In our last update of the year we bring you technical tribunal processes about not including additional claims at tribunal, how to interpret the Equality Act in relation to the definition of “related to” and how to properly assess value in an assessment of injury to feelings.
Tribunals: Employment tribunal entitled to refuse amendment where claimant had made informed decision not to include additional claims in ET1
Race Discrimination: Comments about employee’s accent could be “related to” race for harassment purposes, even if not motivated by race
Sexual Discrimination: Tribunal’s assessment of injury to feelings in pregnancy discrimination case was “totally flawed”
Tribunals: Employment tribunal entitled to refuse amendment where claimant had made informed decision not to include additional claims in ET1
In Vassallo v Mizuho International plc and another [2024] EAT 170, the EAT held that an employment tribunal had been entitled to refuse a claimant’s application to amend her claim to add a whistleblowing complaint and an indirect sex discrimination complaint. The claimant had been legally represented and there was evidence she had taken a conscious decision not to include those claims in the original ET1.
The EAT has held that an employment tribunal had been entitled to refuse a claimant’s application to amend her claim to add whistleblowing claims and an indirect sex discrimination claim, because the tribunal had been entitled to conclude that she had been legally advised and had made an informed choice not to put them in her ET1.
The claimant’s ET1, which had been drafted by solicitors and submitted in March 2023, contained complaints of breach of contract and disability discrimination. Her solicitors then came off the record. In August 2023, the claimant, having instructed new solicitors, applied to amend her claim to add complaints of detriment and automatic unfair dismissal arising from protected disclosures (the whistleblowing claims) and indirect sex discrimination. The tribunal refused the application to amend, and later declined to reconsider that refusal. It found that no good reasons had been given as to why the claims were not included in the ET1, or for the delay in applying to amend. It noted that the claimant had been legally represented, and it was clear from email correspondence in the hearing bundle that her former solicitors had prepared an earlier draft ET1 containing the whistleblowing claims, but the final ET1 had not included them. The tribunal concluded an informed decision had been taken not to include those claims. The balance of injustice was also in favour of the respondents.
The claimant appealed, arguing that the tribunal had made findings of fact not supported by evidence and/or based on erroneous assumptions. She also argued that she had been badly advised and did not know she had a potential whistleblowing claim.
The EAT refused the appeal. The tribunal had heard evidence and submissions from both parties and had been entitled to conclude that careful thought had been given to the drafting of the ET1. The tribunal did not have to adopt an inquisitorial role in relation to the claimant’s state of knowledge; it was up to the claimant what evidence to introduce and whether to waive privilege in her former solicitors’ advice. Furthermore, it did not matter whether it was the claimant or her former solicitors who made the decision not to include the additional claims in the ET1, since the claimant bore ultimate responsibility for her solicitors’ actions.
Race Discrimination:Comments about employee’s accent could be “related to” race for harassment purposes, even if not motivated by race
In Carozzi v University of Hertfordshire and another [2024] EAT 169, the EAT held that an employment tribunal was wrong to find that comments about an employee’s accent were not harassment under the Equality Act 2010 because they were not motivated by her race. Such comments could nevertheless be “related to” race.
Ms Carozzi, a Brazilian national of Jewish ethnic origin, was employed by the University of Hertfordshire. She resigned before completing her probationary period (which had twice been extended). She brought a number of employment tribunal claims, including for race-related harassment and victimisation. Her harassment claim centred on comments that had been made about her accent. Her victimisation claim alleged that the University’s HR representative, Ms Withers, had refused to share with her the notes of a meeting, because she might then use them against the University in a race discrimination claim.
The tribunal dismissed her claims. It found that the comments about Ms Carozzi’s accent had not been motivated by her race. Rather, they had been about her intelligibility or comprehensibility when communicating.
As for the victimisation claim, the tribunal found that Ms Withers had decided against providing the meeting notes knowing that they might give Ms Carozzi “ammunition” for an employment tribunal claim. However, Ms Withers would have done the same with any other employee who had indicated an intention to make an employment tribunal claim, such as constructive dismissal, that was not based on the EqA 2010. In any event, it did not consider that the treatment could be detrimental, based on Khan and Derbyshire. Ms Carozzi appealed to the EAT.
The EAT allowed the appeal and remitted the harassment and victimisation claims to a fresh tribunal. The EAT observed that there are a number of components in a complaint of harassment, one of which is that the harassment must be “related to” a protected characteristic such as race. In its view, the tribunal had erred in its approach to that component.
The tribunal had stated that a mental element is required in a claim of harassment as much as in a claim of direct discrimination. However, the EAT held that this was wrong. The tribunal had placed considerable emphasis on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Nailard. The issue in that case had been whether the employer’s failure to investigate a grievance alleging sex discrimination was itself related to sex, and therefore an act of harassment. Nailard had not been about harassment in the more typical circumstances in which a complaint is made about words spoken to, or behaviour towards, an individual, and whether that conduct is related to a protected characteristic.
The EAT held that there is no requirement in a harassment claim for a “mental element” equivalent to that in a claim of direct discrimination. Treatment may be “related to” a protected characteristic where it is “because of” the protected characteristic, but that is not the only way conduct can be related to a protected characteristic. There may be circumstances in which harassment occurs where the protected characteristic did not motivate the harasser. The EAT gave the further example of a person who unknowingly uses a word that is offensive to people who have a relevant protected characteristic because it is historically linked to oppression of people with that characteristic. The fact that the person using the word did not know that it had such a connotation would not prevent the word being related to the protected characteristic. The use of the word could therefore potentially amount to harassment, applying the factors in section 26(4) of the EqA 2010, notably the perception of the complainant and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have the effect of violating their dignity.
The EAT went on to observe that an accent may be an important part of a person’s national or ethnic identity. Comments about a person’s accent could be related to the protected characteristic of race. Criticism of such an accent could violate dignity. Obviously, that did not mean that any mention of a person’s accent will amount to harassment. The tribunal would have to consider whether the comment about an accent in a particular case was unwanted and related to race, as well as considering the other elements of section 26.
The EAT held that the tribunal had asked itself the wrong question to establish the reason for the refusal to supply the meeting notes. It should not have asked whether a person who might have brought a different type of claim (that did not amount to a protected act under the EqA 2010) would have been treated differently. The correct question for the employment tribunal was whether the decision not to provide the meeting notes was to a material degree influenced by the fact that Ms Carozzi had made or might make a complaint of unlawful discrimination.
It noted that the EqA 2010 definition of victimisation no longer requires a comparison to be made with the treatment of others. Regarding detriment, the House of Lords in Khan had held that an employer may take reasonable steps to protect its position in discrimination proceedings without this being considered unlawful victimisation. This had led the tribunal in the instant case to conclude that there had been no detriment. However, the tribunal in this case had not considered whether the parties thought that there were likely to be employment tribunal proceedings. Specifically, it had not considered whether an employee who brings a grievance, that might resolve the issue without the need for tribunal proceedings, might reasonably consider themselves disadvantaged by not being provided with the notes of a meeting. Accordingly, the EAT allowed the appeal on this point.
