According to a report on Croner's Human Resource Centre website, the government has warned of yet further delay before the mandatory statutory dispute resolution procedures come into force.
These procedures, which insert minimum disciplinary and grievance procedure into all contracts of employment, were introduced in Part 3 of the Employment Act 2002. They were originally expected to come into force in Spring 2003. That was put back to Spring 2004 and, according to Croner, has now been put back further until Autumn 2004.
Tuesday, 20 May 2003
Thursday, 15 May 2003
New Tax Act
The Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Bill, referred to in my bulletin dated 5/12/02, has now been enacted and is available on the internet. It is known, unsurprisingly, as the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. It came into force on 6th April 2003.
It repeals and replaces the dearly loved employment sections of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (including ss19 and 148). The substantive law is essentially unchanged; the wording has been tidied up and the section numbers now differ.
The two sections of the ITEPA 2003 which are of principal relevance to employment lawyers are:=
- section 6, which charges tax on employment income. This is defined, in section 62, as:
(a) any salary, wages or fee,
(b) any gratuity or other profit or incidental benefit of any kind obtained by the employee if it is money or money E28099s worth, or
(c) anything else that constitutes an emolument of employment.
and
- section 401, which charges tax on payments made in respect of E2809Ct he termination of a person E28099s employment E2809D insofar as they exceed C2A330,000 (section 403).=
It is important that firms review their compromise agreements to ensure they contain the correct statutory references.
It repeals and replaces the dearly loved employment sections of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (including ss19 and 148). The substantive law is essentially unchanged; the wording has been tidied up and the section numbers now differ.
The two sections of the ITEPA 2003 which are of principal relevance to employment lawyers are:=
- section 6, which charges tax on employment income. This is defined, in section 62, as:
(a) any salary, wages or fee,
(b) any gratuity or other profit or incidental benefit of any kind obtained by the employee if it is money or money E28099s worth, or
(c) anything else that constitutes an emolument of employment.
and
- section 401, which charges tax on payments made in respect of E2809Ct he termination of a person E28099s employment E2809D insofar as they exceed C2A330,000 (section 403).=
It is important that firms review their compromise agreements to ensure they contain the correct statutory references.
Johnson v Unisys Damages
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT BULLETIN
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has, this morning, handed down its decision in Dunnachie v Kingston upon Hull City Council (& conjoined appeals).
It has held that non-pecuniary losses are not recoverable in employment tribunals in unfair dismissal claims. Thus tribunals cannot award damages for personal injuries, aggravation and injury to feelings caused by the manner (or, indeed, fact) of dismissal, as has been the increasing trend since Lord Hoffman's speech in Johnson v Unisys.
Burton J.'s reasoning, which spans over 50 pages, can be summarised in three sentences (as he does in his conclusion), namely:
1. Prior to Johnson, there has been no recovery for non-economic losses in claims for unfair dismissal in employment tribunals;
2. Lord Hoffman's views in Johnson were obiter, therefore Johnson does not require a change in the law; and,
3. having considered the construction of the statute, and the underlying policy arguments, the compensation regime for unfair dismissal is limited to economic losses only and does not extend to damages for personal injuries or injury to feelings.
The transcript is not yet available on the internet. I will send a supplem entary bulletin with the link when it becomes available.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has, this morning, handed down its decision in Dunnachie v Kingston upon Hull City Council (& conjoined appeals).
It has held that non-pecuniary losses are not recoverable in employment tribunals in unfair dismissal claims. Thus tribunals cannot award damages for personal injuries, aggravation and injury to feelings caused by the manner (or, indeed, fact) of dismissal, as has been the increasing trend since Lord Hoffman's speech in Johnson v Unisys.
Burton J.'s reasoning, which spans over 50 pages, can be summarised in three sentences (as he does in his conclusion), namely:
1. Prior to Johnson, there has been no recovery for non-economic losses in claims for unfair dismissal in employment tribunals;
2. Lord Hoffman's views in Johnson were obiter, therefore Johnson does not require a change in the law; and,
3. having considered the construction of the statute, and the underlying policy arguments, the compensation regime for unfair dismissal is limited to economic losses only and does not extend to damages for personal injuries or injury to feelings.
The transcript is not yet available on the internet. I will send a supplem entary bulletin with the link when it becomes available.
Johnson v Unisys Damages
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT BULLETIN
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has, this morning, handed down its decision in Dunnachie v Kingston upon Hull City Council (& conjoined appeals).
