Relations Act 1999 (Commencement No. 7 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2000 (SI 2000/2242) - brings into force the right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance proceedings on 4th September. Yet another statutory instrument published after it comes into force! An important transitional provision - it does not apply if the worker is invited or required to attend a hearing before 4th September.
• The Employment Code of Practice (Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures) Order 2000 (SI 2000/2247) - brings into force the new ACAS Code on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures (also being published a week late!)
Copies of all three statutory instruments are attached (reproduced with permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office).
________________________________________
2. Employment Tribunal Decision in Verdi v Metropolitan Police
Susan Belgrave of Coram Chambers (Counsel for Mr Verdi) has sent me the transcript of the above case, which achieved some notoriety recently in the press.
In a nutshell, Mr Verdi was an Asian police officer. He, along with a white female officer, was suspected of sending racist hate mail to other officers. However, whilst she was interviewed three times without being arrested, Mr Verdi was not interviewed until after his arrest. Moreover, his house was searched for 8 hours using the POLSA team (the police search squad, usually used for anti-terrorist searches), and the police deliberately disclosed Mr Verdi's ethnicity in an attempt to redress an impression of inter-racial hostitlity within the force.
After an 18 day hearing, the employment tribunal found (by way of inference) that the different treatment of Mr Verdi was on grounds of his race.
If anyone would like a copy of the transcipt (warning - 41 pages!), please contact Susan Belgrave on susan.belgrave@coramchambers.co.uk .
1. New statutory instruments
2. ET decision in Virdi v Metropolitan Police
________________________________________
1. New Statutory Instruments
Three new statutory instruments published today, none of which are likely to make anyone faint with excitement! They are...
• The Employment Code of Practice (Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers) Order 2000 (SI 2000/2241) - brings the revised Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers into force on 18th September 2000
• The Employment Relations Act 1999 (Commencement No. 7 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2000 (SI 2000/2242) - brings into force the right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance proceedings on 4th September. Yet another statutory instrument published after it comes into force! An important transitional provision - it does not apply if the worker is invited or required to attend a hearing before 4th September.
• The Employment Code of Practice (Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures) Order 2000 (SI 2000/2247) - brings into force the new ACAS Code on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures (also being published a week late!)
Copies of all three statutory instruments are attached (reproduced with permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office).
________________________________________
2. Employment Tribunal Decision in Verdi v Metropolitan Police
Susan Belgrave of Coram Chambers (Counsel for Mr Verdi) has sent me the transcript of the above case, which achieved some notoriety recently in the press.
In a nutshell, Mr Verdi was an Asian police officer. He, along with a white female officer, was suspected of sending racist hate mail to other officers. However, whilst she was interviewed three times without being arrested, Mr Verdi was not interviewed until after his arrest. Moreover, his house was searched for 8 hours using the POLSA team (the police search squad, usually used for anti-terrorist searches), and the police deliberately disclosed Mr Verdi's ethnicity in an attempt to redress an impression of inter-racial hostitlity within the force.
After an 18 day hearing, the employment tribunal found (by way of inference) that the different treatment of Mr Verdi was on grounds of his race.
If anyone would like a copy of the transcipt (warning - 41 pages!), please contact Susan Belgrave on susan.belgrave@coramchambers.co.uk .
Friday, 8 September 2000
Annual Survey of Discrimination Awards
The Equal Opportunities Review has this morning published its annual survey of discrimination awards. The full text of the press release appears below.
[Text of press release follows]
The overall compensation employers were ordered to pay out by employment tribunals in 1999 to victims of unlawful discrimination increased by almost a third (30%). In total, tribunals awarded £2.55 million to victims of disability, race and sex discrimination in over 300 cases. Add in interest and the total awarded by tribunals was £2.68 million.
The average compensation award for victims of race discrimination was £9,948, slightly less than the average award of £9,981 in disability cases. Victims of sex discrimination were awarded significantly less on average – £7,208. So, for every £1 awarded in compensation for sex discrimination, around £1.38 was awarded for disability or race discrimination.
Awards for injury to feelings were highest in cases of race discrimination (£5,297) – 40% more than the average in sex discrimination cases (£3,787) and 46% more than in cases of disability discrimination (£3,635).
The Equal Opportunities Review survey – which provides the most comprehensive and up-to-date picture available of compensation trends – covered awards made by employment tribunals in Britain between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 1999. Tribunals awarded compensation in 313 discrimination cases – 201 cases of sex discrimination; 71 of race discrimination; 36 of disability discrimination; four cases of race and sex discrimination combined; and one of disability and sex discrimination combined.
The survey’s other key findings, by jurisdiction, include:
Sex discrimination cases
• Compensation awards ranged from £100 to £182,247.
• Nearly a fifth of compensation awards were for £10,000 or more.
• Awards for injury to feelings, which accounted for 52% of the total compensation awarded in sex cases, ranged from £500 to a record £37,500.
• Injury to feelings awards were highest in cases of sexual harassment, averaging £6,776, compared with an average of £2,538 in cases of dismissal.
Race discrimination cases
• Compensation awards ranged from £665 to a record £130,736.
• Over a quarter of compensation awards were for £10,000 or more.
• Awards for injury to feelings, which accounted for 53% of the total compensation awarded in race cases, ranged from £500 to £30,000.
Disability discrimination cases
• Compensation awards ranged from £500 to £77,696.
• Over a quarter of compensation awards were for £10,000 or more.
• Awards for injury to feelings, which accounted for just over a third of the total compensation awarded in disability cases, ranged from £200 to £15,000 – a record high†.
"Compensation awards ‘99 " – Equal Opportunities Review No. 93, September/October 2000. Available on annual subscription (£215) from Industrial Relations Services, 18-20 Highbury Place, London N5 1QP (020 7354 5858).
This figure was exceeded at the beginning of 2000, when an employment tribunal made an award of £25,000.
[Text of press release follows]
RACE BIAS AWARDS UP 65%
Compensation awarded by employment tribunals to victims of race discrimination increased by two-thirds (65%) in 1999, according to the annual survey of compensation awards published in Equal Opportunities Review*. The average award for sex discrimination was also up – by 5%. However, the average award for disability discrimination fell by 13%.The overall compensation employers were ordered to pay out by employment tribunals in 1999 to victims of unlawful discrimination increased by almost a third (30%). In total, tribunals awarded £2.55 million to victims of disability, race and sex discrimination in over 300 cases. Add in interest and the total awarded by tribunals was £2.68 million.
The average compensation award for victims of race discrimination was £9,948, slightly less than the average award of £9,981 in disability cases. Victims of sex discrimination were awarded significantly less on average – £7,208. So, for every £1 awarded in compensation for sex discrimination, around £1.38 was awarded for disability or race discrimination.
Awards for injury to feelings were highest in cases of race discrimination (£5,297) – 40% more than the average in sex discrimination cases (£3,787) and 46% more than in cases of disability discrimination (£3,635).
The Equal Opportunities Review survey – which provides the most comprehensive and up-to-date picture available of compensation trends – covered awards made by employment tribunals in Britain between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 1999. Tribunals awarded compensation in 313 discrimination cases – 201 cases of sex discrimination; 71 of race discrimination; 36 of disability discrimination; four cases of race and sex discrimination combined; and one of disability and sex discrimination combined.
The survey’s other key findings, by jurisdiction, include:
Sex discrimination cases
• Compensation awards ranged from £100 to £182,247.
• Nearly a fifth of compensation awards were for £10,000 or more.
• Awards for injury to feelings, which accounted for 52% of the total compensation awarded in sex cases, ranged from £500 to a record £37,500.
• Injury to feelings awards were highest in cases of sexual harassment, averaging £6,776, compared with an average of £2,538 in cases of dismissal.
Race discrimination cases
• Compensation awards ranged from £665 to a record £130,736.
• Over a quarter of compensation awards were for £10,000 or more.
• Awards for injury to feelings, which accounted for 53% of the total compensation awarded in race cases, ranged from £500 to £30,000.
Disability discrimination cases
• Compensation awards ranged from £500 to £77,696.
• Over a quarter of compensation awards were for £10,000 or more.
• Awards for injury to feelings, which accounted for just over a third of the total compensation awarded in disability cases, ranged from £200 to £15,000 – a record high†.
"Compensation awards ‘99 " – Equal Opportunities Review No. 93, September/October 2000. Available on annual subscription (£215) from Industrial Relations Services, 18-20 Highbury Place, London N5 1QP (020 7354 5858).
This figure was exceeded at the beginning of 2000, when an employment tribunal made an award of £25,000.
Thursday, 7 September 2000
Government reviews on balancing home and work
CONTENTS
1. Department for Education and Employment - Creating a Work-Life Balance
2. Department of Trade and Industry - Support for Working Parents
3. Recent EAT Decisions
4. Advertisement - Employment vacancy at Liberty
________________________________________
1. DfEE - Creating a Worklife Balance
The Minister for Employment and Equal Opportunities, Margaret Hodge, announced new guidance this morning to help employers improve the working lives of all their staff.