This case confirms that the “related to” test in the definition of harassment is wider than the “because of” test (sometimes referred to in case law as the “reason why” test) that applies to direct discrimination. Conduct can be related to a protected characteristic either where it is motivated by the protected characteristic, or where, regardless of the conscious or unconscious motivations of the alleged harasser, there is objectively some relationship between the conduct or language used and a protected characteristic. Sexist jokes and racial epithets are obvious examples, but the unwitting use of, for example, homophobic, transphobic or ableist language may also, depending on the circumstances (particularly the reasonableness test), be capable of meeting the definition of harassment.
Sexual Discrimination: Tribunal’s assessment of injury to feelings in pregnancy discrimination case was “totally flawed”
In Shakil v Samsons Limited [2024] EAT 192, the Claimant had only been working for the Respondent for about six months when she called in sick with ‘morning sickness’. In response and without notice, the Respondent reduced the Claimant’s hours of work criticising her capability and conduct. It then placed her at risk of redundancy, ultimately dismissing her, one month before she was due to start maternity leave.
Unsurprisingly, the Claimant took a claim of pregnancy discrimination to the tribunal who agreed with her. It was clear to the tribunal that the Respondent’s actions were due to the Claimant’s pregnancy-related illness and that the redundancy had been invented to deal with the Claimant’s pregnancy. In making the award, however, the tribunal simply made an injury to feelings award of £5,000 without any reference to ‘Vento bands ’ or where the Claimant’s injury fell within those bands. The Claimant appealed the award.
The EAT found this assessment to be “totally flawed” and allowed the appeal on the basis that the tribunal had failed to apply the Vento guidelines at all. In particular, the tribunal did not:
identify the detailed evidence given by the Claimant in her witness statement about the injury to feeling she suffered as a result of the discrimination;
make any findings of fact about the injury to feelings suffered;
refer to Vento at all;
refer to any statutory provision or authority relevant to assessing injury to feeling;
identify the relevant bands for this claim in Presidential Guidance;
state which band the injury to feelings fell within;
explain why the award was set as it was within the band.
The EAT remitted the matter of remedy to a fresh tribunal rather than impose an alternative injury to feelings award itself.
The data contained within this document is for general information only. No responsibility can be accepted for inaccuracies. Readers are also advised that the law and practice may change from time to time. This document is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute accounting, legal or tax advice. Professional advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the contents of this document.
This month’s updates emphasise transparency and fairness in employment practices...
News & Views
Employment Law Case Update – October 2024
Anne-Marie Pavitt,
30th October 2024
Employment Law
This month our case digest is dominated by unfair dismissal and victimisation claims. The usual advice follows: if you’re going to dismiss someone, make sure you follow procedure and do it properly, a protected disclosure only gains its protection from being in the public interest (not that of the individual), even unions can get it wrong, and if you’re going to submit a large remedy claim have substantial medical evidence to back it up.
Unfair Dismissal: Tribunal fails to consider fairness of final warning
Unfair Dismissal: Claimant can’t rely on protected disclosures if not made in public interest
Victimisation: Tribunal incorrectly applied burden of proof provisions and rejected protected act
Victimisation: Substantial lack of medical evidence and self-diagnosis not enough for high value remedy claim
Unfair Dismissal: Tribunal fails to consider fairness of final warning
In Thomas v Brandpath UK Ltd[2024] EAT 150, the EAT allowed the claimant’s claim for an unfair dismissal. After an altercation between the claimant and a colleague, the claimant was signed-off sick for a significant period and the respondent conducted a disciplinary hearing in her absence. The claimant was dismissed by the respondent and the Employment Tribunal (ET) concluded that the claimant had acted “inappropriately”. The claimant argued that the ET: (i) did not consider and decide whether the issue of the final warning was manifestly unfair; (ii) there was a failure to apply the relevant guidelines; (iii) the decision was perverse; and (iv) that there was unfairness in proceeding with the disciplinary hearing, in the absence of the claimant, rather than delaying to allow for a possible improvement in her medical condition.
The EAT held that the ET erred in law is its assessment of the reason for dismissal, in failing to determine the question of whether the final warning was manifestly unfair, having identified that as one of the issues for determination. It failed to properly consider the question of whether the respondent had investigated that fell within the band of reasonable responses. There was no clear finding of what the claimant had done or said that was “inappropriate”. They upheld grounds (i) and (ii) of the appeal. It was therefore not necessary to go on to consider grounds (iii) and (iv).
Unfair Dismissal: Claimant can’t rely on protected disclosures if not made in public interest
In Dowding v The Character Group Plc[2024] EAT 153, the claimant in the employment tribunal was the finance director of the respondent, a company listed on the Alternative Investment Market. Following his dismissal he complained of unfair dismissal for the reason or principal reason that he had made protected disclosures, alternatively ordinary unfair dismissal. The tribunal concluded that the claimant had not, in law, made protected disclosures, because the disclosures relied upon were not believed by him to have been made in the public interest (alternatively, if they were, his belief was not reasonable). Nor in any event was the claimant dismissed by reason of those disclosures.
The tribunal found that this was a fair dismissal by reason of a breakdown in trust and confidence that had been caused by the claimant’s conduct. At a further costs hearing the tribunal awarded the respondent costs, in a capped amount, subject to detailed assessment on the indemnity basis. It rejected a costs application by the claimant himself. The respondent also successfully sought its costs in respect of the costs hearing, which it had limited to the maximum that could be summarily awarded, of £20,000.
The claimant’s appeal against the decision dismissing the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint was unsuccessful. An appeal against the costs decision succeeded in two respects. The EAT concluded that, under the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal does have the power to direct that a detailed costs assessment be on the indemnity basis; but the tribunal had not shown whether, or if so, why, it had decided that such a direction was warranted in this case, applying the guidelines in Howman v Queen Elizabeth Hospital, UKEAT/0509/12/JOJ. In respect of the “costs of costs” award, the tribunal had not considered whether the sum of £20,000 was warranted having regard to the nature, gravity and effect of the conduct which gave rise to the award; or if it had considered that, it had not sufficiently explained its decision in that respect.
Victimisation: Tribunal incorrectly applied burden of proof provisions and rejected protected act
In Edwards v Unite the Union and Others[2024] EAT 151, the Employment Tribunal was found by the EAT to have erred in its approach to the burden of proof. The Claimant had been employed as an employment law solicitor for the RMT. He wished to pursue proceedings against the RMT. He was a member of the Unite the Union (“the Union”) and sought to obtain “industrial and legal representation” from the Union against the RMT in respect of employment and personal injury claims. The Union took advice in respect of his claims and represented him in some of them. The Claimant was dissatisfied with aspects of the decision making and service/representation provided to him by the Union. He asserted that the Union and some of its officers had discriminated against him and subjected him to victimisation. He brought a number of claims before an Employment Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected his claims and concluded that the burden of proof had not shifted to the Union in respect of the victimisation allegation, and determined that one email the Claimant sent was not a protected act for the purposes of the claims of victimisation. The Claimant appealed.
