Source: http://12cpbarristers.co.uk/category/employment-law/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 22:42:37+00:00

Document:
Placing reliance on a written warning when dismissing an employee is a common occurrence. The warning can form a key part in the decision to dismiss. So, what happens if the warning is found to be have been wrongly issued in the first place?
The reason why test is familiar to those who have been involved in discrimination cases: What were the mental processes that motivated the employer to act or not to act?
The Directive provides for a common framework of minimum standards that Member States must provide for the protection of trade secrets. This Directive was adopted by the Council on 26th May 2016.
The new(ish) rules in relation to EC Certificates have been causing all manner of difficulties for Claimants. One of the most common issues is failing to put the correct EC Certificate number on the Claim Form. This is an automatic fail with the Claim Form being rejected and sent back to the Claimant. A Tribunal must reject a Claim form which does not have a valid EC Certificate number (Rule 10). This is not a great problem if you have submitted your claim in good time and so can rectify the error, but what if you put your claim in on the deadline and miss out a couple of numbers?
When is an allegation not information? When it is a protected disclosure of course! You have to keep your eye on Langstaff the President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal because bit by bit he is reshaping the employment law landscape. It is sometimes said that a basketball player has hot hands well at the moment I think Langstaff P is going through his ‘hot hands’ period.
I was recently completing a Schedule of Loss for a Claimant and was asked what do I need to do to show I have tried to find work? I came up with the usual: Prepare a log of job applications; sign up with agencies; sign up with job search websites; look at newspapers. This got me thinking about the legal test in relation to mitigation of loss.
Last week the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment in the prison chaplains case. You may be aware that this litigation which is about the disparity of pay between Muslim and Christian chaplains has been going on for a few years. The key point was that pay progression in the chaplaincy is linked to years served.
It is not uncommon for me to advise on how a Tribunal might view treating two people involved in similar incidents differently. Those who have experience of running a case based on disparity of treatment will be aware that raising the issue of disparity is one thing but proving it is quite another.
What 'is in the public interest'?
The Coalition Government were concerned that individuals making complaints about breaches of their own terms and conditions were exposing employers to the risk of targeting a whistle blower. They believed that it had always been the intention that protected disclosures were about matters relating to the public rather than an individual so as from 23rd June 2013 any protected disclosure has had to be ‘in the public interest’. Underwood v Wincanton plc UKEAT/0163/15 is the latest authority on this point. It followed Chesterton Global Ltd (t/a Chestertons) v Nurmohamed  IRLR 614. Chesterton decided that the ‘public interest’ test was passed if the disclosure related to a section of the public rather than the public at large. In that case a complaint about payments relating to over 100 managers in the company was held to be in the ‘public interest’.
This is an update on my blog in June about travel time and working time. You may well have heard that the European Court followed the Advocate Generals Opinion and decided that travel time was working time. As always in these situations there has been much heat and not so much light shed on the implications of this decision on pay.
You may remember my blog a few months ago about getting it right in the Tribunal. I make no excuses for making the same point again, it bears frequent repetition: Do It Right First Time (DRIFT). This recent case is another good illustration as to why it is so important to ensure that you raise all the relevant issues first time around.
The Claimant in Small v The Shrewsbury and Telford Hospitals NHS Trust UKEAT/0300/14 had won his whistleblowing claim and at the remedy hearing argued that he would have stayed in employment with the Respondent becoming a full time employee leading to a continuing future loss up to his retirement.
There was until recently some doubt over exactly how indirect discrimination and substantial disadvantage worked under S 19 Equality Act 2010. This is important because the different approaches potentially either narrow or broaden the number of potential claimants an employer faces. The Court of Appeal have now ruled on this point and have adopted the narrow approach.
Early Conciliation: has it settled in?
I was recently asked whether I thought Early Conciliation was working. It was not a question I could properly answer, given that the aim of Early Conciliation (“EC”) is to resolve employment disputes even before a claim is brought, and I am most often called upon only after the EC process has failed to result in an early resolution.
One area of the law that I am frequently asked about is what counts as working time? Lately travel time has become a cause for concern for employees and employers alike. A number of companies who provide home care have entered into agreements with local authorities basing their bids on travel to and from home as not counting as working time. A decision that this travel time might now be ‘working time’ could make some of these agreements less profitable or loss making with the inevitable knock on effect this would have on the service users, employees and local authorities.
