oxford employment law solicitors
oxford employment law
employment law
employment solicitors
employment lawyers
misconduct
 

Past News Letters

May 7th, 2008

Past News Letters:

September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004

March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004

July 2004
October 2004
November 2004
January 2005
January 2005 (1)

January 2005 (2)
Feburary 2005

March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
July 2005
August 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
September 2006
October 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
February 2008
March 2008


Oxford Employment Law Practice (II)

April 4th, 2008
  1. Bills before Parliament (employment related)
  2. Minimum Wage
  3. Sickness absence from work - special rules for teachers
  4. Time off for Union Learning Reps
  5. Temps and Agency Workers
  6. Disability Discrimination changes
  7. Compensation for psychiatric injury in discrimination cases.
  8. Large shops opening on Christmas day.
  9. Dismissal of senior executive after hostile take over - unfair or not?
  10. Sub-postmaster and postmistresses
  11. Clergymen and their status in employment law.
  12. Stakeholder pensions.
  13. Compensation for unfair dismissal.

1. Bills before Parliament (employment related)

There have now been eleven Bills containing specific employment law provisions announced or introduced since November 2002. These are the Company Directors’ Performance and Compensation Bill, the Company Directors’ (Health and Safety) Bill, the Crown Employment Nationality) Bill, the Disability Discrimination Bill, the Equality Bill, the Health & Safety at Work (Offences) Bill, the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Bill (now enacted), the National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill, the Railways & Transport Safety Bill, the Retirement Income Reform Bill and the Sunday Working (Scotland) Bill.

2. Minimum Wage

Two recent developments are:

  • The National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Act 2003 received Royal Assent on 8th May 2003 and comes into effect on 8th July 2003. It blocks a loophole in the minimum wage rules, originally exposed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal and confirmed by the Court of Appeal in April 2003 in the Bebb Travel case, which some less scrupulous employers might otherwise have tried to take advantage of.
  • New minimum wage rates for agricultural workers have been announced to come into effect on 7th July 2003.
  • As noted in a previous newsletter, the normal adult National Minimum Wage rate will increase from £4.20 to £4.50 as from October 2003 and the rate for 18-21 year olds will rise from £3.60 to £3.80 and the Low Pay Commission has recommended further increases to come into effect in October 2004.

3. Sickness absence from work - special rules for teachers

The High Court has held that local authority school teachers have special protection if they become too ill to teach. Because of the wording of the relevant regulations (the Education (Teachers’ Qualifications and Health Standards) (England) Regulations 1999 SI 1999/2166) local authority teachers’ contracts are not automatically terminated by reason of incapacity and the local authority has a legal obligation to dismiss the teacher if he does not resign. The teacher will then be entitled to his full weekly wage for the duration of his notice period, which may be substantial, and on the termination of his employment will of course be eligible for an occupational pension based on his length of service and final salary.

4. Time off for Union Learning Reps

With effect from 27th April 2003, union learning representatives have the right to take paid time off work of an amount and on occasions and for the purposes which “… are reasonable in all the circumstances having regard to any relevant provision of” the Code of Practice issued by ACAS (see Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 new s.168A inserted by Employment Act 2002 s.43(8) brought into force on 27th April 2003 by Employment Act 2002 (Commencement No. 4 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2003 SI 1190).

5. Temps and Agency Workers

An EC meeting on 8th May 2003 demonstrated that there is still disagreement at Commission level about the draft Temporary Agency Work Directive and a report by the International Business Editor of the Times (the Times 19th May 2003, p.21) suggests that Britain and Germany may be about to do a deal in which Germany agrees to back British objections to the draft agency work directive in return for Britain backing German objections to the draft Takeover directive. The draft Temporary Agency Workers Directive is due to be discussed at an EU Council of Ministers meeting on Tuesday 3rd June 2003. If adopted the directive could have far reaching implications. This and a recent EAT case in which Brook Street Bureau were held to be liable as employers to a temp cleaner they had first introduced to Wandsworth Council some 6 years previously suggest expert advice should be taken both by employment agencies and those who use their services to ensure they are aware of potential liabilities and to help avoid pitfalls, for example by including appropriate indemnities in agency contracts.