The appeal was allowed, concluding that the Tribunal had erred in its application of the burden of proof provisions in consideration of relevant authorities and using guidance on the approach to the burden of proof provisions. As to the second ground of appeal, in context and applying the correct legal principles, and on a fair reading of the relevant email, the Claimant had made an allegation of disability discrimination. The allegation was that the First Respondent had failed to adjust its processes and that as a result, the Claimant, a disabled person, suffered harm. This could be understood to be an allegation of disability discrimination.
Victimisation: Substantial lack of medical evidence and self-diagnosis not enough for high value remedy claim
In McInerney v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust[2024] EAT 158, having been awarded compensation in respect of remedy for a successful claim of unfair constructive dismissal, the Employment Tribunal (ET) made a further reserved judgment in respect of the remedy for victimisation claim which amounted to £20,000 for injury to feelings, £10,000 for aggravated damages (which were not challenged) and £23,344.30 for loss of earnings, against which Dr McInerney appealed. The final schedule of loss submitted by the appellant put her losses at £2,114,140.90 gross. The EAT dismissed her appeal against the findings made in this further reserved judgment by the ET.
The appellant had been employed by the respondent NHS Trust as a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist at a hospital until her retirement. The appellant brought two claims in the ET, alleging acts of victimisation that led to her resignation. Her victimisation claim was based on the respondent’s refusal to consider her application to work on a part-time basis as Forensic Psychiatrist in the respondent’s Forensic Gender Clinic and, specifically, refusing to allow her to apply for the role, not acknowledging or considering her subsequent application and not offering her the role. She contended that her mental health issues, allegedly caused by the victimisation, prevented her from working until the age of 75, as she had intended. The appellant succeeded in both complaints. The ET was highly critical of the actions of the respondent that resulted in the appellant’s resignation, concluding that the respondent had fundamentally breached the claimant’s contract of employment.
The ET found as fact that the appellant had not suffered a loss of confidence because of being victimised that prevented her from undertaking medico-legal work. Among other things, the appellant submitted that the ET failed to apply a percentage chance approach to the medico-legal loss or had otherwise failed to give adequate reasons as to its decision on that point. The EAT held that the ET did not err in law in failing to apply a percentage chance approach to the medico-legal loss. On a proper reading of the judgment, the ET found as a fact that the appellant had not suffered a fundamental loss of confidence that prevented her from carrying out medico-legal work. The ET had been entitled to consider the lack of significant supporting medical evidence to support the very substantial asserted losses (a single letter from a doctor – Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy, no longer practising) and that it was a significant omission. This is a very high value claim which primarily rests with the appellant’s financial losses she says arise as a result of her mental health issues cause by the victimisation by the respondent, and as a consequence, the ET consider medical evidence to be essential to enable proper consideration of the effect of the victimisation on the appellant’s mental health. She had also relied on her own evidence, as a Consultant Psychiatrist, but relying on self-diagnosis in such a high claim would in itself raise potential issues, not least being the cynical view that she would know what to say to support her own claim. Further, the reasons of the ET had been more than sufficient for the appellant to understand why she failed in that element of the claim for loss of earnings.
The data contained within this document is for general information only. No responsibility can be accepted for inaccuracies. Readers are also advised that the law and practice may change from time to time. This document is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute accounting, legal or tax advice. Professional advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the contents of this document.
This month’s newsletter highlights some critical aspects of employment law...
News & Views
Employment Law General Update – October 2024
Anne-Marie Pavitt,
30th October 2024
Employment Law
Big changes are afoot this month with the introduction of the new Labour government’s Employment Rights Bill, aiming to fix problems perceived by the Labour party during their long stint in opposition, such as addressing one-sided flexibility, supporting more family friendly rights and prioritising fairness, equality and wellbeing of workers, ensuring fair pay, modernising trade union legislation and improving enforcement of employment rights. Consultation over the Bill will start now and continue in 2025, with the aim to implement the changes in 2026. We also bring you updates on sexual harassment, proposed employment rights for parents of still-born children and those born prematurely, guidance on the new Tipping Act, and a change in equality office.
Legislation: Government publishes Employment Rights Bill
Protection at Work: The Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 to comes into force on 26 October 2024 and EHRC updates its harassment guidance and publishes eight-step guide for employers on preventing sexual harassment at work
Parents: New private members’ bill on Still-Birth and leave for Neo-natal care
Pay: New Tipping Act and supplementary Code of Practice comes into force – guidance available
Equality: Office for Equality and Opportunity replaces the Equality Hub
Legislation: Government publishes Employment Rights Bill
Background: In September 2021, the Labour Party first introduced its plan for working people in its ‘A new deal for working people’, launched at the Labour Party Conference. The document underwent several iterations, with the final version, Labour’s Plan to make work pay: Delivering a new deal for working people (New Deal), published just prior to the release of the manifesto in June 2024. The Labour Manifesto reiterated a number of the promises set out in the New Deal document and stated that the New Deal would be implemented in full within the first 100 days of the Labour government. The King’s Speech on 17 July 2024 confirmed that Labour’s plans would be implemented through the Employment Rights Bill 2024 (Bill) and the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill 2024. The Employment Rights Bill 2024 was published on 10 October 2024.
When will the Bill come into force? Commencement regulations will be required to bring provisions into force, with the exception of provisions on trade unions and industrial action, which will come into force two months from the day on which the Act is passed, and the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 and related provisions, which will come into force on the date the Act is passed.
What does the Bill plan to do? The Bill implements a large number of the reforms promised in the Labour Party’s New Deal document. Alongside the Bill, the government has also published a policy document entitled Next Steps to Make Work Pay (Next Steps) and a set of explanatory notes. The document sets out the government’s plan generally as well as the next steps in implementation for many of the measures.
Laid out below is a summary of the current position, the changes promised prior to the Bill and the expected reforms in relation to the measures set out in the Bill.
Zero hours and ‘low hours’ contracts: Zero-hour contracts are contracts of employment which lack a minimum number of guaranteed working hours and which do not require a minimum commitment from the employee. This means the working hours of an individual are unpredictable and may vary wildly from week to week. Although, individuals on zero-hour contracts do have a number of statutory protections, these are based solely on employment status. At present there is no definition as to what ‘low hours’ means. This will be the subject of consultation.
In order to provide more security for individuals on zero-hour contracts, the Labour Party promised to:
ban ‘exploitative’ zero hours contracts;
ensure a right to a contract reflecting the number of hours regularly worked and is likely to be based on a 12-week reference period;
ensure workers get reasonable notice of any shifts or working time changes, with proportionate compensation for cancelled or shortened shifts;
introduce anti-avoidance measures; and
end ‘one sided’ flexibility by ensuring all jobs provide a baseline level of security and predictability.