The DfEE also published the results of a survey amongst 7,500 employees. The key statistics are:
• 19% of employees with no caring responsibilities would like to work part-time - the same number as those with caring responsibilities
• 12% would like the option of a job-share (19% for those with caring responsibilities)
• 34% would like flexitime (37% for those with caring responsibilities), whereas only 24% of all employees currently work flexitime
• only 6% of all employees currently work a compressed hours week (fitting a full-time job into, say, 4 days not 5), but 33% would like to do so.
The new Guide offers advice to employers on how to set up policies and working practices which enable their employees to achieve a better work-life balance. The booklet, 'Creating a Work-Life Balance - a good practice guide for employers' is available from the DfEE on 0845 6022260, ref: WLBGPGE1
________________________________________
2. DTI - Debate on Support for Working Mothers
In a seemingly unrelated development (no cross-referencing appears in the press releases), the DTI has launched a debate about how working parents can be given more choices in balancing their responsibilities at home and work.
A discussion paper - 'Work and Parents: competitiveness and choice' was published today. Details can be found at www.dti.gov.uk/er/review.html . It is anticipated that a formal consultation paper will be issued later this year.
________________________________________
3. New EAT Decisions
Facey v Midas Retail Security [Lindsay P., 18th August 2000]
This case deals with the scenario where a litigant accuses a tribunal of bias. Mr Facey, who brought a race discrimination claim, engaged a representative who held no UK legal qualifications. At the beginning of the hearing, the representative alleged bias against the tribunal, invited the tribunal to discharge itself, and then both he and Mr Facey refused to participate further in the proceedings. Mr Facey subsequently appealed the (inevitable) dismissal of his claim and costs order.
Detailed notes of the hearing were provided by each of the two Respondents' Counsel, the chairman, both lay members and one solicitor. The Applicant's representative asked the EAT to order the chair and members to be cross-examined on their evidence. The issue was the competency and compellability of tribunal members to give evidence before the EAT.
Following a lengthy review of the authorities, the EAT held the following steps should be taken when allegations of bias are made against the members of a tribunal:
(i) The steps outlined in the EAT practice direction para. 9(3) should be taken, and unsworn comments may then be taken from the chair and, if necessary, lay members
(ii) the EAT may require sworn witness statements from persons other than members of the tribunal
(iii) the EAT may invite but not require the chair or members of the tribunal to provide sworn, written evidence in chief as to primary fact
(iv) in a suitable case it will be possible, after such an invitation, for adverse inferences to be drawn from a member's failure without good reason to provide sworn, written evidence in chief as to primary fact
(v) if, notwithstanding the material already collected, the EAT thinks that cross-examination would materially assist it, it may require the attendance for oral cross-examination of deponents not including the chairman or other members of the tribunal
(vi) the EAT is not to hear a member's cross-examination, even where the member has agreed to attend
(vii) the EAT is not to require the attendance of a member for cross-examination, nor to require disclosure of documents from him/her
(viii) the EAT is not to draw adverse inference from a member's failure to attend for cross-examination.
________________________________________
4 Advertisement - Employment Vacancy
The post holder will be responsible for undertaking test cases on Human Rights and Civil Liberties issues, both in domestic and European Court of Human Rights jurisdictions. Experience of taking such cases is necessary. The post is suitable for a barrister or solicitor.
The post is full time but applicants who can only work part time may be considered. Secondments will be considered.
Salary £22,600-£25,000.
Please apply in writing with c.v. to arrive on or by Friday 22nd September to:
James Welch
Legal Director
Liberty
21 Tabard Street
London SE1 4LA
1. Department for Education and Employment - Creating a Work-Life Balance
2. Department of Trade and Industry - Support for Working Parents
3. Recent EAT Decisions
4. Advertisement - Employment vacancy at Liberty
________________________________________
1. DfEE - Creating a Worklife Balance
The Minister for Employment and Equal Opportunities, Margaret Hodge, announced new guidance this morning to help employers improve the working lives of all their staff.
The DfEE also published the results of a survey amongst 7,500 employees. The key statistics are:
• 19% of employees with no caring responsibilities would like to work part-time - the same number as those with caring responsibilities
• 12% would like the option of a job-share (19% for those with caring responsibilities)
• 34% would like flexitime (37% for those with caring responsibilities), whereas only 24% of all employees currently work flexitime
• only 6% of all employees currently work a compressed hours week (fitting a full-time job into, say, 4 days not 5), but 33% would like to do so.
The new Guide offers advice to employers on how to set up policies and working practices which enable their employees to achieve a better work-life balance. The booklet, 'Creating a Work-Life Balance - a good practice guide for employers' is available from the DfEE on 0845 6022260, ref: WLBGPGE1
________________________________________
2. DTI - Debate on Support for Working Mothers
In a seemingly unrelated development (no cross-referencing appears in the press releases), the DTI has launched a debate about how working parents can be given more choices in balancing their responsibilities at home and work.
A discussion paper - 'Work and Parents: competitiveness and choice' was published today. Details can be found at www.dti.gov.uk/er/review.html . It is anticipated that a formal consultation paper will be issued later this year.
________________________________________
3. New EAT Decisions
Facey v Midas Retail Security [Lindsay P., 18th August 2000]
This case deals with the scenario where a litigant accuses a tribunal of bias. Mr Facey, who brought a race discrimination claim, engaged a representative who held no UK legal qualifications. At the beginning of the hearing, the representative alleged bias against the tribunal, invited the tribunal to discharge itself, and then both he and Mr Facey refused to participate further in the proceedings. Mr Facey subsequently appealed the (inevitable) dismissal of his claim and costs order.
Detailed notes of the hearing were provided by each of the two Respondents' Counsel, the chairman, both lay members and one solicitor. The Applicant's representative asked the EAT to order the chair and members to be cross-examined on their evidence. The issue was the competency and compellability of tribunal members to give evidence before the EAT.
Following a lengthy review of the authorities, the EAT held the following steps should be taken when allegations of bias are made against the members of a tribunal:
(i) The steps outlined in the EAT practice direction para. 9(3) should be taken, and unsworn comments may then be taken from the chair and, if necessary, lay members
(ii) the EAT may require sworn witness statements from persons other than members of the tribunal
(iii) the EAT may invite but not require the chair or members of the tribunal to provide sworn, written evidence in chief as to primary fact
(iv) in a suitable case it will be possible, after such an invitation, for adverse inferences to be drawn from a member's failure without good reason to provide sworn, written evidence in chief as to primary fact
(v) if, notwithstanding the material already collected, the EAT thinks that cross-examination would materially assist it, it may require the attendance for oral cross-examination of deponents not including the chairman or other members of the tribunal
(vi) the EAT is not to hear a member's cross-examination, even where the member has agreed to attend
(vii) the EAT is not to require the attendance of a member for cross-examination, nor to require disclosure of documents from him/her
(viii) the EAT is not to draw adverse inference from a member's failure to attend for cross-examination.
________________________________________
4 Advertisement - Employment Vacancy
Liberty
Protecting Civil Liberties
Promoting Human Rights
Protecting Civil Liberties
Promoting Human Rights
Locum Legal Officer
Liberty wishes to recruit a Locum Legal Officer to start in late October for a period of 3 to 6 months.The post holder will be responsible for undertaking test cases on Human Rights and Civil Liberties issues, both in domestic and European Court of Human Rights jurisdictions. Experience of taking such cases is necessary. The post is suitable for a barrister or solicitor.
The post is full time but applicants who can only work part time may be considered. Secondments will be considered.
Salary £22,600-£25,000.
Please apply in writing with c.v. to arrive on or by Friday 22nd September to:
James Welch
Legal Director
Liberty
21 Tabard Street
London SE1 4LA
Monday, 4 September 2000
Reminder - new right to be accompanied commences today
A quick reminder: the new right to be accompanied in disciplinary and grievance procedures comes into force today.
Also coming into force today is the revised ACAS Code on disciplinary and grievance procedures in the workforce. For a copy, go to http://www.acas.org.uk/acascode.pdf (you need Adobe Acrobat to read it).
Also coming into force today is the revised ACAS Code on disciplinary and grievance procedures in the workforce. For a copy, go to http://www.acas.org.uk/acascode.pdf (you need Adobe Acrobat to read it).
Friday, 25 August 2000
New EAT cases
Not much happens in August - just a few new EAT cases of interest...
These cases are unreported (although some may be reported in due course). All transcripts can be found at http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/eat/eatjudgments.nsf.
Barnes Thomas & Co -v- Leavesley [13.7.2000, HHJ Peter Clark]
What happens to employees of a solicitors' firm when the firm is intervened in by the Law Society? Are they deemed to be dismissed, under section 136(5) of the ERA 1996, for the purpose of redundancy? The EAT thought not in this case, and that the contracts of employment remained operative. However, it remitted the case back to the ET for further consideration on the facts, and to allow the Law Society to make representations.
Charnos v Donnelly [27.7.2000, Lord Johnson]
In a conduct dismissal, the employer promised an 'informant' employee that his identity would remain confidential. The tribunal ordered the employer, who was giving evidence, to produce documents and answer questions that would identify the employee (it not being possible to anonymise the relevant document). The EAT held that the interests of a full and fair hearing will not always override an employer's desire to honour a promise of anonymity. It reversed the tribunal's decision and held that the employer did not need to produce the documents or answer the questions.
