An Order currently before Parliament to extend s.44 Employment Rights Act 1996 has the potential to significantly impact employers.
The health and safety of individuals in the workplace has come under increasing scrutiny during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Currently, employees have the right not to suffer a detriment for leaving or refusing to return to work, or taking appropriate steps to protect themselves or others, where they have a reasonable belief that they are in serious and imminent danger which they could not reasonably be expected to avert (s.44 Employment Rights Act 1996). Employees also enjoy protection from unfair dismissal under such circumstances (s.100 Employment Rights Act 1996).
The protection from ‘health and safety detriment’ is currently confined to employees only. However, an Order is currently before Parliament which proposes to amend s.44 Employment Rights Act 1996 to extend this protection to all workers.
Under the proposed Order, provided that the relevant worker reasonably believes there to be a serious and imminent danger, they would be able to rely on the new protections. However, note that the new Order does not extend the protection from dismissal under s.100 ERA, on the basis that workers do not benefit from protection from unfair dismissal and there should be no obligation to confer protection specifically for health and safety reasons.
Previously, claims relating to the existing ‘protection from detriment’ provisions have been relatively uncommon. However, this area has increasingly come under the spotlight in recent months during the pandemic, with greater focus on health and safety in the workplace and what courses of action are availability to employees if they believe that their employer is failing to provide them with a safe place of work. This has emphasised the discrepancy in the current legislation between the protections offered to employees compared to workers.
If the Order receives approval from Parliament, it will come into force on 31 May 2021. This has the potential to have a significant impact on employers by dramatically increasing the number of individuals who are able to bring such claims against their employer.
We have previously provided an update on the decision in the case which ultimately prompted this change in the law, by finding that these protections must be extended to workers, under EU law.
A copy of the Order which is currently before Parliament can be found here.
Official statistics show that 15,336 claims which included a complaint of age discrimination were received at the Employment Tribunals between March 2020 and March 2021.
The outcome of the Employment Tribunal claim brought by Gulnaz Raja against Starling Bank Limited (1) (Starling), and Matthew Newman (2) was reported last month.
In the Autumn Statement delivered on 17 November, rises to the National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage rates were announced, to take effect from 1 April 2023.
The World Cup kicks off in Qatar on Sunday 20 November 2022, with the final taking place on Sunday 18 December 2022. Undoubtedly, this is a huge sporting event, and many employees will be keen to show their support for their favourite teams. However, due to the time difference, start times for the matches are between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. UK time, which could have an impact on employers if employees who wish to watch the matches are scheduled to work.
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
Where an employee appeals against their dismissal under a contractual appeal procedure and their appeal is successful, reinstatement to their previous role is automatic and does not require approval or agreement from the employee.
Settlement agreements in an employment context are ordinarily used to provide both parties with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship – but what happens when there is alleged discrimination after entering into a settlement agreement?
A few weeks ago we brought you news that following the Government’s mini-budget it was confirmed that the off-payroll working rules (known as “IR35”) put in place for public and private sector businesses from 2017 and 2021 would be scrapped from April 2023.
In Mogane v Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether it was fair to dismiss a nurse as redundant on the basis that that her fixed-term contract was due to expire before that of her colleague.
The majority of people do not feel the need to embellish their CV to get that coveted position and move on up the career ladder. Their worthiness and benefit to the hiring organisation are easily demonstrated through the recruitment process – application, psychometric testing, selection day or interview.
In July 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited Judgement in the case of Harpur Trust v Brazel relating to the correct calculation of statutory holiday pay for part year workers. This decision has implications for all part year workers on contracts which subsist all year round, whether their hours are normal or irregular.
The Government has announced a change to the categorisation of “small” businesses to reduce the amount of regulatory compliance (or “red tape”) required. Currently, SMEs (those with fewer than 250 employees) are exempt from certain regulations – such as the obligation to comply with gender pay reporting. With effect from 3 October, these exemptions will be widened to apply to businesses with fewer than 500 employees.
In University of Dundee v Chakraborty, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether a first draft of a grievance report could retrospectively be deemed to be privileged.
The Chancellor’s recent mini-budget provided a significant announcement for business as it was confirmed that the off-payroll working rules (known as “IR35”) put in place for public and private sector businesses from 2017 and 2021 will be scrapped from April 2023.
The Government has published the Retained EU Revocation and Reform Bill which, if passed, provides for the revocation of all “EU-derived subordinate legislation” (i.e. UK statutory instruments which were introduced to implement EU law) and retained direct EU legislation on 31 December 2023, unless legislation is specifically introduced to save them.
On 20 July 2022, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited judgment in the case of Harpur Trust v Brazel, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal. For those of you familiar with this case, you will know that it concerns the statutory leave requirements for part-time and part-year workers. For schools and academies whose workforce consists of a variety of types of part-time and part-year workers, this case is one that must be understood before any changes are applied. Come and join Emma Hughes, Head of HR Services as she puts questions to Ian Deakin, Employment Partner, and Sarah Linden, Senior Associate.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s recent decision in the case of Mr Michael Cowie & Others v Scottish Fire and Rescue Service provides a useful insight into favourable - or unfavourable - treatment in the context of discrimination claims.
This month, HM Treasury issued a consultation on Administrative Control Process for Public Sector Exits with draft guidance. They’re proposing to introduce an expanded approvals process for employee exits and special severance payments, and additional reporting requirements. If approved, the proposals will impact public sector bodies and those that do not have a specific right to make exit payments.
In Wierowska v HC-One Oval Limited, the Employment Tribunal had to determine whether the Claimant’s beliefs in relation to Covid-19 vaccines amounted to religious beliefs for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.
Janice Walsh applied for a job with Domino’s Pizza, hoping to secure a role as a Delivery Driver. However things quickly took a turn for the worse during her initial interview, with the very first question that she was asked relating to her age. Ms Walsh was ultimately informed that she had not been successful in her application.
As of 21 July, two separate pieces of legislation came into force which seeks to mitigate against strike action. It should come as no surprise that this is a direct response to the rail strikes, which have dominated the news in the last couple of months.
The Government has referred to the greater “clarity” provided by the Supreme Court’s decision in Uber BV and others v Aslam and others, considering it appropriate to allow the impact of this decision to take effect, before considering further intervention.
The Supreme Court has now issued its long-awaited judgment in the case of Harpur Trust v Brazel, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal.
The new sponsored Global Mobility route aims to meet the needs of overseas businesses with no previous trading presence in the UK to expand into the UK by providing a specific immigration route for senior employees to come here to set up a UK subsidiary or branch.
In the recent case of Dwyer (UK Franchising) Limited v Fredbar Limited and ano’r  EWCA Civ 889, the Court of Appeal considered the reasonableness of restrictive covenants in a franchise agreement.
The Court of Appeal overturned the “fire and re-hire” injunction, finding that there was nothing in the express contractual provisions preventing Tesco from giving the notice to terminate employment in the usual way.
We have seen a flurry of recent EAT and ET decisions demonstrating the difficulty that employers face in trying to balance different protected characteristics in the workplace. In this article, Lucinda Chaplin and Will Carter, associates in our employment team, explore the principles from these recent cases, and the workplace implications of them.