6. Disability Discrimination changes

  • In May 2003 the Disability Rights Commission published a review of the workings of the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act over the last 7/8 years. The DRC is pressing for a new definition of “disability” to ensure that anti-discrimination law properly protects those with progressive conditions, notably cancer and Multiple Sclerosis (MS), from the point of diagnosis (including those in remission). The DRC is also suggesting that receipt of specified state disability benefits should automatically allow applicants to be deemed to be disabled for DDA purposes, that the list of normal day-to-day activities should be revised to include “the ability to communicate with others” and that the requirement that a mental illness be “clinically well recognised” should be removed. These recommendations may be included in a Disability Discrimination Bill which the government has announced is in preparation.
  • Also in May 2003, a revised version of draft Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003, originally issued last October, was published. These regulations will amongst other things abolish the “small employer” exemption from the DDA rules as form October 2004.

7. Compensation for psychiatric injury in discrimination cases.

The EAT has ruled that in sex, race and disability discrimination cases the appropriate test for deciding whether an employer is liable to pay compensation for psychiatric injury suffered by an employee is NOT whether the injury was reasonably forseeable but is simply whether unlawful discrimination caused it. The EAT drew a distinction between “statutory torts” (such as those created by the anti-discrimination statutes) which involve strict liability and “common law torts” for example the tort of negligence where the normal “reasonably foreseeability” test is relevant when deciding whether an employer is liable for injury resulting from his negligent act.

8. Large shops opening on Christmas day..

Under current law large shops may not open on Christmas Day if that is a Sunday. If a bill presented to Parliament in November 2001 had become law (it failed) the Christmas Day opening prohibition would have applied whatever day of the week Christmas happened to be. This idea of extending the statutory ban on large shop opening on Christmas Day regardless of the day of the week on which it occurs is currently being reconsidered by the DTI - consultation ends on 2nd July 2003 (see DTI 2003 Consultation Paper on Xmas opening).

9. Dismissal of senior executive after hostile take over - unfair or not?

If the chief executive of a company who has not been guilty of any misconduct is dismissed by new shareholders after they have won a contested takeoever battle during which he strongly opposed them, can that dismissal be fair? This was the fate of Mr Kenneth Cobley, Managing Director, Chief Executive and latterly Deputy Chairman of Forward Technology Industries PLC who was employed by that company from late 1973 until early 2000. He was dismissed by the new shareholders, an American company, after a hotly contested take over battle in which Mr Cobley led a failed attempt to mount a management buy out. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held ( Case EAT/0524/01 on 9th July 2002) that the dismissal was fair even though Mr Cobley had not been guilty of misconduct. He appealed to the Court of Appeal which gave its decision in mid-May 2003.

10. Sub-postmaster and postmistresses

After various, sometimes conflicting, decisions by employment tribunals in recent years it now seems to be finally settled that sub-postmasters (and sub-postmistresses) are self-employed and as such are generally outside the scope of employment protection legislation. The EAT has given a comprehensive ruling to the effect that sub-postmasters are not “employees” of the post office (and so do not qualify for, for example, unfair dismissal rights) and that they are not “workers” for the purposes of the Working Time regulations and are neither “workers” nor “homeworkers” for purposes of the National Minimum Wage rules.

11. Clergymen and their status in employment law.

After the high profile case of the Rev Ray Owen in the English High Court the European Parliament passed a resolution in late 2002 which was highly critical of the UK legal position (to the effect that a priest is an office holder and not an employee of anyone except possibly God, with the incidental result of making it hard for a vicar to serve an IT1 unfair dismissal claim), there was a debate on the subject in the House of Commons in April 2003 (see HoC Hansard). During that debate the Government accepted that the DTI has power, under Employment Relations Act 1999 s.23, to extend employment rights to the clergy and it appears that this possibility is now actively being considered.