There was no mention of Employment Tribunal fees in the Queen’s speech last month, but the Ministry of Justice has just announced a review of their impact.
The move is perhaps surprising, given that calls from the Liberal Democrats to conduct a post-implementation review (as promised when fees were introduced in 2013) went unanswered in the run up to last month’s General Election.
The other week I found myself in the Employment Appeal Tribunal again, this time resisting an appeal from a Claimant who had been unrepresented at the original hearing. I had successfully argued that his claim should be struck out and he was now appealing the strike out order. These cases can be difficult to defend on appeal because in practical terms the Employment Appeal Tribunal has to be persuaded that there was no reasonable prospects of the claim succeeding, a high hurdle in legal terms.
A few years ago I gave a lecture on the changes to the ET Rules brought in after what was known as the Underhill Review. I have recently looked back at my notes. I thought at the time that the new Employment Tribunal Rule 12 was clear and required no further explanation. Perhaps what I should have added was that the rule will make very little difference in practice.
The idea of sifting cases was not a new one when the rule was introduced and it reflected in a written rule the more proactive approach in some Tribunal regions to tackling weak claims/defences. The new sift rule was an example of regional good practice intended to bring about consistency across the regions.
A vicar made headlines last week after the Court of Appeal ruled in Sharpe v Bishop of Worcester  EWCA Civ 399 that an Employment Tribunal was right to decide he was neither an employee nor a worker for the purposes of bringing unfair dismissal and whistleblowing claims against the Diocese of Worcester.
Back in February I made an application for costs on behalf of a Respondent against an impecunious Claimant who had lost on issues which deposit orders had made. We are waiting for a decision with some trepidation.
A deposit order can be made against any party where the Tribunal feels the issue or allegation that is being pursued has little reasonable prospect of succeeding. The deposit order requires the party against whom the order is made to pay the amount ordered if that issue is to be pursued to a full hearing. If the party does not pay the sum ordered then that issue is automatically struck out. This can be an effective way of preventing unmeritorious claims reaching a full hearing. The maximum deposit order per issue/allegation is £ 1,000 and this will be forfeited should the party fail to win on the particular issue at the final hearing.
In May 2014 it became a pre-requisite for most Employment Tribunal claims that the proposed Claimant should notify ACAS of the dispute and get an ACAS certificate confirming this first. The certificate number then gets quoted on the ET1 Tribunal claim form.
There have now been a number of first instance (i.e. tribunal level) decisions dealing with arguments under these provisions and I have reviewed a number of these.
Having successfully appealed against a finding of discrimination late last year, the case has been remitted to the same Tribunal to assess the level of compensation due for the successful unfair dismissal claim. The difficulty for the Claimant is that the award is now subject to the statutory cap and the employer has already paid him the maximum award applicable at the time. So it he likely to recover any more money by way of compensation under S 123 Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA)?
Last week (11 March) ACAS published an updated version of its Code of Practice on Disciplinary & Grievance Procedures.
It’s not a major revision, but it is important to be aware of it. The changes relate solely to the employee’s right to be accompanied to disciplinary and grievance meetings, and can be found in new paragraphs 14 -16 of the Code (in relation to disciplinary hearings) and new paragraphs 36 - 38 (for grievance hearings).
I was following a conversation on LinkedIn last week about PILON clauses where someone had asked what are they good for? Unlike war, they do serve a useful purpose for an employer.
Allowing a second bite at the cherry?
Since the introduction of issue fees, Employment Tribunals are no longer the low cost, efficient route to ‘justice’ that they were once seen to be. The recent case of Nayif v High Commission of Brunei Darussalam  EWCA Civ 1521 illustrates what is possible if claims move to the courts rather than through the tribunals.
I was in the Tribunal in Leeds the other week where one of the points to be decided was whether the Claimant was disabled under the Equality Act 2010. When asked questions about his disability he was adamant that the only difficulties he faced was the wearing of heavy gloves commonly known as ‘Foundry Gloves’. The Respondent’s evidence was that the heavy gloves were only used for shot blasting and for pouring hot metal in a foundry.
