The Compensation Bill received Royal Assent as the Compensation Act 2006 on 25th July 2006.
At 25th September 2006 there were 23 Bills with employment law relevance either already introduced in Parliament or at an advanced stage of preparation.
Notes on all employment law related Bills and prospective Bills (plus recently enacted Bills and employment law related Acts of Parliament) are provided from the links below, together with an archive of recent dropped and lapsed employment law related Bills.
Summaries of all cases reported in the ICR and IRLR law reports since end 1999 are now available. All cases reported in ICR 2006 parts 1 to 9 and in IRLR 2006 vol 35 nos 1 to 9 are now noted/summarised and short commentary is provided. This is in addition to summaries and/or headnotes of more than 1,500 other employment cases, new and old. For most new cases there are direct links to free versions of the full judgments on the internet.
1st October 2006 is the start date for new rules banning age discrimination in the workplace, probably the most significant new employment laws since the introduction of the Working Time regulations in 1998. The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 SI 2006/1031 include a ban on age-tainted recruitment unless it is a real requirement for the job (note that the actual publication of an age discriminatory advertisements will not be illegal) and although enforced retirement ages will still be lawful they must normally be 65 or more and enforcing them will be automatically unfair dismissal if specified procedures are not followed. There will be no stautory limit on compensation which can be awarded for infringement of the rules. The current maximum and minimum age limits for claiming redundancy pay and the maximum age limit for claiming unfair dismissal (there is no minimum) are also removed on 1st October 2006. It is worth noting that the government has deferred the pensions-related parts of the new regulations to 1st December 2006.
The regulations are riddled with complexity, especially the transitional provisions, and there will be considerable uncertainty as to their precise effect at least until test cases, particularly on "justification", have been through the tribunals. Employers should take great care and seek advice at an early stage if in any doubt as to the implications of the new rules. The man who was recently reported to have been ordered to take time off work for his 100th birthday must be unusual (see BBC News item 1.9.06) but every employer and employee in the country will be affected by the new rules.
The annual increase in the national minimum wage comes into effect on 1st October 2006 when the basic rate rises from £5.05 to £5.35 per hour. There are also increases from £4.25 to £4.45 per hour for 18-21 year olds and £3.00 to £3.30 per hour for under-18's. In addition the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2006 will also amend the value of living accommodation provided by an employer which can be taken into account in calculating the minimum wage from £3.90 to £4.15 per day.
The TUC denies that increasing the minimum wage results in serious job losses (see TUC Press Release of 21.9.06) but others aren't so sure (see British Retail Consortium Press Release of 21.9.06).
As noted a few months ago, new TUPE rules came into force in April 2006. While in general the new rules do no more than update the "old" 1981 rules, one important change has been to make it clear that employment of an "organised group" of professional services employees will be automatically transferred to a different firm/employer if the client they are servicing transfers its business. The rules are designed for the protection of employees so it is ironic that one of the first uses of this provision is by an advertising agency which is seeking to off-load its responsibilities to staff after a client (Boots Healthcare) transferred its account to a different agency. The McCann Erickson agency claims that employment of some of its high paid staff automatically transferred to a competitor, the Euro RSCG agency, when Euro RSCG won the Boot's account from them. If the case goes to trial it is likely to be of considerable interest as a first, somewhat bizarre, test of the consequences of the government's decision not to provide a "professional firm exemption" from the service transfer part of the new TUPE rules.
(i) Collective redundancies. New rules apply as from 1st October 2006 if 20 or more employees at one establishment are to be dismissed as redundant within a 90 day period (the Collectve Redundancies (Amendment) Regulations 2006). The new regulations amend the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to ensure that an employer proposing collective redundancies must notify the Secretary of State, DTI, at least 30 days (90 days if 100+ employees are being made redundant) before giving notice to terminate an employee's contract of employment in respect of any of those dismissals. Previously the requirement was to give the notice before the first dismissal took effect. Failure to notify the DTI as required is a criminal offence.
(ii) Age limts. It should also be noted that the minimum and maximum age limits for entitlement to statutory redundancy pay cease to apply from 1st October (see notes above on Age Discrimination).