It has held that non-pecuniary losses are not recoverable in employment tribunals in unfair dismissal claims. Thus tribunals cannot award damages for personal injuries, aggravation and injury to feelings caused by the manner (or, indeed, fact) of dismissal, as has been the increasing trend since Lord Hoffman's speech in Johnson v Unisys.
Burton J.'s reasoning, which spans over 50 pages, can be summarised in three sentences (as he does in his conclusion), namely:
1. Prior to Johnson, there has been no recovery for non-economic losses in claims for unfair dismissal in employment tribunals;
2. Lord Hoffman's views in Johnson were obiter, therefore Johnson does not require a change in the law; and,
3. having considered the construction of the statute, and the underlying policy arguments, the compensation regime for unfair dismissal is limited to economic losses only and does not extend to damages for personal injuries or injury to feelings.
The transcript is not yet available on the internet. I will send a supplementary bulletin with the link when it becomes available.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has, this morning, handed down its decision in Dunnachie v Kingston upon Hull City Council (& conjoined appeals).
It has held that non-pecuniary losses are not recoverable in employment tribunals in unfair dismissal claims. Thus tribunals cannot award damages for personal injuries, aggravation and injury to feelings caused by the manner (or, indeed, fact) of dismissal, as has been the increasing trend since Lord Hoffman's speech in Johnson v Unisys.
Burton J.'s reasoning, which spans over 50 pages, can be summarised in three sentences (as he does in his conclusion), namely:
1. Prior to Johnson, there has been no recovery for non-economic losses in claims for unfair dismissal in employment tribunals;
2. Lord Hoffman's views in Johnson were obiter, therefore Johnson does not require a change in the law; and,
3. having considered the construction of the statute, and the underlying policy arguments, the compensation regime for unfair dismissal is limited to economic losses only and does not extend to damages for personal injuries or injury to feelings.
The transcript is not yet available on the internet. I will send a supplementary bulletin with the link when it becomes available.
Wednesday, 14 May 2003
Draft Disability Discrimination Regulations
The draft Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 h ave been published on the Stationery Office website.
On a quick glance, the snappily titled Regulations include some pretty wide-sweeping changes, including a change to the definition of 'discrimination', a prohibition on harassment, the (well-known) abolition of the small business exemption, minor tweaks to rules on discrimination against contract workers, an extension of the act to police, barristers and advocates, and add itional regulation dealing with what may - and may not - amount to reasonable adjustments.
If anybody would like to produce a summary of the precise changes made by the Regulations, I will happily distribute it. I have no intention of doing it myself!
The draft Regulations are to come into force (subject to being passed) on 1st October 2004.
On a quick glance, the snappily titled Regulations include some pretty wide-sweeping changes, including a change to the definition of 'discrimination', a prohibition on harassment, the (well-known) abolition of the small business exemption, minor tweaks to rules on discrimination against contract workers, an extension of the act to police, barristers and advocates, and add itional regulation dealing with what may - and may not - amount to reasonable adjustments.
If anybody would like to produce a summary of the precise changes made by the Regulations, I will happily distribute it. I have no intention of doing it myself!
The draft Regulations are to come into force (subject to being passed) on 1st October 2004.
Tuesday, 13 May 2003
New EAT Decision - another Liversidge case
[A job advertisement for Whittles, Manchester, appears at the end of this bulletin]
Chief Constable of Kent County Constabulary v Baskerville (HHJ McMullen, 14/4/03)
-------------------------------------------------
Another decision on the mess created by the Liversidge and McGlennon series of cases, holding that chief constables are not vicariously liable for acts of harassment by one police officer upon another, but may be liable for discrimination in the discharge of administrative or management functions carried out by superior officers on behalf of the chief constable.
This case repeats that distinction but emphsises that it will normally be (a) inappropriate to strike out these cases before hearing the evidence, and (b) will normally be appropriate to allow amendments to include a Burton v De Vere argument.
Interestingly, whilst not expressly overruling this aspect of McGlennon, the EAT casts doubt upon its previous decision that the Equal Treatment Directive cannot be used as an interpretative tool in giving a purposive approach to construing the relevant aspects of the SDA 1975.
For further information on the Liversidge series of cases, see bulletins da= ted 25/7/02 and 11/12/02.
Chief Constable of Kent County Constabulary v Baskerville (HHJ McMullen, 14/4/03)
-------------------------------------------------
Another decision on the mess created by the Liversidge and McGlennon series of cases, holding that chief constables are not vicariously liable for acts of harassment by one police officer upon another, but may be liable for discrimination in the discharge of administrative or management functions carried out by superior officers on behalf of the chief constable.