Clark v Watford Borough Council [4.5.2000, HHJ Peter Clark]
Another example of the EAT saying that employment tribunals should only allow applications of 'no case to answer' in the rarest circumstances, and that it is usually incumbent on the tribunal to hear both parties' evidence before deciding the case.
________________________________________
Advertisement
SEMINAR - HUMAN RIGHTS
2 Gray's Inn Square Chambers invite you to two seminars on the Human Rights Act 1998, on 13th and 27th September 2000.
The following topics will be covered:
Part 1 - 13th September
• an overview of the Human Rights Act
• principles and interpretation
• making a Human Rights claim
• judicial approaches
Part 2 - 27th September
The practical impact of the Human Rights Act on:
• employment
• civil litigation
• crime
• children proceedings and ancillary relief
• housing
Venue
The Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, Holborn WC1
Fees
£90 + VAT (totalling £105.75) for Part 1 and Part 2
£50 + VAT (totalling £58.75) for one part only.
For further information and a booking form, please contact Martin Poulter, senior clerk, on 020 7440 8450 or via Email on mpoulter@2gis.co.uk?SUBJECT=Seminar
These cases are unreported (although some may be reported in due course). All transcripts can be found at http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/eat/eatjudgments.nsf.
Barnes Thomas & Co -v- Leavesley [13.7.2000, HHJ Peter Clark]
What happens to employees of a solicitors' firm when the firm is intervened in by the Law Society? Are they deemed to be dismissed, under section 136(5) of the ERA 1996, for the purpose of redundancy? The EAT thought not in this case, and that the contracts of employment remained operative. However, it remitted the case back to the ET for further consideration on the facts, and to allow the Law Society to make representations.
Charnos v Donnelly [27.7.2000, Lord Johnson]
In a conduct dismissal, the employer promised an 'informant' employee that his identity would remain confidential. The tribunal ordered the employer, who was giving evidence, to produce documents and answer questions that would identify the employee (it not being possible to anonymise the relevant document). The EAT held that the interests of a full and fair hearing will not always override an employer's desire to honour a promise of anonymity. It reversed the tribunal's decision and held that the employer did not need to produce the documents or answer the questions.
Clark v Watford Borough Council [4.5.2000, HHJ Peter Clark]
Another example of the EAT saying that employment tribunals should only allow applications of 'no case to answer' in the rarest circumstances, and that it is usually incumbent on the tribunal to hear both parties' evidence before deciding the case.
________________________________________
Advertisement
SEMINAR - HUMAN RIGHTS
2 Gray's Inn Square Chambers invite you to two seminars on the Human Rights Act 1998, on 13th and 27th September 2000.
The following topics will be covered:
Part 1 - 13th September
• an overview of the Human Rights Act
• principles and interpretation
• making a Human Rights claim
• judicial approaches
Part 2 - 27th September
The practical impact of the Human Rights Act on:
• employment
• civil litigation
• crime
• children proceedings and ancillary relief
• housing
Venue
The Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, Holborn WC1
Fees
£90 + VAT (totalling £105.75) for Part 1 and Part 2
£50 + VAT (totalling £58.75) for one part only.
For further information and a booking form, please contact Martin Poulter, senior clerk, on 020 7440 8450 or via Email on mpoulter@2gis.co.uk?SUBJECT=Seminar
Tuesday, 15 August 2000
General Update
CONTENTS
1. DTI Consultation - Work and Parents
2. TUC on the lookout for the next workplace plague
3. Recent EAT Decisions
4. Advertisement
________________________________________
1. DTI Consultation - Work and Parents
A couple of months ago, the DTI set up a review team to report on the effectiveness of the UK's family friendly policies. In particular, it was to deal with the issue of whether parental leave should be paid (rather than unpaid, as it is at present).
The review team has called for submissions from the public on various matters within its terms of reference. In a novel fashion, it has set up a response form on the internet! The URL is http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/review.htm
________________________________________
2. Unions urged to identify the next workplace plague
The TUC is today (Tuesday) calling upon trade unions to be on the lookout for new workplace diseases, in the hope of discovering the `next big thing' after RSI and stress.
In a special report in the TUC-backed quarterly safety magazine Hazards, union safety reps are urged to ask their workmates what health problems they are experiencing, so that detailed research can identify previously hidden occupational diseases. Safety reps are to be trained by the TUC in techniques such as "body mapping", which involves workers marking on a map of the body where they are experiencing pain, collating the results and identifying any links with work.
________________________________________
3. New EAT Decisions
These cases are unreported (although some may be reported in due course). All transcripts can be found at http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/eat/eatjudgments.nsf.
D'Souza v London Borough of Lambeth [27.6.2000, Morison J.]
Another appellate decision in the long-running battle by Mr D'Souza against his former employers. This raises an interesting point. Section 4 of the Race Relations Act 1976 prohibits discrimination when offering employment and during employment. In Post Office v Adekeye (no. 2), the Court of Appeal held that section 4 cannot be relied upon by an ex-employee who complains about the way s/he is treated after dismissal. Mr D'Souza attempted to argue that Adekeye was wrongly decided, being contrary to a purposive construction of the RRA 1976. The EAT agreed that Akekeye appeared to be contrary to parliamentary intent: however, it held that it was bound by Adekeye and therefore Mr D'Souza's appeal must fail. The EAT also suggested that the Court of Appeal might like to review its decision in Adekeye following the ECJ's decision in Coote v Granada Hospitality (discriminatory references after dismissal can found an action).
Giraud UK v Smith [26.6.2000, Maurice Kay J.]
A contract of employment provided that if an employee failed to give his contractual notice when resigning, it would result in a deduction from his wages equivalent to the number of days short. The EAT upheld the employment tribunal's decision that this was a penalty clause (and thus invalid). It was not a liquidated damages clause (which would be enforceable) because it was not a genuine pre-estimate of the loss to the employer if the employee failed to give proper notice, and did not prohibit the employer from seeking further damages (in addition to docking pay) through the courts.
West Yorkshire Police v Vento [8.6.2000, Lindsay J.]
In a sex discrimination claim, if there is no actual male comparator and the tribunal has to rely on a hypothetical male comparator, the best way to do it is to look at how the employer treated men in similar (albeit not identical) circumstances. It is dangerous, albeit not impermissible, to rely on evidence from witnesses who are asked how they would have treated men - since such witnesses would know their answers cannot be disproved.
________________________________________
4 Advertisement
An Australian employment law practitioner is seeking a temporary or permanent position in the London metropolitan area. He has three years' post-admission experience in contentious and non-contentious matters together with post-graduate qualifications from the University of Melbourne. He can be contacted by email - cooleypaul@hotmail.com or by mobile telephone - 07947 133966.
1. DTI Consultation - Work and Parents
2. TUC on the lookout for the next workplace plague
3. Recent EAT Decisions
4. Advertisement
________________________________________
1. DTI Consultation - Work and Parents
A couple of months ago, the DTI set up a review team to report on the effectiveness of the UK's family friendly policies. In particular, it was to deal with the issue of whether parental leave should be paid (rather than unpaid, as it is at present).
The review team has called for submissions from the public on various matters within its terms of reference. In a novel fashion, it has set up a response form on the internet! The URL is http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/review.htm
________________________________________
2. Unions urged to identify the next workplace plague
The TUC is today (Tuesday) calling upon trade unions to be on the lookout for new workplace diseases, in the hope of discovering the `next big thing' after RSI and stress.
In a special report in the TUC-backed quarterly safety magazine Hazards, union safety reps are urged to ask their workmates what health problems they are experiencing, so that detailed research can identify previously hidden occupational diseases. Safety reps are to be trained by the TUC in techniques such as "body mapping", which involves workers marking on a map of the body where they are experiencing pain, collating the results and identifying any links with work.
________________________________________
3. New EAT Decisions
These cases are unreported (although some may be reported in due course). All transcripts can be found at http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/eat/eatjudgments.nsf.
D'Souza v London Borough of Lambeth [27.6.2000, Morison J.]
Another appellate decision in the long-running battle by Mr D'Souza against his former employers. This raises an interesting point. Section 4 of the Race Relations Act 1976 prohibits discrimination when offering employment and during employment. In Post Office v Adekeye (no. 2), the Court of Appeal held that section 4 cannot be relied upon by an ex-employee who complains about the way s/he is treated after dismissal. Mr D'Souza attempted to argue that Adekeye was wrongly decided, being contrary to a purposive construction of the RRA 1976. The EAT agreed that Akekeye appeared to be contrary to parliamentary intent: however, it held that it was bound by Adekeye and therefore Mr D'Souza's appeal must fail. The EAT also suggested that the Court of Appeal might like to review its decision in Adekeye following the ECJ's decision in Coote v Granada Hospitality (discriminatory references after dismissal can found an action).
Giraud UK v Smith [26.6.2000, Maurice Kay J.]