For more information click here on Redundancy / formal notice to DTI and/or on Redundancy / age limits.
The Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales met on 8th September 2006 to make a new Wages Order, effective from 1st October 2006. In general this confirms proposals put forward in June (see 2006/06/06 - DEFRA Press Release, Agricultural Wage Negotiations 2006). The basic minimum rate for an adult standard worker is to increase from £5.58 per hour to £5.74 per hour.
For more information click here on Specific employments / agricultural workers
There is no legal right for most workers to have time off for bank or public holidays. Proposals to make bank and public holidays obligatory for most workers have been dropped and instead a DTI consultation document proposes phasing in an increase in the basic annual paid holiday entitlement for full time workers from 20 days per year as at present to 28 days. In practice in most cases it is likely that bank and public holidays will account for the extra 8 days. The law which gives power to make the required regulations (Work and Families Act 2006 s.13) comes into force on 1st October 2006 and it is likely that the phasing in will be spread over two or three years starting from October 2007. The TUC has calculated that approximately two million employees will receive more holiday than at present if the proposals go ahead.
Separately, a St Andrews Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill is under consideration in the Scottish Parliament which would make St Andrew's day a public holiday in Scotland, starting from 30th November 2007. However there would be no legally enforceable right to have that day off and if they took it workers would lose one of their existing public holidays - so in effect it would be a swap of one public holiday for another.
Various changes to the rules dealing with maternity/paternity/adoption leave and pay come into force on 1st October. In general these are for the benefit of those whose babies are due on or after 1st April 2007 (or where a placement for adoption is on or after that date). The main change is that the statutory maternity and adoption pay period is increased from 6 months to 9 months. The government has said it hopes to increase this to 12 months by Spring 2010 at the latest. Other changes include 52 weeks statutory maternity leave for all working mothers regardless of length of service and removal of the current the rule under which a woman's maternity leave period automatically comes to an end when/if she does any paid work. Under the new rules employees will be able to attend work for up to 10 days (for work, training or to maintain contact) without bringing maternity leave or SMP or to an end.
Until very recently the DTI guidance on rest breaks stated that "Employers must make sure that workers can take their rest, but are not required to make sure they do take their rest". Then in early September 2006 the European Court of Justice ruled that, while this was correct as a statement of the law, it was incompatible with the objective of the EC Working Time Directive on the basis that it might mislead those for whom it was intended. The wording used by the ECJ was itself somewhat misleading and led newspapers to suggest that the Court was ordering employers to force staff to take the minimum rest periods to which they are entitled so the case is perhaps more one of the euro pot calling the DTI kettle black than the important restatement of the law suggested in some quarters. In any event the DTI has now slightly changed its guidance - it has removed the words "but are not required to make sure they do take their rest".
The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has issued guidance in anticipation of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 which comes into effect on 1st October 2006 for England and Wales. From that date the old "fire certificate" arrangements come to an end and fire brigades will no longer as a routine matter advise on the fire precautions an employer should take. The responsibility for fire safety will lie with employers who will have a general duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety of employees plus a general duty in relation to non-employees to take such fire precautions as may reasonably be required in the circumstances to ensure that premises are safe. Employers must carry out a fire safety risk assessment and if they employ five or more employees have added record keeping responsibilities. Also on 1st October similar rules come into effect for Scotland under its own legislation.
In a potentially important interlocutory decision the High Court has ruled that an employee's claim that a term should be implied into his employment contract to prevent his employer from making it difficult or impossible for him to become entitled to contractual benefits has a sufficient chance of success to allow it to go forward to a full trial. A Mr Takacs is claiming that actions taken by Barclays Capital division prevented him from becoming entitled to target-related bonuses of getting on for £1m. He claims that Barclays were not only in breach of the implied term of trust and confidence in his employment contract but were also in breach of an implied term of "co-operation" and/or an implied "anti-avoidance term". It is thought that this is the first time a court has explicity recognised the possible existence of such implied terms although there have previously been moves in that direction. Of course the case may settle before it goes to full trial but in any event this interlocutory judgment will itself be enough to send shivers down the spines of any employers who may be looking for ways to avoid keeping promises to staff, especially senior staff, which they have subsequently come to regret having made.