The Bill sets out a right to guaranteed hours where a worker regularly works more than those hours. The guaranteed hours are calculated according to a reference period, which is expected to be 12 weeks. Employers will be required to make an offer of guaranteed hours to workers at the start of employment and at the end of each reference period. Workers can also submit claims to the employment tribunal where an employer has failed to comply with their duty to offer guaranteed hours, or where that offer does not comply with the necessary requirements.
The Next Steps document states that the government intends to consult on the details and to ensure the Bill’s provisions on zero hours contracts are effectively and appropriately applied to agency workers.
Fire and re-hire: Currently, employers wishing to introduce changes to the terms and conditions of an employment contract have the option of terminating the contract (with the requisite notice) and offering immediate re-engagement to the affected employee on new terms. While in government, the Conservative party introduced a statutory Code of Practice on dismissal and re-engagement with guidance on engaging in meaningful consultation and exploring alternatives. However, the Labour Party have since committed to ending ‘fire and rehire’ practices entirely in addition to reforming the existing fire and rehire Code and introducing more effective remedies against abuse.
In place of the Code of Practice, clause 22 of the Bill inserts a new section 104I into the Employment Rights Act 1996, which makes a dismissal unfair where the reason for the dismissal is that:
the employer sought to vary an employee’s contract and the employee did not agree, or
the employer sought to employ another person or re-engage the employee under a varied contract to carry out substantially the same duties.
This will not apply where the employer shows that the reason for the variation was to eliminate, prevent or significantly reduce, or significantly mitigate the effect of, any financial difficulties which at the time of the dismissal were affecting, or were likely in the immediate future to affect, the employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern or otherwise to carry on the activities constituting the business, and in all the circumstances the employer could not reasonably have avoided the need to make the variation.
Unfair dismissal qualifying period: Under section 108(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 the right not to be unfairly dismissed generally only arises where the employee has been continuously employed for a period of at least two years; however the rule is subject to a number of statutory exceptions. The Labour Party has promised to remove the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims, making it a ‘day one’ right.
The Bill will repeal s.108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and remove the two-year qualifying period. However, there will be a new ‘initial period of employment’ (or ‘probationary period’) during which the employer can dismiss an employee for certain reasons, subject to following a specified procedure. The length of the initial period and the details of the procedure will be subject to consultation—see Probationary periods below.
Sick pay (SSP): SSP is currently available to employees who are deemed to have been too ill to undertake any work for a period of at least four consecutive days. Employees must also earn above the lower weekly earnings limit (currently at £123) in order to qualify for SSP. The Labour Manifesto laid out the Party’s commitment to removing the qualifying period for statutory sick pay making it also a ‘day one’ right and removing the lower earnings limit. The Bill reflects both these promises in clauses 8 and 9.
The government will consult on the percentage replacement rate for those earning below the current flat rate of SSP, before bringing it into force as an amendment to the Bill. Furthermore, the Next Steps document states that the new Fair Work Agency will be given responsibility for ensuring SSP enforcement.
Parental leave: Parents of a child (whether born to the parents or adopted) are entitled to take up to 18 weeks of unpaid leave to care for that child at any time before the child’s 18th birthday. Currently parents must have worked continuously for an employer for at least one year to qualify for parental leave. The Bill will make parental leave a ‘day one’ right.
Probationary periods: As noted above, the Bill introduces the concept of an ‘initial period of employment’ (or ‘probationary period’) where dismissals for specified reasons will not be considered unfair. The government has further committed in the Next Steps document to consulting on the length of that initial statutory probation period and to consult on how it interacts with ACAS’s Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures to ensure that ‘day one’ rights will not be affected by the statutory probation period.
Flexible working: The Employment Rights Act 1996 provides employees with a statutory right to request certain specified changes to their employment contract. However. employees must have had at least 26 weeks’ of continuous service in order to qualify for the right. Earlier legislative changes were made from 6 April 2024, including making the right to request a day one right. However, the grounds upon which an employer can reject a request remain broad.
The Bill introduces a reasonableness requirement into an employer’s decision not to grant flexible working requests, and requirement for the employer to explain to the employee why they consider it reasonable to refuse the request.
Protection for new mothers: Currently, dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy or maternity will be deemed to be an automatically unfair dismissal. This means that an employee dismissed under these circumstances does not require the two years of continuous employment ordinarily needed to bring a claim in the employment tribunal. A woman who takes ordinary maternity leave is also entitled to return to the ‘same job’ at the end of that leave unless that job is no longer available.
The Plan to make work pay also included a promise to strengthen these protections by making it unlawful, except in specified circumstances, to dismiss a woman who has had a baby for six months after she returns to work.
The Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to make provision for regulations restricting dismissal of an individual during pregnancy or for a period after pregnancy.
Paternity leave: Currently an employee may take paternity leave to support a mother or adopter in taking care of a new child, subject to (among other things) having at least 26 weeks’ qualifying employment. Under the Bill, paternity leave will become a ‘day one’ right.
Bereavement leave: Employees are entitled to Parental bereavement leave (PBL) following the death of a child if they meet the requisite parental relationship conditions and comply with the notice requirements. PBL is a ‘day one’ right; however it is currently only available to employees. The Bill extends the right to take PBL to any ‘bereaved person’. PBL will no longer be limited to circumstances involving the death of a child. A bereaved person will be entitled to take leave for the death of any person as long as they meet the other relevant conditions set out in the regulations.
Equality action plans: Amendments to the Equality Act 2010 made by the Bill will require large employers (with 250 employees or more) to publish equality action plans showing the steps that the employer is taking in relation to their employees with regard to prescribed matters related to gender equality, and to publish prescribed information relating to the plan. These will need to cover addressing the gender pay gap and supporting employees going through the menopause.
Fair Work Agency: The Labour Party has committed to amalgamating the HMRC National Minimum Wage unit, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and the Gangmasters Labour Abuse Authority into a single enforcement body known as the Fair Work Agency. The Bill establishes the Fair Work Agency which will be responsible for:
minimum wage and statutory sick pay enforcement;
the employment tribunal penalty scheme;
labour exploitation and modern slavery; and
enforcement of holiday pay policy (a new responsibility, which was not originally included in the New Deal document).
Fair pay agreements for social care workers: The Labour Party promised to consult on a new Fair Pay Agreement to create a New Deal for Social Care Workers. The Bill provides for the creation of an Adult Social Care Negotiating Body with a remit over remuneration, terms and conditions of employment and any matters specified by the Secretary of State, for social care workers. Agreements over remuneration which have been ratified by the Secretary of State must be paid in accordance with the agreement and any other term will have effect as a term of a worker’s contract. A consultation on how the Fair Pay Agreement should work is promised ‘soon’.