A contract of employment provided that if an employee failed to give his contractual notice when resigning, it would result in a deduction from his wages equivalent to the number of days short. The EAT upheld the employment tribunal's decision that this was a penalty clause (and thus invalid). It was not a liquidated damages clause (which would be enforceable) because it was not a genuine pre-estimate of the loss to the employer if the employee failed to give proper notice, and did not prohibit the employer from seeking further damages (in addition to docking pay) through the courts.
West Yorkshire Police v Vento [8.6.2000, Lindsay J.]
In a sex discrimination claim, if there is no actual male comparator and the tribunal has to rely on a hypothetical male comparator, the best way to do it is to look at how the employer treated men in similar (albeit not identical) circumstances. It is dangerous, albeit not impermissible, to rely on evidence from witnesses who are asked how they would have treated men - since such witnesses would know their answers cannot be disproved.
________________________________________
4 Advertisement
An Australian employment law practitioner is seeking a temporary or permanent position in the London metropolitan area. He has three years' post-admission experience in contentious and non-contentious matters together with post-graduate qualifications from the University of Melbourne. He can be contacted by email - cooleypaul@hotmail.com or by mobile telephone - 07947 133966.
Monday, 31 July 2000
Midland Bank v Madden - C of A result
I have received the following message from David Reade, Counsel for the employee in Foley v Post Office (which was heard at the same time as Midland Bank v Madden).
He tells me that no written decision is yet available, but that the Court of Appeal wanted to give a verbal judgment before the vacation.
He tells me that no written decision is yet available, but that the Court of Appeal wanted to give a verbal judgment before the vacation.
Friday, 28 July 2000
Waters v Police - H of L judgment
The House of Lords handed down its opinion yesterday (27th July 2000) in Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis.
FACTS
Ms Waters was a police officer. She alleged she was raped and buggered by a fellow police officer. Her complaint about that officer was not taken seriously or properly investigated. Moreover, she was subsequently tormented and bullied by her colleagues for complaining about a fellow officer. She suffered psychological harm as a result of (1) the failure to investigate, and (2) the subsequent bullying.
Her claims of sex discrimination failed before the IT, EAT and Court of Appeal - essentially because it was accepted that the constable was not acting in the course of his employment. That finding was not appealed.
She also brought a claim for personal injuries in the High Court. This was struck out as disclosing no reasonable casue of action, and the strike-out was upheld by the judge and the Court of Appeal. It is against that strike-out that Ms Waters appealed to the House of Lords.
DECISION
The House of Lords held (unanimously) that is clearly arguable that an employer (including the police, as a quasi-employer) owes a duty of care to an employee to investigate allegations of rape by colleagues. It is also clearly arguable that the commissioner was (1) in breach of that duty by failing to investigate; and, (2) vicariously liable under section 48 of the Police Act 1964 for the subsequent acts of police officers in bullying and harassing the Claimant.
Accordingly the appeal was allowed and the strike-out overturned.
The House also stated (by a majority of 4:1) that the cases holding that the police owe no duty of care to individuals to investigate crime might not be applicable where the police are also the employer of the victim of crime, since such a person falls to be considered under duties to employees, not duties to members of the public.
gordpublish@supanet.com) for notifying me of this decision>
FACTS
Ms Waters was a police officer. She alleged she was raped and buggered by a fellow police officer. Her complaint about that officer was not taken seriously or properly investigated. Moreover, she was subsequently tormented and bullied by her colleagues for complaining about a fellow officer. She suffered psychological harm as a result of (1) the failure to investigate, and (2) the subsequent bullying.
Her claims of sex discrimination failed before the IT, EAT and Court of Appeal - essentially because it was accepted that the constable was not acting in the course of his employment. That finding was not appealed.
She also brought a claim for personal injuries in the High Court. This was struck out as disclosing no reasonable casue of action, and the strike-out was upheld by the judge and the Court of Appeal. It is against that strike-out that Ms Waters appealed to the House of Lords.
DECISION
The House of Lords held (unanimously) that is clearly arguable that an employer (including the police, as a quasi-employer) owes a duty of care to an employee to investigate allegations of rape by colleagues. It is also clearly arguable that the commissioner was (1) in breach of that duty by failing to investigate; and, (2) vicariously liable under section 48 of the Police Act 1964 for the subsequent acts of police officers in bullying and harassing the Claimant.
Accordingly the appeal was allowed and the strike-out overturned.
The House also stated (by a majority of 4:1) that the cases holding that the police owe no duty of care to individuals to investigate crime might not be applicable where the police are also the employer of the victim of crime, since such a person falls to be considered under duties to employees, not duties to members of the public.
Monday, 24 July 2000
EC Directive on Combating Disctimination on Grouds of Racial and Ethnic Origin
The EC Directive on Combating Disctimination on the Grouds of Racial and Ethnic Origin (in, inter alia, employment) was promulgated on 29th June 2000 and published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 19th July 2000.
A copy is attached to this Email (pdf format).
The main points are:
o eliminate direct and indirect discrimination (including harassment) on racial and ethnic origin in matters relating to employment, membership of trades unions, social security, healthcare, education and access to supply of goods and services
o positive action is expressly permitted
o burden of proof on Respondents to disprove discrimination once a prima facia case is established
o to be implemented by 19th July 2003
Thanks to Henry Scrope of DiscLaw Publishing Limited (www.emplaw.com) for notifying me of the publication of the Directive.
A copy is attached to this Email (pdf format).
The main points are:
o eliminate direct and indirect discrimination (including harassment) on racial and ethnic origin in matters relating to employment, membership of trades unions, social security, healthcare, education and access to supply of goods and services
o positive action is expressly permitted
o burden of proof on Respondents to disprove discrimination once a prima facia case is established
o to be implemented by 19th July 2003
Thanks to Henry Scrope of DiscLaw Publishing Limited (www.emplaw.com) for notifying me of the publication of the Directive.
Thursday, 20 July 2000
H of L abolished Advocates' Immunity from Suit
Not strictly employment, but sufficiently of interest to everyone...
The House of Lords has just handed down judgment abolishing advocates' immunity from claims of negligence in civil proceedings.
In Arthur J.S. Hall v Simons (and conjoined appeals) (HL 20th April 2000), a 7-member House of Lords unanimously held that advocates can now be sued for negligence arising out of their conduct of civil hearings. The principle of advocates' immunity, as set out in Rondel v Worsley, should be abolished.
Although not the central issue of the case, the House of Lords split down the middle on whether to retain the immunity for criminal cases. Three members held it should be retained, two held it should be abolished (subject to certain safeguards), one said it should be abolished absolutely, and one member did not express an opinion.
The transcript can be downloaded from http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000720/hall-1.htm
Doubtless BMIF and SIF will be in touch with us soon concerning a nice little increase in premiums...
The House of Lords has just handed down judgment abolishing advocates' immunity from claims of negligence in civil proceedings.
In Arthur J.S. Hall v Simons (and conjoined appeals) (HL 20th April 2000), a 7-member House of Lords unanimously held that advocates can now be sued for negligence arising out of their conduct of civil hearings. The principle of advocates' immunity, as set out in Rondel v Worsley, should be abolished.
Although not the central issue of the case, the House of Lords split down the middle on whether to retain the immunity for criminal cases. Three members held it should be retained, two held it should be abolished (subject to certain safeguards), one said it should be abolished absolutely, and one member did not express an opinion.
The transcript can be downloaded from http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000720/hall-1.htm
Doubtless BMIF and SIF will be in touch with us soon concerning a nice little increase in premiums...
Thursday, 6 July 2000
New TUPE Decision
Adam Creme, head of the Employment Rights Unit at UNISON, has sent me the transcript of an important TUPE decision, handed down by the EAT on 28th June 2000.
In RCO Support Services v UNISON (+ others), the Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust decided to transfer much of the work from one hospital to a nearby hospital, three miles away. The issue was whether there was a transfer of undertakings in relation to the cleaning and catering support services (which were undertaken by different companies, one at each of the two hospitals) - and, therefore, if the cleaning and catering staff had their employment transferred from one company to the other.
On the facts, the ET held (and Lindsay J. in the EAT upheld) that there had been a transfer.
The case is important because:
(a) unlike most TUPE decisions, it is very readable!
(b) it analyses the conflicting decisions in Suzen, Betts v Brintel and ECM Vehicles v Cox;
(c) in doing so, it sounds the death-knell to the ECJ's decision in Suzen.
Essentially, the EAT confirms that there is no rule of law that - where a labour-intensive business does not take on staff employed by a previous undertaking - there is no transfer of undertaking.