Just before Christmas, the High Court dismissed UNISON’s second application for a judicial review of the Employment Tribunal fee system. Are fees now here to stay?
A consultant haematologist worked at Ealing Hospital and also saw private patients with the hospital's knowledge.
I have recently been asked to advise on an equal pay issue related to Shared Parental Leave (SPL). It was interesting to note that the Civil Service have opted for enhanced pay for SPL which matched contractual maternity pay.
In delivering his judgement in the case of Harris v Academies Enterprise Trust & Ors. (UKEAT/0097/14/KN), the President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Mr Justice Langstaff has ruled that Employment Tribunals should have regard to the “insight given by cases such as Mitchell” into what constitutes justice.
The subject of entitlement to holidays and pay in lieu is extremely productive of reported case-law, some of which has been discussed in earlier blogs on this website.
The Shared Parental Leave Regulations 2014 came into force on 1 December 2014. Are you ready for the changes?
On Maternity Leave...at risk of Redundancy?
The EAT has held in Sefton Borough Council v Wainwright  UKEAT 0168/14, that an employer can’t organise a redundancy process simply to decide when it is must offer a suitable alternative vacancy to a redundant employee who is on maternity leave.
People who work abroad can get unfairly dismissed and discriminated against just like any other employee. To what extent can such employees claim in the UK Employment Tribunals?
What are the headlines from today’s decision in the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the case of Bear Scotland & Others?
Equal pay has a habit of creeping up on you and then jumping out when you least expect it. ASDA now know that feeling as they prepare to defend themselves against multiple claims of pay inequality going back six years. The reason most employers do not see these things coming is due to the ‘equal value’ claim. Unlike claims for ‘like work’ or ‘work rated as equivalent’ an equal value claim is not so obvious.
As anyone about to bring a claim in the Employment Tribunal should know, it is now compulsory to engage in Early Conciliation via ACAS before issuing proceedings. A case heard last week has highlighted the consequences of failing to do so.
In the case of Elys v Marks and Spencer Plc & Ors.  UKEAT 0518 it has been held that there was no material procedural irregularity when a member of an Employment Tribunal had apparently been sleeping for around 15-20 seconds. The member had been observed to be drooling by the Employment Judge but this wasn’t sufficient so as to permit a judgment to be overturned.
I have recently had to advise on a case of third party discrimination. I have described it as third party discrimination as it was not in fact the employee who was the one with the protected characteristic, it was her child.
Is your body a protected characteristic?
The European Court of Justice will soon be deciding whether discrimination on grounds of obesity is unlawful. Meanwhile there have been calls to stop treating workers with tattoos less favourably. Are protected characteristics about to go large?
Whilst sat watching the 50th anniversary edition of Match of the Day with the football season upon us again, the recent(ish) case of Conroy v Scottish Football Association Ltd (UKEATS/0024/13/JW) caught my attention.
Those of you who come to the blog regularly will recall the post entitled “You’re not the Boss of Me” on 14 July 2014 which covered the limitations on whistleblowing protection imposed by the Court of Appeal in the case of Clyde & Co LLP and another v Bates van Winkelhof having been overturned by the Supreme Court on 21 May 2014 (see  UKSC 32). The case was due to be remitted back to the Employment Tribunal for a full hearing. It has, however, now been announced that the case has settled.
The conflict between the defence of illegality in an employment contract, and public policy were considered by the Supreme Court recently in Hounga v Allen and another (anti-slavery international intervening).
The prevalence of morbid obesity in England is on the increase. A person is said to be morbidly obese where his/her body mass index is greater than 40. Figures published by Public Health England show that between 1993 and 2012, morbid obesity in adult men rose from a prevalence of 0.2% to 1.7%, and in adult women, from 1.4% to 3.1%. One set of data suggest an increase to 3% in men and 6% in women by 2030.
The limitations on whistleblowing protection imposed by the Court of Appeal in Clyde & Co LLP and another v Bates van Winkelhof were overturned by the Supreme Court (SC) on 21st May 2014 (Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde & Co LLP and another  UKSC 32).
On 25 June the Government response to the Whistleblowing Framework Call for Evidence was finally published. Although in the Ministerial Foreword it is acknowledged that there “were weaknesses in the framework, so that the legislation has not always achieved its intended outcome”, the report concludes with 9 recommendations as a package of measures that the Government will implement which will not involve change to shift the legislative focus from the detriment a whistleblower may suffer, to addressing the matter on which the whistle has been blown.
