
Dear Employer
We wish you a very happy and prosperous New Year. Make it a resolution not to find yourself at the wrong end of a Tribunal claim. This year may see age discrimination claims increasing, particularly with the removal of the default retirement age of 65: it has already started with a BBC presenter winning her claim for age discrimination (see below), while football commentators are in trouble for sexist remarks. The year promises to continue to be an “exciting” one in view of all the public sector cuts, and we hope you will not be affected.
In the meantime, if you have any particular employment issues, please do not hesitate to contact us: details are at the end of this letter. If you have any comments or suggestions on this newsletter, please email newsletter@breezeandwyles.co.uk
Kind regards
The Employment Law Team
We wish you a very happy and prosperous New Year. Make it a resolution not to find yourself at the wrong end of a Tribunal claim. This year may see age discrimination claims increasing, particularly with the removal of the default retirement age of 65: it has already started with a BBC presenter winning her claim for age discrimination (see below), while football commentators are in trouble for sexist remarks. The year promises to continue to be an “exciting” one in view of all the public sector cuts, and we hope you will not be affected.
In the meantime, if you have any particular employment issues, please do not hesitate to contact us: details are at the end of this letter. If you have any comments or suggestions on this newsletter, please email newsletter@breezeandwyles.co.uk
Kind regards
The Employment Law Team
Some Recent Changes and Cases in Employment Law
1. BBC LOSES AGEISM CLAIM
As reported widely in the press, the ex-BBC Countryfile presenter Miriam O’Reilly, has won her ageism claim against the BBC and is expected to receive around £100,000 compensation, to include lost earnings and an amount for injury to feelings. However, she lost her claim for sex discrimination.
2. HONG KONG BANK EMPLOYEE ALLOWED TO BRING CLAIM AT UK TRIBUNAL
A UK employee of a Hong Kong-based company was sent to London by the company in 2008 to a UK-based associated company. When he was dismissed he brought claims in the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal, discrimination on two grounds and other claims. At a Pre-Hearing Review, the Employment Tribunal decided that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims and dismissed them. The Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed with that decision. It held that his claims did come within the relevant legislation, including the fact that he did his work “wholly or partly in Great Britain”. Also, he was working in Great Britain at the time of his dismissal on something other than a “casual visit”. However, other legislation stated that a Tribunal in England & Wales could not hear a claim where the employer – as in this case – did not reside or carry on business in England or Wales. However, the EAT considered that it seemed wrong in principle for employees to enjoy legal protections which they could not enforce. As a result, the EAT held that a company was able to “carry on business” in England & Wales by seconding an employee to work at an establishment there, even if the supply of workers to third parties was not part of its ordinary business.
Employers should, therefore, be aware that claims could still be brought in this country even if the main employer company is abroad. [Pervez v Macquarie Bank Ltd (London Branch) December 2010].
3. REDUNDANCY SCORING AND CHALLENGE BY EMPLOYEE
Redundancy selection is often done on the basis of scoring relevant employees and then selecting the lowest scorer. A case has illustrated the extent to which the scores allocated can be challenged by a disgruntled employee. If considered by an Employment Tribunal, the Tribunal will determine whether the system adopted by the employer was fair, and was then applied without any conduct that might undermine this. In this case, a redundancy pool of three had all three employees achieving high scores, although the one who was made redundant received a slightly lower score for “flexibility”. During the consultation process he had queried how he had achieved a lower score on “flexibility” but the firm did not give a full response, other than to say that the scores given by the assessors were “reasonable and appropriate”.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that a fair redundancy consultation involves the provision of adequate information on which an employee can argue and respond to the employer. With a subjective scoring category (e.g. flexibility) it is necessary for the employer to explain the scoring in order to provide adequate information. The EAT held that the employee was unfairly dismissed on the basis of unfair redundancy consultation. The EAT also said that there is no need for an employer to explain objective scores (e.g. time-keeping) but with subjective categories of scoring, a further explanation must be necessary, although not necessarily a detailed one: if, for example, the assessors note a few sentences in the “comments” box beside the scores, that will usually suffice. [Pinewood v Page 2010]
4. HARASSMENT BY THIRD PARTIES
Until 1st October 2010 when the Equality Act came into force, harassment of an employee by a third party (e.g. customers, suppliers or contractors) applied only in respect of gender or sexual harassment. However, now it also applies to age, disability, race, religion or belief, sex or gender discrimination. A definition of who is a third party extends to anyone over whom the employer does not have direct control and extends to anyone with whom the employee comes into contact during the employment. However, liability will only arise if the employer knows that the employee has been harassed on at least two occasions by a third party and then fails to take “reasonable steps” to prevent harassment.
What’s in the pipeline
1. INCREASE ON TRIBUNAL AWARDS ETC
With effect from 1st February 2011 the following changes will take place:
The maximum amount of a week’s pay for the purposes of calculating (amongst other things) statutory redundancy repayments and the basic award for unfair dismissal will increase from £380 to £400.
The maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal claims increases from £65,300 to £68,400.
Guaranteed pay increases from £21.20 a day to £22.20 a day.
The minimum basic award in cases where the dismissal was unfair because of health and safety, employee representative, trade union or occupational pension trustee reasons will increase from £4700 to £5000.
The new rates apply where the event giving rise to compensation or payment occurs on or after 1st February 2011. If the dismissal or other relevant event falls before that date, the old limits will still apply, irrespective of the date on which compensation is awarded.
2 OTHER CHANGES FROM APRIL 2011
The following further changes will take place from 11th April 2011:
Statutory Maternity, Paternity & Adoption Pay, and Maternity Allowance, will increase from £124.88 to £128.73
Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) will increase from £79.15 to £81.60
3 REJECTION OF PLANS FOR EXTENDED PAID MATERNITY LEAVE
The EU Employment Council has rejected the European Parliament’s proposal to legislate for 20 weeks of maternity leave at full pay (which no doubt will be good news to many employers). They express concerns regarding the cost implications to extending paid maternity leave. A proposal has been made as a compromise, to extend the minimum length of maternity leave from the current 14 weeks to 18 weeks. Consultation continues.
The Employer Traps and Other Tips
1. PREPARATIONS FOR ABOLITION OF DEFAULT RETIREMENT AGE
As advised in an earlier ezine, the current default retirement age of 65 is being phased out with effect from 1st October 2011. Further to the points that we have already advised, practical changes that you might like to start considering are any documents that you may have where a normal retirement age is referred to. Such documents can include share incentive schemes, articles of association and shareholder agreements. These documents may all need to be amended, as your existing standard contracts might. Also, pension scheme retirement ages may need to be aligned.
2. Employment Contracts
Still not done any? Make 2011 the year when you rectify all those unlawful omissions and minimise their reasons for complaining.