School support staff: The School Support Staff Negotiating Body, the pay body for school support staff, was abolished some time ago. The Labour Party stated that it would reinstate the Body, and task it with establishing a national terms and conditions handbook, training, career progression routes and fair pay rates for support staff to help to address the recruitment and retention crisis. The Bill re-establishes the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.
Trade unions: The Employment Rights Bill makes provision for changes to trade union law relating to:
a worker’s right to a statement of trade union rights;
a trade union’s right of access to a workplace;
trade union recognition;
members’ contributions to political funds, and public sector check-off arrangements;
time off rights for trade union officials, learning representatives and union equality representatives; and
blacklisting.
An employer will be required to give a worker a written statement that the worker has a right to join a trade union at the same time as the employer gives the worker a written statement of employment particulars. Secondary legislation will stipulate what information must be included in the statement, the form the statement must take and the manner in which the statement must be given.
The Employment Bill introduces a new framework for trade unions to request physical access to an employer’s workplace for the purposes of meeting, representing, recruiting or organising workers, and/or facilitating collecting bargaining. Access agreements are to be negotiated in the first instance between the employer and the trade union, with a referral to the Central Arbitration Committee provided for if agreement cannot be reached.
Thresholds required for a trade union to qualify for, and achieve, statutory recognition will be amended, with double thresholds removed where relevant and replaced by a simplified requirement for unions to demonstrate appropriate levels of support. In relation to individual contributions to a political fund of the trade union, the default position will be that individual members will be contributors to the political fund unless they specifically opt out (rather than the other way around, which is the current position.
Changes to the check-off arrangements for public sector workers introduced by s.15 of the Trade Union Act 2016 on 9 May 2024 are to be repealed.
Where an employer permits an employee or a learning representative to take time off for carrying out their duties under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (ss.168 and 168A), it will also be expected, if requested, to provide reasonable accommodation and other facilities for carrying out those duties.
A new right for reasonable time off for union equality representatives is introduced to support duties related to promoting equality in the workplace.
Secondary legislation will be introduced to extend blacklisting protections; it will be unlawful not only to compile lists of trade union members etc, but also to use such lists for the purposes of discrimination in relation to recruitment or in relation to the treatment of workers, and/or to sell or supply such lists for those purposes.
Industrial action: Changes are proposed in relation to:
balloting and notification requirements for lawful industrial action
lawful picketing;
detriment and dismissal for participating in lawful industrial action; and
restrictions on those working in regulated services from participating in industrial action.
Ballot participation thresholds will be done away with and support thresholds for industrial action will be the majority of those voting in the ballot. Additional balloting thresholds for those engaged in public services will also be done away with. Information that must be included on the voting paper in a ballot is to be significantly reduced and simplified. Provision is made for electronic balloting to be introduced.
The period of notice to be given to an employer to notify it of industrial action is to be reduced from 14 days to seven days.
Lawful picketing will no longer be dependent on the union supervision requirements contained in s.220A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which is to be done away with.
A new right for workers to be protected from detriment for participating in protected industrial action, or to deter them from doing so, is to be introduced, and protection against dismissal for participating in protected industrial action is to be extended.
The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 is to be repealed, and industrial action restrictions on workers working in services that have been designated ‘relevant’ services under the Act are accordingly lifted.
Further reform: In addition to the anticipated reforms announced in the Labour Party’s New Deal and Manifesto, the Bill includes some measures which had not previously been anticipated. Clauses 16–18 of the Bill contain new provisions on sexual harassment, expanding the duty to prevent sexual harassment set to come into force on 26 October 2024 under the Worker Protection (Amendment Of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023. The new sections introduce:
liability for harassment by third parties;
provision for disclosures about sexual harassment qualifying as a protected disclosure under S.43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996; and
the addition of specified steps that an employer must take to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable steps in the prevention of sexual harassment for the purposes of the legislation.
The government will also consult on lifting the cap of the protective award if an employer is found to not have properly followed the statutory collective redundancy processes and on the role interim relief could play in protecting workers in these situations.
As stated above, the Next Steps document provides a general timeline on the implementation of the measures and reforms set out in the Bill. The majority of the measures in the Bill are set to be brought in through commencement legislation, and a number will go through a consultation process before their eventual implementation. According to the Next Steps document, the government expects to start consulting in 2025, although the government is ahead of itself in this regard and launched four consultations on 21 October 2024. The four consultations, which run until early December 2024, seek views of the Bill’s measures relating to a new right to guaranteed hours for zero or low hours workers, collective redundancy consultation and ‘fire and rehire’ practices, trade union legislation and statutory sick pay. This means that any substantive reforms are unlikely to take effect much before 2026. This also means the Bill is likely to see some amendment before all the measures fully come into force.
The Next Steps document also refers to a number of reforms not included in the Bill which the government is nevertheless committed to introducing. These are:
a full review of the parental leave system;
a review of the implementation of carer’s leave and an examination of the benefits of introducing paid carer’s leave;
a consultation on workplace surveillance technologies;
consultations on the creation and implementation of a single ‘worker’ status;
a call for evidence on TUPE 2006 regulations and processes;
a review of health and safety in the workplace aimed at modernising guidance and regulations;
a joint consultation with ACAS on collective grievances;
the introduction of a new National Procurement Policy Statement aimed at reforming the public procurement ahead of the commencement of the Procurement Act 2023 in February 2025; and
an extension of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to private companies that hold public contracts and publicly funded employers.
Protection at work: The Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 to comes into force on 26 October 2024 and EHRC updates its harassment guidance and publishes eight-step guide for employers on preventing sexual harassment at work
The Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 comes into force on 26 October 2024. The Act will:
Introduce a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees.
Give employment tribunals the power to uplift discrimination compensation by up to 25% where an employer is found to have breached the duty to prevent sexual harassment.
At present it’s only a duty to take ‘reasonable steps’, the new Employment Rights Bill already includes a change to ‘all reasonable steps’ which no doubt will come into force in due course. The Employment Rights Bill will also re-introduce employer liability for third party harassment in relation to all relevant protected characteristics under the Equality Act (sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, etc.)
Sexual harassment occurs where both:
A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature.
The conduct has the purpose or effect of either violating B’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
The EHRC has published an updated technical guidance for employers on the steps they can take to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. The EHRC has also published an eight-step practical guide to assist with this preventative duty, including developing an effective anti-harassment policy, using a reporting system that allows workers to raise an issue either anonymously or in name, and regularly monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of an employer’s actions.
Parents: New private members’ bill on Still-Birth and leave for Neo-natal care
The Still-Birth (Definition) Bill (a Private Members’ Bill sponsored by Liberal Democrat peer, Baroness Benjamin) received its first reading in the House of Lords on 14 October 2024. The Bill would amend the definition of still-birth to apply from 20 weeks into a pregnancy, rather than from 24 weeks as currently is the case, including for the purposes of entitlement to maternity allowance under section 35 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992.