Lindsay J.'s concluding paragraph is reproduced below:
"16. ...In the light of ECM in the Court of Appeal we cannot say with any confidence that the [employment] tribunal thereby erred in law. We are no sorry so to conclude. There is a real danger, were Suzen to be given the unqualified force that has been argued for it, that in labour-intensive areas of employment such as cleaning and catering, where contracting-out is now common and where significant assets are often either unnecessary or unlikely to be moved, an incoming contractor would be able to avoid the [Acquired Rights] Directive by the simple expedient, often easy of achievement, of ensuring that he took on none of the previous contractor's workforce. The protection of employees' acquired rights, a basic objective of the Directive, would not only be jeopardised but, as Miss Gower, for the former employees, asserts, would be jeopardised in relation to perhaps the most vulnerable of all classes of workers, those with only relatively simple and commonly-available skills which, on that account, the incoming contractor could readily choose to supply by way of others in the labour market. There are, of course, economic arguments that incoming contractors should be free to bid for their contracts as competitively as they may dare and should thus be entirely free to avoid all obligations to the entrenched employees. However, such economic arguments are not for us and, had they been intended to hold sway, the Acquired Rights Directive would surely never have been called into existence. We dismiss the appeals."
In RCO Support Services v UNISON (+ others), the Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust decided to transfer much of the work from one hospital to a nearby hospital, three miles away. The issue was whether there was a transfer of undertakings in relation to the cleaning and catering support services (which were undertaken by different companies, one at each of the two hospitals) - and, therefore, if the cleaning and catering staff had their employment transferred from one company to the other.
On the facts, the ET held (and Lindsay J. in the EAT upheld) that there had been a transfer.
The case is important because:
(a) unlike most TUPE decisions, it is very readable!
(b) it analyses the conflicting decisions in Suzen, Betts v Brintel and ECM Vehicles v Cox;
(c) in doing so, it sounds the death-knell to the ECJ's decision in Suzen.
Essentially, the EAT confirms that there is no rule of law that - where a labour-intensive business does not take on staff employed by a previous undertaking - there is no transfer of undertaking.
Lindsay J.'s concluding paragraph is reproduced below:
"16. ...In the light of ECM in the Court of Appeal we cannot say with any confidence that the [employment] tribunal thereby erred in law. We are no sorry so to conclude. There is a real danger, were Suzen to be given the unqualified force that has been argued for it, that in labour-intensive areas of employment such as cleaning and catering, where contracting-out is now common and where significant assets are often either unnecessary or unlikely to be moved, an incoming contractor would be able to avoid the [Acquired Rights] Directive by the simple expedient, often easy of achievement, of ensuring that he took on none of the previous contractor's workforce. The protection of employees' acquired rights, a basic objective of the Directive, would not only be jeopardised but, as Miss Gower, for the former employees, asserts, would be jeopardised in relation to perhaps the most vulnerable of all classes of workers, those with only relatively simple and commonly-available skills which, on that account, the incoming contractor could readily choose to supply by way of others in the labour market. There are, of course, economic arguments that incoming contractors should be free to bid for their contracts as competitively as they may dare and should thus be entirely free to avoid all obligations to the entrenched employees. However, such economic arguments are not for us and, had they been intended to hold sway, the Acquired Rights Directive would surely never have been called into existence. We dismiss the appeals."
Saturday, 1 July 2000
Part Time Workers Regs
Employment Law (UK) List - http://www.danielbarnett.co.uk
A quick reminder: the Part Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 come into force today.
A quick reminder: the Part Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 come into force today.
Monday, 26 June 2000
Industrial Action Code of Practice and C of A decision [auto260600]
CONTENTS
1. Revised Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers
2. Reference to ECJ - Lawrence v Regent Office Care Ltd.
________________________________________
1. Revised Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers
The DTI has today issued the draft revised Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers.
Subject to parliamentary approval, it will take effect on 18th September 2000.
To obtain a copy (Word for Windows format, 68K), please reply to this message (ensuring 'auto260600' appears in the subject line).
________________________________________
2. Reference to ECJ - Lawrence v Regent Office Care Ltd.
The Court of Appeal has referred the above case to the ECJ in a decision dated 21st June 2000.
Facts: 447 applicants worked in the cleaning and catering services departments for North Yorkshire schools. Following compulsory competitive tendering of the services, the Council reduced the wages of female workers in order for its in-house company to remain competitive. The female workers took their Equal Pay Act claim to the House of Lords [1995] ICR 833, where they eventually succeeded.
Whilst that litigation was going on, a further competitive tendering exericse took place. The wages of female workers who were transferred under TUPE to a contracted-out organisation were either maintained (on a discriminatory basis) or reduced further.
Issue for the domestic courts: Could the female workers who continued to work for an undertaking contracted out by a local authority rely on male comparators who continued to be employed by the local authority (i.e. not the same, or an associated, employer)?
Questions Referred: The Court of Appeal referred the following two questions to the ECJ (subject to submissions from Counsel as to the precise wording to be used):
(1) Is Article 141 (prev. Art. 119) directly applicable in the circumstances of this case...so that it can be relied upon by the applicants in national proceedings to enable them to compare their pay with that of men in the employment of the North Yorkshire County Council who are performing work of equal value to that done by the applicants?
(2) Can an applicant who seeks to place reliance on the direct effect of Article 141, do so only if the respondent employer is in a position where he is able to explain why the employer of the chosen comparator pays his employees as he does?
1. Revised Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers
2. Reference to ECJ - Lawrence v Regent Office Care Ltd.
________________________________________
1. Revised Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers
The DTI has today issued the draft revised Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers.
Subject to parliamentary approval, it will take effect on 18th September 2000.
To obtain a copy (Word for Windows format, 68K), please reply to this message (ensuring 'auto260600' appears in the subject line).
________________________________________
2. Reference to ECJ - Lawrence v Regent Office Care Ltd.
The Court of Appeal has referred the above case to the ECJ in a decision dated 21st June 2000.
Facts: 447 applicants worked in the cleaning and catering services departments for North Yorkshire schools. Following compulsory competitive tendering of the services, the Council reduced the wages of female workers in order for its in-house company to remain competitive. The female workers took their Equal Pay Act claim to the House of Lords [1995] ICR 833, where they eventually succeeded.
Whilst that litigation was going on, a further competitive tendering exericse took place. The wages of female workers who were transferred under TUPE to a contracted-out organisation were either maintained (on a discriminatory basis) or reduced further.
Issue for the domestic courts: Could the female workers who continued to work for an undertaking contracted out by a local authority rely on male comparators who continued to be employed by the local authority (i.e. not the same, or an associated, employer)?
Questions Referred: The Court of Appeal referred the following two questions to the ECJ (subject to submissions from Counsel as to the precise wording to be used):
(1) Is Article 141 (prev. Art. 119) directly applicable in the circumstances of this case...so that it can be relied upon by the applicants in national proceedings to enable them to compare their pay with that of men in the employment of the North Yorkshire County Council who are performing work of equal value to that done by the applicants?
(2) Can an applicant who seeks to place reliance on the direct effect of Article 141, do so only if the respondent employer is in a position where he is able to explain why the employer of the chosen comparator pays his employees as he does?
Wednesday, 21 June 2000
New Decisions
CONTENTS
1. Court of Appeal - East Riding of Yorkshire Council v Gibson
2. Recent EAT Decisions
________________________________________
1. Court of Appeal - East Riding of Yorkshire Council v Gibson
The Court of Appeal has this morning handed down judgment in East Riding of Yorkshire Council v Gibson, overturning the decision of Morison J. in the EAT [1999] ICR 622.
Mrs Gibson, who was employed by the Council as a swimming instructor, brought a claim seeking holiday pay against the Council for the period 23rd November 1996 until 1st October 1998. The 23rd November 1996 was the date by which all member states should have implemented the Working Time Directive (93/104/EC), and 1st October 1998 was the date that the Working Time Regulations 1998 came into force.
She argued that the Directive had direct effect, and she could therefore claim directly against the Council (as an emanation of the State) for the State's failure to implement the directive between 1996 and 1998.
The employment tribunal held that the Directive did not have direct effect. The EAT held that it did, and that Mrs Gibson was entitled to succeed. The Court of Appeal (lead judgment from Mummery LJ) held that it did not have direct effect.
The main consideration was that the Directive was not sufficiently precise. It left a number of questions unanswered, such as the precise definition of 'working time' (upon which the entitlement to leave depended), the absence of criteria to assess entitlement during the first year (or part-year) of employment, or problems arising through part-time work, work on a commission basis, or where there was more than one employer.
Since the Directive was not sufficiently precise, it followed that it could not be relied upon by Mrs Gibson as having direct effect.
________________________________________
2. Recent EAT Decisions
These cases are unreported (although some may be reported in due course). All transcripts can be found at http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/eat/eatjudgments.nsf.
Just the one today...
Clark v Farhenheit 451 [6.6.2000, HHJ Altman]
How long is a 'reasonable' notice period for a senior employee? The EAT held that a relevant factor is the length of service of the employee - i.e. the 'reasonable' period is not necessarily determinable as at the date of entering into the contract of employment, but will depend on how long the employee has been employed. The EAT replaced a finding that a reasonable period was one month with a notice period of three months.
1. Court of Appeal - East Riding of Yorkshire Council v Gibson
2. Recent EAT Decisions
________________________________________
1. Court of Appeal - East Riding of Yorkshire Council v Gibson
The Court of Appeal has this morning handed down judgment in East Riding of Yorkshire Council v Gibson, overturning the decision of Morison J. in the EAT [1999] ICR 622.