12. Stakeholder pensions

In May 2003 OPRA announced a campaign to make sure companies are complying with the law by offering their employees access to a pension scheme. Opra will be sending surveys to employers across the UK to find out if they are breaking the law. Each month Opra will target businesses in a specific regional area, starting with the North East in May 2003. Employers should take note and consult their lawyers if in any doubt as to whether they are complying with the rules.

13. Compensation for unfair dismissal.

The EAT has handed down an important ruling in favour of an employer in a case in which an unfairly dismissed employee claimed compensation for non financial loss as well as the more normal claims for pecuniary loss (Dunnachie v Kingston upon Hull City Council & ors). The employee had suffered from being bullied at work. The EAT ruled that compensation for unfair dismissal (unlike damages for common law wrongful dismissal) should be limited to compensation for economic loss only and may not include compensation for injury to feelings. Claims by unfairly dismissed employees for compensation for injury to feelings have been on the increase since the March 2001 House of Lords decision in Johnson v Unisys Ltd.

Disclaimer

The information in this newsletter does not provide a comprehensive
or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed. It is intended only as a general guide. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.


Oxford Employment Law Practice

April 2nd, 2008
  1. What happened on 6th April 2003
  2. TUPE changes
  3. Minimum Wage and Homeworkers
  4. Equal Pay questionnaires
  5. Discrimination
  6. Criminal Records Bureau and vetting of job applicants
  7. Work permit charges
  8. Upper age limits
  9. Race Discrimination in the home
  10. Ties at work
  11. Flexible Working arrangements.
  12. Increases in maximum tribunal compensation awards.
  13. Compensation in discrimination cases.
  14. Seasonal workers and unfair dismissal or redundancy
  15. Revised Working Time rules for young workers.
  16. Paper boys holiday rights
  17. Agency Workers and temps.
  18. Equal Pay - Civil Servants.
  19. Highly Skilled Immigrants Programme
  20. Directors’ remuneration

1.What happened on 6th April 2003

Main changes include:-

  • Parents of children aged under 6 (under 18 if disabled) will have legally enforceable rights to ensure that requests for flexible work arrangements are not rejected without good cause.
  • Maternity leave for qualifying employees increases to one year (26 weeks’ paid Ordinary Maternity Leave and 26 weeks’ unpaid Additional Maternity Leave).
  • Statutory maternity pay (standard rate) increases to £100 a week. The right of small employers who pay less than £40,000 in NIC’s to reclaim 104.5% of SMP will automatically be extended to more employers as the NIC threshold is increased.
  • New paid paternity leave rights (two weeks) come into effect (pay at the same standard rate as SMP).
  • New adoption leave rights come into effect.

2. TUPE changes

In February 2003, almost a year and a half after publication of the DTI consultation document on proposals for changes to the TUPE regulations, the government announced results of the consultation. This includes plans for a new Code of Practice designed to end the “two tier workforce” (which can come about if a local authority transfers employees to a private sector partner whose own employees have worse terms of service) and also includes plans to place draft new TUPE amendment regulations before Parliament in autumn 2003, to come into effect in spring 2004. Importantly, the TUPE announcement indicates that pension scheme rights will NOT be covered at this stage.

3. Minimum Wage and Homeworkers

There are obvious difficulties in ensuring that homeworkers are paid not less than the national minimum wage. The present “Fair estimate agreement” system is open to abuse and in February 2003 the government announced a consultation to consider improvements (consultation to end on 9th May 2003). The suggestion is that the fair estimate agreement system should be dropped and instead that employers would be required to pay homeworkers either at least the national minimum wage for all hours worked, or a “fair piece rate”.

4. Equal Pay questionnaires

6th April 2003 will see the introduction of an Equal Pay Act questionnaire system (providing for questionnaires similar to those available in other sex discrimination and in race discrimination cases).

5. Discrimination

It is normal in direct discrimination and victimisation cases for employment tribunals first to consider whether the claimant received “less favourable treatment” than the appropriate comparator and if so then to consider the “reason why”. The House of Lords has warned that this two step approach to what is essentially a single question (”did the claimant, on the proscribed ground, receive less favourable treatment than others?”) is not always appropriate.