Currently under the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 (which received Royal Assent on 24 May 2023) employees with responsibility for children receiving neonatal care will be entitled to receive up to 12 weeks of paid leave per year. Regulations bringing into force its main provisions are awaited.
The latest edition of HMRC’s Employer Bulletin confirms that from 6 April 2025 HMRC will begin to administer statutory neonatal care pay (SNCP). The Bulletin informs employers that SNCP:
is claimable in the first 28 days following the birth of a child after they have spent seven consecutive days in neonatal care
can be paid for a maximum period of 12 weeks but will allow some flexibility dependent upon individual parental circumstances and other statutory payments to which they may be entitled.
Pay: New Tipping Act and supplementary Code of Practice comes into force – guidance available
On 1 October 2024, the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 and statutory Code of Practice on fair and transparent distribution of tips came into force. Under the Act, employers must distribute tips in a ‘fair and transparent’ manner, passing all tips, gratuities, and service charges on to workers, without deductions. Failure to do so could result in employment tribunal claims by workers seeking to enforce their rights.
The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) has published guidance on tips and service charges in relation to the Act and supplementary Code of Practice which are both now in force. The guidance explains what the new law says, sharing tips fairly, and the obligation to have a written policy and to keep records. The guidance also covers which tips the law applies to, when tips must be paid, tronc systems and what happens if tips are not being paid correctly.
The DBT has also published non-statutory guidance for employers for employers on distributing tips fairly. The guidance is aimed at helping employers apply the statutory code of practice on fair and transparent distribution of tips, and applies to all sectors and businesses where tips are received. The guidance is not part of the statutory Code of Practice, legal advice or an exhaustive account of what is acceptable under either the Employment Rights Act 1996 or the statutory Code of Practice.
Equality: Office for Equality and Opportunity replaces the Equality Hub
The Equality Hub has been replaced by the Office for Equality and Opportunity. The Office for Equality and Opportunity will cover the overall framework of equality legislation in the UK, including disability policy, ethnic disparities, gender equality and LGBT+ rights.
The data contained within this document is for general information only. No responsibility can be accepted for inaccuracies. Readers are also advised that the law and practice may change from time to time. This document is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute accounting, legal or tax advice. Professional advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the contents of this document.
This month’s newsletter highlights some critical aspects of employment law...
News & Views
Navigating the New Landscape: Key Employment Law Changes of 2024
Anne-Marie Pavitt,
13th April 2024
Employment Law
The start of 2024 has been a busy time for new employment Regulations and Acts coming into force, the majority of which relate to further extending family friendly rights within the workplace.
We have set out below a summary of the changes all of which have now come into force. Employers should therefore undertake a review of their corresponding polices as soon as possible to ensure they include the additional rights and responsibilities set out below.
The Paternity Leave (Amendments) Regulations 2024.
These Regulations came into force on 8 March 2024 and make the following changes:
employees can take their two-week paternity leave entitlement as two separate one-week blocks (rather than having to take just one week in total or two consecutive weeks).
employees can take paternity leave at any time in the 52 weeks after birth (rather than having to take leave in the 56 days following birth).
employees only need to give 28 days’ notice of their intention to take paternity leave (reduced from the previous position that required notice to be given 15 weeks before the Expected Week of Childbirth (EWC)).
The Regulations are stated to apply in all cases where the EWC is on, or after, 6 April 2024.
The Maternity Leave, Adoption Leave and Shared Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
These regulations came into force on 6 April 2024 and extend the period of special protection from redundancy for employees who are on maternity leave, adoption leave or those on shared parental leave. They bring the Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Act 2023 into operation.
Previously, regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 stated that parents on maternity leave, adoption leave or shared parental leave should be offered first refusal of any suitable alternative employment which may be available in a redundancy situation. This protection is, under the Act, extended as follows:
For maternity – the protected period now covers pregnancy, alongside 18 months from the first day of the estimated week of childbirth. The protected period can be changed to cover 18 months from the exact date of birth if the employee gives the employer notice of this date prior to the end of maternity leave.
For adoption – the protected period now covers 18 months from placement for adoption.
For shared parental leave – the protected period now covers 18 months from birth, provided that the parent has taken a period of at least 6 consecutive weeks of shared parental leave. This protection will not apply if the employee is otherwise protected under one of the two points above.
These new rules apply to any pregnancies notified to the employer on or after 6 April 2024 and in respect of the 6-month additional protected period, any maternity leave ending on or after 6 April 2024.
The new Flexible working Regulations came into force on 6 April 2024.
The Regulations remove the requirement that an employee must have 26 weeks’ service in order to be able to make a request for flexible working. The change makes the right to request flexible working a Day One right.
This new right applies to flexible working requests made on or after 6 April 2024.
Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023
This Act sets out further changes to the rules on flexible working requests and came into force on 6 April 2024. A summary of the changes is:
Employees can now make two flexible working requests in any 12-month period (previously only one request).
Requests have to be dealt with by employers within two months of receipt of a request if no extension is agreed (previously employers had three months to deal with a request).
Employers must consult with an employee before they are able to refuse a request for flexible working.
In their application, employees will no longer have to explain what effect they believe agreeing to the request would have on an employer and how any such effect might be dealt with.
New Working Time Regulations to simplify holiday entitlement and holiday pay calculations
For those with flexible working arrangements i.e. irregular or part-year contracts, these Regulations are designed to be helpful in providing greater clarity around holiday pay and accrual.
From 1 January 2024, these Regulations:
Defined irregular hours workers and part-year workers in relation to the introduction of the holiday entitlement accrual method and rolled-up holiday pay;
Removed the Working Time (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 which affect the accrual of COVID-19 carryover of leave;
Maintained the current rates of holiday pay where 4 weeks is paid at normal rate of pay and 1.6 weeks paid at basic rate of pay, whilst retaining the 2 distinct pots of leave; and
Defined what is considered ‘normal remuneration’ in relation to the 4 weeks of statutory annual leave.
The following reforms also apply to leave years beginning on or after 1 April 2024:
They set out a method to calculate statutory holiday entitlement for irregular hours and part-year workers;
They also set out a method to work out how much leave an irregular hour or part-year worker has accrued when they take maternity or family related leave or are off sick; and
They also allow rolled-up holiday pay as an alternative method to calculate holiday pay for irregular hours workers and part-year workers.
If our employment law specialists can assist with any queries on these latest changes or with drafting policy updates, then do not hesitate to get in touch with us at hello@dixcartuk.co.uk and we would be more than happy to help.
The data contained within this document is for general information only. No responsibility can be accepted for inaccuracies. Readers are also advised that the law and practice may change from time to time. This document is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute accounting, legal or tax advice. Professional advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the contents of this document.
This month’s newsletter highlights some critical aspects of employment law...