Extension of Right to Request Flexible Working: Who Cares if you’re a ‘Carer’?
For most people in 21st century Britain, there is a desire, ‘work to live’ rather than ‘live to work’. Flexible working, be it in the form of working from home, compressed hours, flexi-time, part time or job sharing, allows people to achieve a work- life balance, giving them more control over their working week and as a result, their lives. The Children and Families Act 2014, which received Royal Assent on 13th March of this year, addresses this work-life balance for all employees. The reality of the modern workplace means that many employees almost expect ‘flexible working’ and see it as standard, whereas until now in reality it has been anything but. The fact remains that an employee does not have a right to flexible working, simply a right to request it. Nothing in the new legislation changes this position. That being said, it is now a right that a lot more people have; will the floodgates open?
I thought it would be quite useful to have a quick round up of the Guidance and Codes of Practice that have been produced by ACAS over the last 12 or so months.
Employers with staff whose remuneration includes an element of commission could be facing a sharp increase in holiday pay following a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) handed down on 22 May.
As you will all be aware, under section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (the 2006 Act), if an employer employs a person who does not have the right to undertake the required work, they may be liable for a civil penalty. Employers have a duty to carry out prescribed document checks on people before employing them to ensure that they are able to work lawfully.
The High Court has recently granted an order allowing the imaging and inspection of personal computers belonging to two ex employees following claims that they had breached the confidentiality agreements contained in their contracts, and disclosed commercially sensitive material to the company’s competitors.
Zero-hours contracts: an unknown quantity?
In March 2014, we saw the publication of the latest set of quarterly tribunal statistics, covering the period October to December 2013. Although they must be treated with some caution (for various reasons explained within the document) they provide either chilling reading or a resounding victory for business and enterprise, depending upon your viewpoint. Wherever you stand on the spectrum of political opinion, there is one area for clear agreement: those who predicted a significant drop-off in the number of claims commenced after the coming into force of the fees regime on 29th July 2013 have been proved absolutely correct.
The use of occupational health services by employers is relatively common but certainly not universal. Factors such as cost, accessibility and ignorance have been identified as reasons why such services are not being used.
The provisions will lead to the establishment of the health and work assessment advisory service (the Service). This is intended to make occupational health advice more readily available to employers and lead to better management of sickness absence.
The Court of Appeal has recently (13th March 2014) dealt with two important points of principle arising out of two claims for discrimination which were broadly similar in nature. These claims were however brought under different legislation owing to the fact that the claims straddle the coming into force of the Equality Act 2010; they were therefore brought under this statute and the Race Relations Act 1976.
Reforms to employment law under the Coalition government have, for the most part, been kinder to employers than employees. However, a recent change affecting Employment Tribunal claims brought from 6 April 2014 threatens respondents with new financial penalties.
New guidance applicable from 13 March 2014 has been issued by Judge Latham, President of the Employment Tribunals, under Rule 7 of the first schedule to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulation 2013. Existing Presidential guidance is not superseded or altered by this document and continues to apply.
The annual statutory instrument has just been published. It increases the limits on certain employment tribunal awards and other amounts payable under employment legislation from 6 April 2014.
• the minimum basic award in cases where the dismissal was unfair by virtue of health and safety, employee representative, trade union, or occupational pension trustee reasons will increase from £5,500 to £5,676.
The ACAS early conciliation service launches on 6th April 2014 so what can we expect from this new facility? The main impact of the change is that anyone thinking of making a claim will have to contact ACAS first. The employee must submit an early conciliation form. This will trigger the early conciliation process and the matter will be referred to an Early Conciliation Support Officer (ECSO) being appointed. This will stop the clock as far as time limits are concerned.
The government wants to dispel the old preconceptions that the mother will stay at home with the children whilst the father goes to work and is the breadwinner for the family, which for many working mums is likely to be appealing. The idealism behind shared parental leave appears attractive to the modern family, but will it be so attractive to the modern workplace? Employers are likely to find that whilst the regulations offer parents greater flexibility, for the workplace there is an air of uncertainty and upheaval.