Mrs Gibson, who was employed by the Council as a swimming instructor, brought a claim seeking holiday pay against the Council for the period 23rd November 1996 until 1st October 1998. The 23rd November 1996 was the date by which all member states should have implemented the Working Time Directive (93/104/EC), and 1st October 1998 was the date that the Working Time Regulations 1998 came into force.
She argued that the Directive had direct effect, and she could therefore claim directly against the Council (as an emanation of the State) for the State's failure to implement the directive between 1996 and 1998.
The employment tribunal held that the Directive did not have direct effect. The EAT held that it did, and that Mrs Gibson was entitled to succeed. The Court of Appeal (lead judgment from Mummery LJ) held that it did not have direct effect.
The main consideration was that the Directive was not sufficiently precise. It left a number of questions unanswered, such as the precise definition of 'working time' (upon which the entitlement to leave depended), the absence of criteria to assess entitlement during the first year (or part-year) of employment, or problems arising through part-time work, work on a commission basis, or where there was more than one employer.
Since the Directive was not sufficiently precise, it followed that it could not be relied upon by Mrs Gibson as having direct effect.
________________________________________
2. Recent EAT Decisions
These cases are unreported (although some may be reported in due course). All transcripts can be found at http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/eat/eatjudgments.nsf.
Just the one today...
Clark v Farhenheit 451 [6.6.2000, HHJ Altman]
How long is a 'reasonable' notice period for a senior employee? The EAT held that a relevant factor is the length of service of the employee - i.e. the 'reasonable' period is not necessarily determinable as at the date of entering into the contract of employment, but will depend on how long the employee has been employed. The EAT replaced a finding that a reasonable period was one month with a notice period of three months.
Monday, 19 June 2000
Recent EAT Decisions
Recent EAT Decisions
These cases are unreported (although some may be reported in due course). All transcripts can be found at http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/eat/eatjudgments.nsf.
Reid v Foxbar Hotel [9.6.2000, Lord Johnston]
The Applicant was subjected to acts of sexual harassment. Three months and 10 days after those acts ceased, during which period she was subjected to a period of silence from her employers, she was dismissed. The Respondent argued that the period of silence was sufficient, since it did not amount to less favourable treatment, to mean that there was no continuing act of discrimination and the claim was out of time. The EAT held that, in the absence of an explanation by the employer, the employment tribunal should infer that the period of silence was attributable to the period of sexual harassment and thus amounted to less favourable treatment in itself. Accordingly a finding of discrimination was substituted.
Highland Primary Care NHS Trust v MacDonald [6.6.2000, Lord Johnston]
Back to the range of reasonable responses! Mrs MacDonald, a long-serving nurse, was found intoxicated on duty. She was dismissed. The majority of the employment tribunal initially thought that this fell within the range of reasonable responses but, after the decision in Haddon v Van den Burgh Foods was published, changed their mind and decided that they would not have dismissed - thus the dismissal was unfair. On the facts of the case, the EAT upheld the tribunal's decision. The decision contains an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable decisions of Haddon v Van den Burgh Foods and Midland Bank v Maddon but, regrettably, does not make matters much clearer.
Bradley v Leisure Promotions [5.6.2000, Lord Johnston]
The IT1 was posted to a tribunal within the 3-month period by recorded delivery. Due to a slight delay, it arrived one day after expiry of the 3-month period. The tribunal found it would have been practicable to present the claim in time, and declined jurisdiction. The EAT held that, notwithstanding the availability of the fax or 1st-class post to present the IT1, the Applicant should not be prejudiced by a slight delay caused by recorded delivery. It held that the employment tribunal's decision was perverse and held that the ET did have jurisdiction to hear the claim.
Lethbridge v British Steel [10.5.2000, HHJ Wilson]
The Applicants were employed by a company which was taken over by British Steel. They were told that there was no TUPE transfer and, on the basis of that representation, signed COT3 agreements to compromise their claims of unfair dismissal. The Respondent conceded before the EAT that the representation that there had been no TUPE transfer was wrong. The EAT held that the employment tribunal should decide, in determining whether the COT3 was effective, "whether the Appellants' decision to sign the COT3 was materially influenced by the admitted false representation that TUPE did not apply". If so, the COT3 was invalid and the Applicants could proceed with their claims.
These cases are unreported (although some may be reported in due course). All transcripts can be found at http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/eat/eatjudgments.nsf.
Reid v Foxbar Hotel [9.6.2000, Lord Johnston]
The Applicant was subjected to acts of sexual harassment. Three months and 10 days after those acts ceased, during which period she was subjected to a period of silence from her employers, she was dismissed. The Respondent argued that the period of silence was sufficient, since it did not amount to less favourable treatment, to mean that there was no continuing act of discrimination and the claim was out of time. The EAT held that, in the absence of an explanation by the employer, the employment tribunal should infer that the period of silence was attributable to the period of sexual harassment and thus amounted to less favourable treatment in itself. Accordingly a finding of discrimination was substituted.
Highland Primary Care NHS Trust v MacDonald [6.6.2000, Lord Johnston]
Back to the range of reasonable responses! Mrs MacDonald, a long-serving nurse, was found intoxicated on duty. She was dismissed. The majority of the employment tribunal initially thought that this fell within the range of reasonable responses but, after the decision in Haddon v Van den Burgh Foods was published, changed their mind and decided that they would not have dismissed - thus the dismissal was unfair. On the facts of the case, the EAT upheld the tribunal's decision. The decision contains an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable decisions of Haddon v Van den Burgh Foods and Midland Bank v Maddon but, regrettably, does not make matters much clearer.
Bradley v Leisure Promotions [5.6.2000, Lord Johnston]
The IT1 was posted to a tribunal within the 3-month period by recorded delivery. Due to a slight delay, it arrived one day after expiry of the 3-month period. The tribunal found it would have been practicable to present the claim in time, and declined jurisdiction. The EAT held that, notwithstanding the availability of the fax or 1st-class post to present the IT1, the Applicant should not be prejudiced by a slight delay caused by recorded delivery. It held that the employment tribunal's decision was perverse and held that the ET did have jurisdiction to hear the claim.
Lethbridge v British Steel [10.5.2000, HHJ Wilson]
The Applicants were employed by a company which was taken over by British Steel. They were told that there was no TUPE transfer and, on the basis of that representation, signed COT3 agreements to compromise their claims of unfair dismissal. The Respondent conceded before the EAT that the representation that there had been no TUPE transfer was wrong. The EAT held that the employment tribunal should decide, in determining whether the COT3 was effective, "whether the Appellants' decision to sign the COT3 was materially influenced by the admitted false representation that TUPE did not apply". If so, the COT3 was invalid and the Applicants could proceed with their claims.
Friday, 16 June 2000
Further Trade Union S.I.s [auto160600]
Some further statutory instruments have been published in connection with the new union recognition procedure, which came into force on 6th June.
They are:
• The Recognition and Derecognition Ballots (Qualified Persons) Order 2000 [SI 2000/1306]
• The Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (Application of Conciliation Provisions) Order 2000 [SI 2000/1307]
• The Employment Tribunals Act (Application of Conciliation Provisions) Order 2000 (Revocation) Order 2000 2000 [SI 2000/1336]
• The Employment Relations Act 1999 (Commencement No. 6 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2000 [SI 2000/1338]
For copies (HTML format, total size approx. 35K), please REPLY to this Email, ensuring the phrase 'auto160600' appears in the subject line.
They are:
• The Recognition and Derecognition Ballots (Qualified Persons) Order 2000 [SI 2000/1306]
• The Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (Application of Conciliation Provisions) Order 2000 [SI 2000/1307]
• The Employment Tribunals Act (Application of Conciliation Provisions) Order 2000 (Revocation) Order 2000 2000 [SI 2000/1336]
• The Employment Relations Act 1999 (Commencement No. 6 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2000 [SI 2000/1338]
For copies (HTML format, total size approx. 35K), please REPLY to this Email, ensuring the phrase 'auto160600' appears in the subject line.
Part Time Workers [auto 170600]
Copies are available of my recent article in Employment Lawyer issue 45 (CCH Croner), published yesterday, on the new Part Time Workers Regulations (which come into force on 1st July 2000).
If anyone would like a copy (Word for Windows format, 37K), please REPLY to this Email, ensuring the phrase 'auto170600' appears in the subject line.
If anyone would like a copy (Word for Windows format, 37K), please REPLY to this Email, ensuring the phrase 'auto170600' appears in the subject line.
Saturday, 10 June 2000
ACAS Code on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
The ACAS Code on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures (which also covers the new statutory right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance meetings) has now been re-published following the extensive consultation period which took place between 24th January and 27th March.
It was laid before parliament on Thursday, where it must remain for 40 days before it can be formally issued.
Unless it is rejected by parliament, it will come into force on 4th September 2000.
A copy of the new Code (Word for Windows format) is attached. A copy in Adobe Acrobat format can be downloaded from www.dti.gov.uk/er/rtba.htm
It was laid before parliament on Thursday, where it must remain for 40 days before it can be formally issued.
Unless it is rejected by parliament, it will come into force on 4th September 2000.