News & Views
Employment Law Case Update – April 2024
Anne-Marie Pavitt,
11th April 2024
Employment Law
This month we bring you some technical cases looking at the circumstances in which a dismissal could be fair despite a full lack of process because of the actions of the disgruntled employee. Uber Eats has been found to have some bugs in its facial recognition software which has caused it to be seemingly discriminatory, a warning to employers using AI. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has made a declaration of incompatibility between Trade Union law and the European Convention of Human Rights, as it appears to be lacking protection for people lawfully striking other than protection from dismissal. Read on for more details.
Unfair Dismissal: ‘Rare and unusual’ dismissal fair despite no written warning or appeal
Trade Unions: Incompatibility of Trade Union Act v Rights to Strike under ECHR
Unfair Dismissal: ‘Rare and unusual’ dismissal fair despite no written warning or appeal
In Matthews v CGI IT UK Ltd [2024] EAT 38, the EAT held that an IT consulting business was right to fire a director without warning after their professional relationship irretrievably broke down, and made even the right to appeal a ‘futile’ exercise.
The EAT concluded that Guy Matthews was not victimised or unfairly dismissed because he gave his bosses little option but to fire him following months of attempts to keep him on, even as he continuously accused a manager of undermining him without proof.
‘This is an unusual and rare case where a dismissal has been found to be fair when there has been no written warning and no offer of an appeal. …They made clear factual findings and were entitled to conclude that this was such a rare case’, Judge Susan Walker wrote for the three-person panel.
Matthews started working at CGI, an IT and business consulting services company, in May 2017. He later became a director and consulting expert on a team specialising in 5G technology, working under Steve Evans. However, around May or June 2020, CGI decided to cut short its 5G pursuits and started a redundancy process, meaning Matthews’ job was at risk, the judgment said. Matthews’ relationship with Evans then began to strain. He believed that Evans was scapegoating him for the failed 5G venture, and had used him as a cover to make another colleague redundant, so Matthews submitted a complaint, the judgment said.
An internal team upheld part of Matthews’ grievance, finding that the company had placed ‘undue weight’ on his 5G experience when it decided his role was at risk when he had several other skills. However, the reviewer dismissed Matthew’s other allegations against Evans, noting that there was nothing to back it up. Matthews then accused the reviewer of incompetence and threatened to submit more grievances against Evans.
By this point, CGI had abandoned the redundancy process, and in November 2020 Matthews began a phased return to work after being sick for some time, the judgment said. CGI gave Matthews the option of remaining on the current team and reporting to Evans, or to try and take on an equivalent role on another team. But Matthews didn’t agree with either, and later in December 2020 rejected another offer. By February 2021, CGI had dismissed Matthews, citing an irretrievable breakdown in the professional relationship.
The EAT concurred with the earlier tribunal’s reasoning and conclusions. Although CGI initially made a mistake in the redundancy procedure, the company genuinely and persistently tried to find a reasonable solution to keep Matthews on but got rejected at every turn, the panel said. And there was no indication that Matthews was willing to make concessions or offer another proposal, given his conviction that Evans should be punished.
The Employment Tribunal had correctly considered whether CGI should have taken less extreme steps. But giving Matthews a warning would have ‘most likely generated a further escalation’, and mediation and the right to appeal would have been futile, too, because of Matthews’ stance that CGI needed to accept wrongdoing on Evans’ part, the judgment said.
Moreover, the panel stressed that the previous judge had not, in fact, applied the wrong legal test for victimisation. Matthews had argued that the judge wrongly used the test for automatic unfair dismissal—weighing whether his protected disclosures were the principal reason for getting the boot, rather than considering whether the whistleblowing complaints had a ‘material influence’ on his dismissal, the judgment says. However, Walker J said it was ‘quite clear that the correct test was applied, and the Employment Tribunal did not apply a test of what was the ‘principal reason’ for dismissal. The quote relied on by the claimant is in a different part of the judgment dealing with other complaints’.
In Manjang v Uber Eats UK Ltd and others (ET Case No 3206212/2021), the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has announced that Uber Eats driver, Pa Edrissa Manjang, has received a financial settlement, following allegations that facial recognition checks required to access his work app were racially discriminatory, which led to him being unable to access the Uber Eats app to secure work.
In 2021, Mr Manjang was removed from the platform following a failed recognition check and subsequent automated process. He was told by Uber Eats that they had found ‘continued mismatches’ in the photos he had submitted to access the platform. The EHRC and the App Drivers and Couriers Union, both concerned by the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and automated processes in this case, helped with funding.
Baroness Kishwer Falkner, Chairwoman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said:
“AI is complex, and presents unique challenges for employers, lawyers and regulators. It is important to understand that as AI usage increases, the technology can lead to discrimination and human rights abuses.
We are particularly concerned that Mr Manjang was not made aware that his account was in the process of deactivation, nor provided any clear and effective route to challenge the technology. More needs to be done to ensure employers are transparent and open with their workforces about when and how they use AI.”
Trade Unions: Incompatibility of Trade Union Act v Rights to Strike under ECHR
In Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer [2024] UKSC 12, the appellant, Ms Mercer, was employed as a support worker in the care sector by a care services provider, Alternative Futures Group Ltd (“AFG”). As a workplace representative of UNISON, she was involved in planning and took part in lawful strike action. She was subsequently suspended by AFG. While suspended, Ms Mercer received normal pay but was unable to earn pay for the overtime she would otherwise have worked. Ms Mercer brought a claim against AFG under section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA) that she had suffered detrimental treatment done for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring her from taking part in the activities of an independent trade union “at an appropriate time” or penalising her for having done so.
By agreement between the parties, the Employment Tribunal determined as a preliminary issue whether, in light of articles 10 (Freedom of expression) and 11 (Freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), section 146 of TULRCA protected workers from detriment short of dismissal for participation in lawful industrial action as a member of an independent trade union. The Employment Tribunal held that it did not. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed Ms Mercer’s appeal and held that it could be interpreted as doing so. The Court of Appeal allowed a further appeal by the intervener, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, holding that section 146 could not be interpreted compatibly with article 10 of the Convention but refused to make a declaration of incompatibility. Ms Mercer then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, in allowing in part the appellant employee’s appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) that although section 14 of TULRCA could not be interpreted compatibly with article 10 of the ECHR a declaration of incompatibility was refused on the basis that there was a lacuna (gap) in the law rather than a specific statutory provision which had been incompatible. It therefore held that that section was the only route that could be available to the appellant to vindicate her article 11 right in the domestic courts or tribunals.
However, that route was blocked by the conventional interpretation given to section 146 of the TULRCA. That was what was inherently objectionable in the terms of section 146 as it stood and that meant that section 146 was incompatible with article 11 of the ECHR. Accordingly, a declaration was made under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that section 146 of TULRCA was incompatible with article 11, insofar as it failed to provide any protection against sanctions short of dismissal, intended to deter or penalise trade union members from taking part in lawful strike action organised by their trade union.