This case repeats that distinction but emphsises that it will normally be (a) inappropriate to strike out these cases before hearing the evidence, and (b) will normally be appropriate to allow amendments to include a Burton v De Vere argument.
Interestingly, whilst not expressly overruling this aspect of McGlennon, the EAT casts doubt upon its previous decision that the Equal Treatment Directive cannot be used as an interpretative tool in giving a purposive approach to construing the relevant aspects of the SDA 1975.
For further information on the Liversidge series of cases, see bulletins da= ted 25/7/02 and 11/12/02.
Friday, 2 May 2003
New EAT Decisions
[A job advertisement for Islington Law Centre appears at the end of this bulletin]
Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust v Prison Officers' Association
(&716 others)
(Keith J., 4/4/03)
An important decision dealing with the common practice of issuing an originating application attaching a list of multiple applicants (in this case, 716 members of the Prison Officers' Association).
The POA, facing a time-limit problem, issued an IT1 claiming unfair dismissal and failure to consult on behalf of 716 members. It subsequently wrote to those members asking them to confirm they wanted the claims to proceed. It was common ground that those who did not reply had their claims treated as withdrawn.
336 members gave approval after the time limit had expired. The employer applied to strike out their claims on the basis that:
(a) the originating applications had been presented without their authority;
(b) when they purported to ratify the claims, time had expired; and,
(c) because time had expired, the purported ratification was of no effect.
After extensive consideration of the authorities, the EAT held that the applications were valid: the fact that the ratification was provided after expiry of the time limit did not mean that the Originating Applications lodged within the time period were of no effect.
Ree v Redrow Homes (HHJ Prophet, 9/4/03)
A short decision which extends the Burton v De Vere principle (i.e. that an employer can be liable for sex and race discrimination by non-employees, if he has some degree of control over those
non-employees) to claims under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
Recognising that the decision was controversial (because of different wording in the DDA which, on its face, makes a Burton v De Vere argument difficult), the EAT granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Pacific Direct v Riaz (HHJ Peter Clark, 14/4/03)
Another short decision, being authority for the propositions that:
(a) when an unfairly dismissed employee suffers a fire in her house,
at which she has set up a new business to try to mitigate her losses, that fire does not (of itself) break the chain of causation for loss of earnings; and,
(b) tribunals are not obliged to accept an employee's estimate of future earnings when determining future loss of earnings, particularly where that estimate is given off the cuff in oral evidence. They are entitled to make findings more favourable to the Applicant than her own projections.
Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust v Prison Officers' Association
(&716 others)
(Keith J., 4/4/03)
An important decision dealing with the common practice of issuing an originating application attaching a list of multiple applicants (in this case, 716 members of the Prison Officers' Association).
The POA, facing a time-limit problem, issued an IT1 claiming unfair dismissal and failure to consult on behalf of 716 members. It subsequently wrote to those members asking them to confirm they wanted the claims to proceed. It was common ground that those who did not reply had their claims treated as withdrawn.
336 members gave approval after the time limit had expired. The employer applied to strike out their claims on the basis that:
(a) the originating applications had been presented without their authority;
(b) when they purported to ratify the claims, time had expired; and,
(c) because time had expired, the purported ratification was of no effect.
After extensive consideration of the authorities, the EAT held that the applications were valid: the fact that the ratification was provided after expiry of the time limit did not mean that the Originating Applications lodged within the time period were of no effect.
Ree v Redrow Homes (HHJ Prophet, 9/4/03)
A short decision which extends the Burton v De Vere principle (i.e. that an employer can be liable for sex and race discrimination by non-employees, if he has some degree of control over those
non-employees) to claims under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
Recognising that the decision was controversial (because of different wording in the DDA which, on its face, makes a Burton v De Vere argument difficult), the EAT granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Pacific Direct v Riaz (HHJ Peter Clark, 14/4/03)
Another short decision, being authority for the propositions that:
(a) when an unfairly dismissed employee suffers a fire in her house,
at which she has set up a new business to try to mitigate her losses, that fire does not (of itself) break the chain of causation for loss of earnings; and,
(b) tribunals are not obliged to accept an employee's estimate of future earnings when determining future loss of earnings, particularly where that estimate is given off the cuff in oral evidence. They are entitled to make findings more favourable to the Applicant than her own projections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