A copy of the new Code (Word for Windows format) is attached. A copy in Adobe Acrobat format can be downloaded from www.dti.gov.uk/er/rtba.htm
Tuesday, 6 June 2000
Trade Union Recognition Documents
TRADE UNION RECOGNITION PROCEDURE BEGINS
The statutory procedure for trade union recognition comes into force tomorrow 6 June.
Welcoming these provisions, Alan Johnson, Minister for Competitiveness, said:
"This legislation is a further important step towards giving workers in the UK basic minimum rights. I am convinced the new statutory procedure will become an accepted and enduring feature of our employment relations system.
"It is the product of detailed and lengthy consultation with employers, unions and others lasting nearly three years. Thanks to their input, I believe this new statutory procedure is fair,
workable, and balanced.
"It is fair because it gives individual workers the right to be collectively represented where a majority of them wants it.
"It is workable because it gives maximum scope for parties to resolvetheir differences voluntarily at every stage.
"And it is balanced, because it safeguards the legitimate interests of business. The costs on business of operating the procedure are low, and businesses employing 20 or fewer are exempt.
"The Central Arbitration Committee is taking on major new responsibilities for overseeing the scheme. So, the membership of the Committee has been strengthened. The new Chairman, Sir Michael Burton, and the other new members of the Committee bring an enormous depth and range of industrial relations experience to their work."
Notes for Editors:
1. The Employment Relations Act 1999 gained Royal Assent on 27 July last year. It contains provisions to introduce a statutory procedure whereby unions can be recognised (or derecognised) for collective bargaining purposes where it is the clear wish of the workers comprising the relevant bargaining unit. These provisions (Sections 1, 5, 6 and 25 and schedule 1 of the Act) are brought into force tomorrow 6 June, as is a Code of Practice on Access to Workers during Recognition and Derecognition Ballots and the Secretary of State's specification of a method of conducting collective bargaining.
2. Where their claims for recognition cannot be resolved bilaterally with the employer, unions can apply under the statutory procedure to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC). The CAC will assign a three person Panel to each case: the Chairman or one of his deputies; a member with experience as an employer's representative; and a member with experience as a worker's representative. The High Court judge, Sir Michael Burton QC, took up his appointment as the new Chairman of the Committee on 27 March. Thirty-nine other new members of the Committee started their appointments on 10 April. Press contact for further information on operation of the CAC is James Peacock, tel: 020 7261 8813.
3. In cases where it organises recognition ballots, the CAC will award recognition if it is supported by:
(a) a majority of those voting; and
(b) at least 40% of the workers entitled to vote.
4. Under the statutory procedure, the CAC may award recognition without a ballot if more than 50% of the bargaining unit are members of the union(s) applying for recognition. However, the
procedure also provides for the CAC to organise a ballot in such circumstances, if, for example, it is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations.
5. The Code of Practice and the specification of the method of conducting collective bargaining are available on DTI's website
at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/recognition.htm
The statutory procedure for trade union recognition comes into force tomorrow 6 June.
Welcoming these provisions, Alan Johnson, Minister for Competitiveness, said:
"This legislation is a further important step towards giving workers in the UK basic minimum rights. I am convinced the new statutory procedure will become an accepted and enduring feature of our employment relations system.
"It is the product of detailed and lengthy consultation with employers, unions and others lasting nearly three years. Thanks to their input, I believe this new statutory procedure is fair,
workable, and balanced.
"It is fair because it gives individual workers the right to be collectively represented where a majority of them wants it.
"It is workable because it gives maximum scope for parties to resolvetheir differences voluntarily at every stage.
"And it is balanced, because it safeguards the legitimate interests of business. The costs on business of operating the procedure are low, and businesses employing 20 or fewer are exempt.
"The Central Arbitration Committee is taking on major new responsibilities for overseeing the scheme. So, the membership of the Committee has been strengthened. The new Chairman, Sir Michael Burton, and the other new members of the Committee bring an enormous depth and range of industrial relations experience to their work."
Notes for Editors:
1. The Employment Relations Act 1999 gained Royal Assent on 27 July last year. It contains provisions to introduce a statutory procedure whereby unions can be recognised (or derecognised) for collective bargaining purposes where it is the clear wish of the workers comprising the relevant bargaining unit. These provisions (Sections 1, 5, 6 and 25 and schedule 1 of the Act) are brought into force tomorrow 6 June, as is a Code of Practice on Access to Workers during Recognition and Derecognition Ballots and the Secretary of State's specification of a method of conducting collective bargaining.
2. Where their claims for recognition cannot be resolved bilaterally with the employer, unions can apply under the statutory procedure to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC). The CAC will assign a three person Panel to each case: the Chairman or one of his deputies; a member with experience as an employer's representative; and a member with experience as a worker's representative. The High Court judge, Sir Michael Burton QC, took up his appointment as the new Chairman of the Committee on 27 March. Thirty-nine other new members of the Committee started their appointments on 10 April. Press contact for further information on operation of the CAC is James Peacock, tel: 020 7261 8813.
3. In cases where it organises recognition ballots, the CAC will award recognition if it is supported by:
(a) a majority of those voting; and
(b) at least 40% of the workers entitled to vote.
4. Under the statutory procedure, the CAC may award recognition without a ballot if more than 50% of the bargaining unit are members of the union(s) applying for recognition. However, the
procedure also provides for the CAC to organise a ballot in such circumstances, if, for example, it is satisfied that a ballot should be held in the interests of good industrial relations.
5. The Code of Practice and the specification of the method of conducting collective bargaining are available on DTI's website
at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/recognition.htm
Monday, 5 June 2000
Trade Union Recognition + other matters
CONTENTS
1. Compulsory Trade Union Recognition - 6th June 2000
2. Bernadone v Pall Mall (Court of Appeal)
3. Recent EAT Decisions
4. Advertisement - Employment Law Service by CCH.NewLaw
________________________________________
1. Compulsory Trade Union Recognition - 6th June 2000
The provisions of the Employment Relations Act 1999 imposing compulsory recognition of trades unions on employers (if a sufficient number of workers vote accordingly) come into force tomorrow. The commencement order is SI 2000 / 1338 (The Employment Relations Act 1999 (Commencement No 6 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2000).
For a change of such stunning importance, very little has been written about it in the legal or popular press (perhaps because of the length and complexity of the relevant Schedules to the statute!). The unions have been gearing up to 6th June for months. Many employers are going to be caught by surprise.
The following documents have now been published:
- The Trade Union Recognition (Method of Collective Bargaining) Order 2000; and,
- the draft Code of Practice on Access to Workers during Recognition and Derecognition Ballots.
For copies of these documents in Word for Windows format, please REPLY to this Email (ensuring the subject line remains unchanged). This is an automated procedure, so I will not see any correspondence you include in your message.
________________________________________
2. Bernadone v Pall Mall
Subscribers probably spotted the Court of Appeal's decision in Bernadone v Pall Mall (CA, 16.5.00, reported in The Times, 26.5.00).
For those who missed it, the Court of Appeal held that:
(a) tortious liabilities (in these cases, liability for personal injuries which accrued before a TUPE transfer) transfer under the TUPE regulations; and,
(b) the benefit of the transferee's insurance policies will also transfer, so that the transferee's insurance company remains liable to satisfy any judgment, notwithstanding that the judgment is obtained against the transferor.
________________________________________
3. Recent EAT Decisions
These cases are unreported (although some may be reported in due course). All transcripts can be found at http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/eat/eatjudgments.nsf.
Tchoula v ICTS (UK) Ltd [4.5.2000, HHJ Peter Clark]
An innovative decision from an appellate court which was desperate to interfere with a high award for injury to feelings in a discrimination case. Following a 21-day hearing, and a further 5 days of deliberation, the employment tribunal allowed 3 of the employee's 21 complaints of discrimination. They awarded £27,000 for injury to feelings and aggravated damages. The EAT held that injury to feeling cases should be divided into 'lower value' and 'higher value' cases, the threshold being around the £10,000 mark. Although it could not interfere with the assessment of damages within a 'lower value' or 'higher value' category, if it thought the tribunal had placed the case into the wrong category, it was entitled to correct this and substitute its own view for that of the tribunal. The EAT held that this was clearly a 'lower value' claim and substituted an award of £10,000.
Colt Group v Couchman [12.1.2000, Charles J.]
The issue for the EAT was whether the small employer exemption in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (now 15, but then 20) applied to companies with less than 20 employees per se, but which were part of a huge national conglomerate (with many more than 20 employees!). The EAT held that the DDA envisaged looking at the number of employees of the company itself - not associated companies - and thus the small-business exemption applied. This is the same decision reached by an earlier division of the EAT in Hardie v CD Northern Ltd. (5.10.99, Lindsay J. - see bulletin dated 16.5.00), but the decision is reached as the result of wholly different arguments.
________________________________________
4. ADVERTISEMENT
Online features:
• Daily case reporting
• Current awareness service
• Constantly updated commentary
• Legislation tracker
• Forms and precedents
• Equivalent to 10 loose-leaf volumes
• Personalised Alert Service – tailor to your requirements and be notified by e-mail of relevant developments
The full package consists of an online service, Employment Lawyer journal, with monthly case law reports and an annual bound case book.