As readers will be aware, the Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013 made on 28 July 2013 came into force on 29 July 2013. Following such, claims in the ET and appeals to the EAT may only be started and continued upon payment of fees unless an individual applies and qualifies for a remission.
Concerned about the impact of the same, Unison issued judicial review proceedings on 28 June 2013 then issued an application for urgent interim relief. Permission to apply was originally refused on 23 July 2013 but granted at an oral hearing on 29 July 2013. Although the Equality and Human Rights Commission sought to intervene on 9 September 2013, permission was only granted on 14 October 2013.
In order to award costs against a party a Tribunal needs to be satisfied that the paying party has acted “vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in the bringing or conducting of proceedings”, or that the “claim or response had no reasonable prospect of success’.
A worker’s right (under Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999) to be accompanied at a disciplinary or grievance hearing does not often come on to the radar, unless the worker concerned makes a Section 11 complaint to the tribunal that the statutory right has been breached. Twice in 2013, however, different divisions of the EAT had to deal with the proper meaning of Section 10.
The amended TUPE Regulations are due to come into force at the end of January 2014. One important change is the ability to run collective redundancy consultation alongside TUPE consultation prior to the transfer. S 198A has been inserted into TULCRA to permit this. Note there needs to be agreement between both transferor and transferee for this to happen.
Those who keep track of Employment Law news will have noticed bereavement leave making an appearance at the end of last year due to the Parental Bereavement Leave (Statutory Entitlement) Bill 2013-14 being introduced to Parliament on 4 September 2013 under the new Ten Minute Rule.
Work Permanently for a Quarter of a Century and Have No Employment Rights!
In Moran & Ors. v (1) Ideal Cleaning Services Ltd and (2) Celanese Acetate Ltd. EAT/0274/13/DM the Honourable Mr Justice Singh held that the concept of ‘temporary’ in the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 SI 2010/93 and the EU Temporary Agency Workers Directive (No.2008/104) means ‘not permanent’. Thus, an Employment Judge had been right to find that agency workers did not come within the scope of the Regulations where their agency arrangement was on an indefinite and not a temporary basis.
It has been part of this Government’s policy objectives to try, wherever possible, to exempt micro-businesses from any new domestic regulation until 2014. A micro business is any business employing ten or fewer employees. The Government’s TUPE consultation document in January 2013 asked for comments on a proposal to exempt micro-businesses from a large number of TUPE provisions.
As we approach the Christian celebration that is Christmas, and we are reminded of Mary and Joseph struggling to find room at an Inn for the night, Leanne Buckley-Thomson provides an overview of Bull and another v Hall and another  UKSC 73 which reminds us that our faith cannot dictate who we accommodate if we own a bed and breakfast.
Christian owners of bed and breakfasts up and down the country will no doubt have been waiting with bated breath for the result of the appeal of Mr and Mrs Bull, the Judgment for which was given very recently on 27 November 2013.
Don’t take on family responsibilities until you’re 35 - otherwise we won’t pay!
The Court of Appeal presided over an age discrimination case recently and held that it was legitimate to grant additional benefits to workers over 35 as they were more likely to have family and financial responsibilities. The case of Lockwood v Department of Work and Pensions & Anor  EWCA Civ 1195 concerned a civil service redundancy scheme which discriminated against younger workers.
Make me a (non-discriminatory) offer I can't refuse!
According to the latest government statistics, the median award by Employment Tribunals over the last year for unfair dismissal was £4,832 but the largest percentage of claimants received awards of only £1,000-1,999.
"The Law Changed 33 Years Ago and They Should Get With It"
In cases concerning dismissal for misconduct, it is almost unthinkable that at some point, reference will not be made to the Burchell guidelines, taken from the well-known case of British Home Stores Limited v Burchell decided in 1978.
Woolworths collapsed in late 2008 which led to most of their shops closing and around 27,000 people losing their jobs. An issue which arose during the closures was whether separate shops should be counted together for the purposes of collective consultation.
Welcome to our Employment Blog. Starting on 1st November 2013 we intend to provide our readers with interesting and informative posts on current issues relevant to both employers and employees.

References: EWCA 
 EWCA 
 UKSC 
 UKSC 
 UKSC 
 EWCA