6. Criminal Records Bureau and vetting of job applicants

The Criminal Records Bureau started operations a year ago, on 11th March 2002. Where employers have cause to believe that a job applicant may have a position where the health or safety of children and young persons is concerned the system is up and running. However the CRB has faced great problems as a result of being flooded with applications (now running at around 40,000 a week) - and that even before the system is fully operational. In the hope of streamlining the system the government announced a package of new measures, following a review which started last September.

7. Work permit charges

The Home Office has announced that fees are going to be charged for work permit applications. The new rules are to come into effect from midnight on 31st March/1st April 2003.

8. Upper age limits

As expected, an appeal has been lodged, with government backing, in the long running case in which the Stratford East employment tribunal held that the 65th birthday upper age limit for claiming unfair dismissal and for the right to claim statutory redundancy pay in British law (ERA 1996 ss.109 and 156) is unlawful. The tribunal held that the age limit has a disparate impact on men and women and amounts to indirect sex discrimination which was not justified by the government. It is understood that the case has been set down for hearing by the Employment Appeal Tribunal for late May 2003.

9.Race Discrimination in the home

A recent newspaper article (the Times Law Supplement, 4th March 2003) suggested that the government is proposing new regulations to remove the present exemption enjoyed by private householders from race discrimination laws. In fact the position is not quite so straightforward as the article might be read to suggest. The proposed new Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 are intended to prohibit discrimination in a private household on grounds of race, ethnic or national origins but will not prohibit discrimination on grounds of colour or nationality. Those concerned about, for example, employing an immigrant as a child minder would be well advised to take legal advice.

10. Ties at work

Some go one way, some another. Two separate employment tribunals have recently considered whether it is unlawful sex discrimination (in particular cases) for an employer to require a male employee to wear a tie at work. On the facts, one tribunal said yes and the other said no. The legal principles may be reasonably clear but these different decisions (not binding because they are at tribunal level only) show that it is not at all clear how the principles should be applied in practice in particular cases. It is understood that an appeal is to be lodged in at least one of these cases so the position should be clarified in the near future.

11. Flexible Working arrangements.

Regulations were issued at the end of 2002, taking effect from 6th April 2003, which set out the details of the new right for employees with children under 6 (or 18 if entitled to disability living allowance) to request flexible working arrangements. Many legitimate grounds for refusal are provided but if an employer wrongly refuses the employee’s request an employment tribunal will be able to order reconsideration of the request and/or award compensation subject to a maximum of 8 weeks’ pay (capped at £260 per week - viz an absolute max of £2,080). It will be automatically unfair dismissal to dismiss an employee for a reason connected with seeking to claim this new right.

12. Increases in maximum tribunal compensation awards.

As previously noted, new increased limits on maximum tribunal awards (applicable where the “triggering event” eg dismissal occurs on or after 1st February 2003) are effected by the Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) (No. 2) Order 2002, (SI 2002/2927). There has been no cap on awards in discrimination cases for some time but normal absolute maximum unfair dismissal award is increased from February 2003 from £60,100 to £61,300 (ie 30 X £260 max basic award plus £53,500 max compensatory award).

13. Compensation in discrimination cases.

In an important ruling on 20th December 2002 the Court of Appeal considered how compensation should be assessed in discrimination cases. In a particularly significant part of the judgment the Court of Appeal said that only in the most exceptional case should the “injury to feelings” element of an award exceed £25,000 and identified three broad bands of compensation for injury to feelings as follows:

  • a top band between £15,000 and £25,000 in the most serious cases
  • middle band of between £5,000 and £15,000 for other serious cases; and
  • lower band of between £500 and £5,000 for less serious cases.

14. Seasonal workers and unfair dismissal or redundancy

An employee must normally complete a year’s continuous employment to qualify for unfair dismissal rights or two years to qualify for statutory redundancy pay. When foot and mouth disease led to cancellation of the Royal Highland Show in 2001, various employees were dismissed. One of these, a Ms Reed, had worked for the Show organisers for some seven years for about a third of the year every year and she claimed statutory redundancy pay. She lost her claim both before an employment tribunal and on appeal to the EAT on the basis that she could not show sufficient continuous employment as during the time when she was not working there was no “mutuality of obligation” between her and the Show organisers. This is a difficult area of law where each case needs to be carefully considered with expert advisers on its own particular facts. While not making new law, the case in point is a good example of how the rules should be applied in relation to seasonal workers.