1. Compulsory Trade Union Recognition - 6th June 2000
2. Bernadone v Pall Mall (Court of Appeal)
3. Recent EAT Decisions
4. Advertisement - Employment Law Service by CCH.NewLaw
________________________________________
1. Compulsory Trade Union Recognition - 6th June 2000
The provisions of the Employment Relations Act 1999 imposing compulsory recognition of trades unions on employers (if a sufficient number of workers vote accordingly) come into force tomorrow. The commencement order is SI 2000 / 1338 (The Employment Relations Act 1999 (Commencement No 6 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2000).
For a change of such stunning importance, very little has been written about it in the legal or popular press (perhaps because of the length and complexity of the relevant Schedules to the statute!). The unions have been gearing up to 6th June for months. Many employers are going to be caught by surprise.
The following documents have now been published:
- The Trade Union Recognition (Method of Collective Bargaining) Order 2000; and,
- the draft Code of Practice on Access to Workers during Recognition and Derecognition Ballots.
For copies of these documents in Word for Windows format, please REPLY to this Email (ensuring the subject line remains unchanged). This is an automated procedure, so I will not see any correspondence you include in your message.
________________________________________
2. Bernadone v Pall Mall
Subscribers probably spotted the Court of Appeal's decision in Bernadone v Pall Mall (CA, 16.5.00, reported in The Times, 26.5.00).
For those who missed it, the Court of Appeal held that:
(a) tortious liabilities (in these cases, liability for personal injuries which accrued before a TUPE transfer) transfer under the TUPE regulations; and,
(b) the benefit of the transferee's insurance policies will also transfer, so that the transferee's insurance company remains liable to satisfy any judgment, notwithstanding that the judgment is obtained against the transferor.
________________________________________
3. Recent EAT Decisions
These cases are unreported (although some may be reported in due course). All transcripts can be found at http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/eat/eatjudgments.nsf.
Tchoula v ICTS (UK) Ltd [4.5.2000, HHJ Peter Clark]
An innovative decision from an appellate court which was desperate to interfere with a high award for injury to feelings in a discrimination case. Following a 21-day hearing, and a further 5 days of deliberation, the employment tribunal allowed 3 of the employee's 21 complaints of discrimination. They awarded £27,000 for injury to feelings and aggravated damages. The EAT held that injury to feeling cases should be divided into 'lower value' and 'higher value' cases, the threshold being around the £10,000 mark. Although it could not interfere with the assessment of damages within a 'lower value' or 'higher value' category, if it thought the tribunal had placed the case into the wrong category, it was entitled to correct this and substitute its own view for that of the tribunal. The EAT held that this was clearly a 'lower value' claim and substituted an award of £10,000.
Colt Group v Couchman [12.1.2000, Charles J.]
The issue for the EAT was whether the small employer exemption in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (now 15, but then 20) applied to companies with less than 20 employees per se, but which were part of a huge national conglomerate (with many more than 20 employees!). The EAT held that the DDA envisaged looking at the number of employees of the company itself - not associated companies - and thus the small-business exemption applied. This is the same decision reached by an earlier division of the EAT in Hardie v CD Northern Ltd. (5.10.99, Lindsay J. - see bulletin dated 16.5.00), but the decision is reached as the result of wholly different arguments.
________________________________________
4. ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
EMPLOYMENT LAW SERVICE
Written by experts for experts
Unrivalled coverage and speed of updating
www.cchnewlaw.co.uk
CCH.New Law Employment Law Service provides you with access to all the latest employment law developments and news - the only single source research tool for the employment law practitioner.EMPLOYMENT LAW SERVICE
Written by experts for experts
Unrivalled coverage and speed of updating
www.cchnewlaw.co.uk
Online features:
• Daily case reporting
• Current awareness service
• Constantly updated commentary
• Legislation tracker
• Forms and precedents
• Equivalent to 10 loose-leaf volumes
• Personalised Alert Service – tailor to your requirements and be notified by e-mail of relevant developments
The full package consists of an online service, Employment Lawyer journal, with monthly case law reports and an annual bound case book.
Tuesday, 23 May 2000
[Employment Law List] (1) Parental Leave referred to ECJ (2) Legal Aid in ETs
CONTENTS
1. TUC Parental Leave case referred to ECJ
2. Test case - legal aid in employment tribunals
3. Concise Law News
________________________________________
1. TUC Parental Leave case referred to ECJ
As subscribers will know, last week the High Court heard the TUC's application (argued by Cherie Booth) that the government had failed to properly implement the EC Parental Leave Directive.
The argument, in essence, was that the UK's Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999 only granted rights to parental leave to parents of children born (or adopted) after 15th December 1999. This was the date by which the EC Directive had to be implemented. The TUC argued that the UK Regulations should have applied to parents of all children, irrespective of their date of birth.
The High Court has this morning referred the point to the ECJ. This makes the second case in two days (see yesterday's bulletin concerning Bowden v Tuffnells Parcels)!
I am told that the court (Bingham LJ and Morison J.) indicated that the TUC's argument seemed to be correct, but they thought the matter should be determined by the ECJ. They said that if "as we think" the government may have acted unlawfully then "the sooner this is made clear the better."
An application for an interim Order enabling excluded parents to take parental leave until the ECJ decides the matter was refused.
John Monks, general secretary of the TUC, described the judgment as "a clear moral victory for the TUC" and has invited the government to "back down" on the parental leave issue.
________________________________________
2. Legal Aid in Employment Tribunals
According to an article in The Scotsman (23/5/2000), a bus driver claiming unfair dismissal is challenging the government under the European Convention of Human Rights because legal aid is not available for employment tribunals (which he asserts is a denial of his right to a fair hearing under Article 6). Readers will be aware that the ECHR, which will be officially recognised in England from 2nd October 2000, is already directly enforceable in Scotland.
I have no further details about the case (except that the unfair dismissal case name is John Grant v Avondale Coaches).
________________________________________
3. Concise Law News
Following distribution of Ramesh Maharaj's employment law summary earlier this week, I received the following message from Emma Grace of Nelson & Co:
We subscribe regularly to your newsletter, which is very useful. I note the
summary which you include from Mr Maharaj. You might like to point out to
both him and your other subscribers that this contains inaccurate
information. The National Minimum Wage does not go up on 1st June for
adults and young people. The Young People's rate does indeed go up to £3.20
on 1st June. The rise from £3.60 to £3.70 for adults does not kick in until
October, as the DTI site makes clear.
Ramesh Maharaj replies as follows:
I have re-checked the point and the subscriber is correct.
The minimum wage for adults increases from 3.60 to 3.70 in October.
Sorry for the error.
1. TUC Parental Leave case referred to ECJ
2. Test case - legal aid in employment tribunals
3. Concise Law News
________________________________________
1. TUC Parental Leave case referred to ECJ
As subscribers will know, last week the High Court heard the TUC's application (argued by Cherie Booth) that the government had failed to properly implement the EC Parental Leave Directive.
The argument, in essence, was that the UK's Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999 only granted rights to parental leave to parents of children born (or adopted) after 15th December 1999. This was the date by which the EC Directive had to be implemented. The TUC argued that the UK Regulations should have applied to parents of all children, irrespective of their date of birth.
The High Court has this morning referred the point to the ECJ. This makes the second case in two days (see yesterday's bulletin concerning Bowden v Tuffnells Parcels)!
I am told that the court (Bingham LJ and Morison J.) indicated that the TUC's argument seemed to be correct, but they thought the matter should be determined by the ECJ. They said that if "as we think" the government may have acted unlawfully then "the sooner this is made clear the better."
An application for an interim Order enabling excluded parents to take parental leave until the ECJ decides the matter was refused.
John Monks, general secretary of the TUC, described the judgment as "a clear moral victory for the TUC" and has invited the government to "back down" on the parental leave issue.
________________________________________
2. Legal Aid in Employment Tribunals
According to an article in The Scotsman (23/5/2000), a bus driver claiming unfair dismissal is challenging the government under the European Convention of Human Rights because legal aid is not available for employment tribunals (which he asserts is a denial of his right to a fair hearing under Article 6). Readers will be aware that the ECHR, which will be officially recognised in England from 2nd October 2000, is already directly enforceable in Scotland.
I have no further details about the case (except that the unfair dismissal case name is John Grant v Avondale Coaches).
________________________________________
3. Concise Law News
Following distribution of Ramesh Maharaj's employment law summary earlier this week, I received the following message from Emma Grace of Nelson & Co:
We subscribe regularly to your newsletter, which is very useful. I note the
summary which you include from Mr Maharaj. You might like to point out to
both him and your other subscribers that this contains inaccurate
information. The National Minimum Wage does not go up on 1st June for
adults and young people. The Young People's rate does indeed go up to £3.20
on 1st June. The rise from £3.60 to £3.70 for adults does not kick in until
October, as the DTI site makes clear.
Ramesh Maharaj replies as follows:
I have re-checked the point and the subscriber is correct.
The minimum wage for adults increases from 3.60 to 3.70 in October.
Sorry for the error.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