15. Revised Working Time rules for young workers.

Amendments to the Working Time Regulations 1998 apply from 6th April 2003 and affect the working hours of anyone who counts as a “young worker” (basically those who are over compulsory school age but are not yet 18). In general, the new rules will ensure that their working time is limited to 40 hours a week, eight hours in any one day and night working will be prohibited between 10pm - 6am or 11pm - 7am. The changes are effected by the Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2002, SI 2002/3128, implementing EC Directive 94/33/EC on “The protection of Young People at Work” so far as not previously implemented in the UK.

16. Paper boys holiday rights

The amendments to the Working Time Regulations 1998 noted immediately above apply to young workers over compulsory school age (basically those between 16 and 18). The EAT overruled the Leeds employment tribunal and held in January 2003 that the paid holiday provisions of the Working Time Regulations do not apply at all to those who are even younger than that, such as many newspaper delivery boys and girls. The EAT held that their position is governed instead by the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, the effect of which is that in each year they must have at least two consecutive weeks without work during school holidays.

17. Agency Workers and temps.

An important amendment has been made by the European Parliament to the title of the draft directive on temporary agency work. The new name makes it clearer that the directive will not apply to temporary workers as such or indeed to any worker introduced by an employment agency to an employer who then employs the worker direct. It will apply only to workers who are employees of an agency which then provides their services to clients of the agency. In other words the directive will apply in the UK to employees of agencies which are “employment businesses” as defined in the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and will not cover workers who are introduced to client employers by employment agencies. The DTI have issued a revised Regulatory Impact Assessment which includes a calculation that the prospective annual cost to British business of implementing the Agency Workers Directive, if it is enacted, would be at least #500 million.

18. Equal Pay - Civil Servants.

An employment tribunal held in January 2003 that civil servants who make a claim under the Equal Pay Act 1970 can take as comparator any civil servant of the opposite sex doing like work or work of equal value, whether he/she works in the same agency or department or in a completely different department. This is on the basis that ultimately a single source, the Treasury, controls the terms and conditions of employment of all of them. Although this is “only” a tribunal decision (and as such does not set a formal precedent) the potential extensive application and enormous cost implications to the government will mean that thousands of civil servants may now wish to consider taking advice on their rights.

19. Highly Skilled Immigrants Programme

An indefinite extension of the “Highly Skilled Immigrants’ Programme”, with a new application form applying from 28th January 2003, has been announced by the Home Office. Under the prorgamme potential immigrants with high qualifications can score “points” (eg 30 points for a PhD) and if their total is high enough (over 75 points) some of the normal immigration rules are waived. In particular they can come to the UK to look for work without a specific job being already arranged.

20. Directors’ remuneration

For financial years ending on or after 31st December 2002, the Directors’ Remuneration Report Regulations 2002 SI 2002/1986 start to bite. For listed companies these regulations provide new rules which replace the normal rules under Companies Act 1985 sch 6, requiring companies to include information concerning directors’ remuneration by way of notes to their accounts. It is also relevant here that the government has shown little support for the Company Directors’ Performance and Compensation Bill introduced in the House of Commons by Archie Norman MP, essentially designed to ensure that under performing directors of failing companies cannot insist on their full contractual entitlements to pay in lieu of notice if shareholders force them to quit.


Oxford Employment Law First Post

February 8th, 2008

This is the first news post from Oxford Employment Law, please subscribe to our news RSS feed for industry related news articles.


Oxford Employment Law Solicitors Home | Commercial Law | Employment Insurance protection | Advice to Recruitment Agencies | Code of Conduct | Company Procedures | Compropise Agreements | Discrimination | Unfair Dismissal
© Copyright 2007 - Oxford Employment Law - All Rights Reserved Web Design and Search Engine Optimisation Creare