The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal to the extent that it makes a declaration that section 146 TULRCA is incompatible with article 11 of the ECHR.
The data contained within this document is for general information only. No responsibility can be accepted for inaccuracies. Readers are also advised that the law and practice may change from time to time. This document is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute accounting, legal or tax advice. Professional advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the contents of this document.
This month’s newsletter highlights some critical aspects of employment law...
News & Views
Employment Law General Update – April 2024
Anne-Marie Pavitt,
10th April 2024
Employment Law
With the new tax year comes plenty of changes to make yourself aware of. We have a whole raft of key employment changes such as to rates of statutory pay and leave, including a new system of working out holiday entitlement for irregular and part-year workers. There are new toolkits and guidance in relation to Requests for Flexible Working, Pregnancy and Maternity Discrimination and how to use AI in recruitment processes. Lastly, there’s something for everyone with the launch of the Environment Agency’s new Portal to report wrong doing for water company employees. Afterall, it’s April showers time!
New Law: Summary of Key Employment Law Changes from April 2024
Holiday Entitlement: Changes from April for Irregular Hours Workers and Part-year Workers
ACAS: Revised Code of Practice on Requests for Flexible Working Published
Discrimination: EHRC Publishes Updates to Pregnancy and Maternity Discrimination Toolkits
Recruitment: DSIT Publishes Guidance on Responsible Use of AI in Recruitment
Whistleblowing: The Environment Agency Launches Portal for its Workers to Report Wrongdoing
New Law: Summary of Key Employment Law Changes from April 2024
The following changes took effect from 1 April 2024:
changes to the calculation of holiday pay for irregular hours workers and part-year workers;
the national living wage and national minimum wage annual increase;
removal of the exemption for live-in domestic workers (e.g. nannies and au pairs) from the national minimum wage; and
minimum rates of remuneration for agricultural workers in Wales increase.
The following changes took effect from 6 April 2024:
the right to request flexible working becomes a day one right and changes to requests for flexible working, including a revised ACAS Code of Practice;
changes to paternity leave and pay;
introduction of carer’s leave;
extension of existing requirements that apply to employers when redundancy situations arise where an employee is on maternity, adoption or shared parental leave, so that those requirements can also apply during pregnancy and for a period of time after that leave has ended;
amendments to employment tribunal rules on responses;
increases to the tribunal compensation limits;
increases to the Vento bands for making awards for injury to feelings;
increase to the rate of Statutory Sick Pay (SSP);
the weekly earnings limits and thresholds, used for determining liability to Class 1 NICs remain unchanged, including the lower earnings limit of £123 per week, below which employees are not entitled to SSP, Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP), Statutory Adoption Pay (SAP), Statutory Paternity Pay (SPP), Statutory Shared Parental Pay (SSPP) or Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (SPBP);
reduction in the Class 1 NIC main primary percentage from 10% to 8%;
extension for a further year of the employer NICs relief for employers hiring qualifying veterans;
a freeze to the rates of Van Benefit and Car and Van Fuel Benefit;
increases to the threshold and rate for high income child benefit charge;
the lifetime allowance on tax-relieved pensions savings is replaced with a lump sum allowance and a lump sum and death benefit allowance.
The following changes took effect from 7 April 2024:
the rates of SMP, SPP, SAP, SSPP and SPBP are increased.
The following changes took effect from 8 April 2024:
the rate of maternity allowance (MA) is increased.
Changes have been made by the Paternity Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2024, SI 2024/329 and the Statutory Paternity Pay (Amendment) Regulations 2024, SI 2024/121 to the statutory right to paternity leave and pay, where the expected week of childbirth begins after 6 April 2024 or, in the case of adoption, the expected date of placement is on or after that date. The main changes are that:
the two-week paternity leave entitlement can be taken in two non-consecutive blocks of one week, rather than just as a block of either one week or two weeks, and
leave can be taken at any time in the first year after birth or placement for adoption, rather than just in the first eight weeks.
The Employment Rights Act 1996, ss 80J-80N and the Carer’s Leave Regulations 2024, SI 2024/251, give eligible employees the ‘day one’ right to unpaid time off to provide or arrange care for a dependant with a long-term care need. Carers may take up to one week of unpaid leave in a 12-month rolling period.
Enhanced protection from redundancy is available to employees during pregnancy, maternity leave, adoption leave and shared parental leave, and for an additional period after those types of statutory family-related leave.
Holiday Entitlement: Changes from April for Irregular hours workers and part-year workers
For leave years beginning on or after 1 April 2024, the Employment Rights (Amendment, Revocation and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2023 (Amendment Regulations 2023), SI 2023/1426 amended the Working Time Regulations 1998, SI 1998/1833 to introduce (among other things) different provisions for calculating holiday entitlement and pay in respect of irregular hours workers and part-year workers.
In summary:
a different method for calculating how much holiday entitlement has been accrued, namely it is at 12.07% of the hours worked in the pay period;
there is just one pot of holiday entitlement, rather than the usual distinction for other workers, i.e. the four weeks’ basic entitlement and 1.6 weeks’ additional entitlement. This has implications for how much leave can potentially be carried-over and which payments are to be taken into account when calculating holiday pay.
the employer has the option of paying rolled-up holiday (which it is not able to do in respect of other workers).
The main reason for these amendments was to reverse the effect of the Supreme Court decision in Harpur Trust v Brazel, which had resulted in some anomalies whereby part-year or irregular hours workers could end up with a more generous paid holiday entitlement than a year-round worker with normal hours who worked more hours over the year. A consultation was carried out by BEIS in January 2023 in order to simplify the assessment procedure, and this is the result.
ACAS: Revised Code of Practice on Requests for Flexible Working published
On 6 April 2024 the revised Code of Practice on requests for flexible working (SI 2024/429), which has been issued by Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) under section 199 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, came into effect.
It provides that the revised Code of Practice does not apply to applications for flexible working made under the Employment Rights Act 1996, s 80F which are made on or before 5 April 2024 except that any such application will be taken into account in determining whether an employee is prevented from making an application by section 80F(4) of that Act.
From 6 April 2024, the statutory right to request flexible working is amended so that:
employees have the right to make a flexible working request from the first day of employment, thereby removing the need for any qualifying period of service
employees may make two flexible working requests, rather than one, during any period of 12 months
employees no longer have to explain the effect of the proposed change on the employer’s business as part of their request
the employer must consult the employee before deciding not to accept a request
the decision period for an employer to respond to a request for flexible working is reduced from three, to two, months
See the revised ACAS Code of Practice on Flexible Working here. This replaces the previous version which was published in June 2014.
Discrimination: EHRC Publishes Updates to Pregnancy and Maternity Discrimination Toolkits
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has published updates to its guidance on pregnancy and maternity discrimination at work. The changes to the various toolkits have been made to reflect a number of changes which have come into effect in April 2024.
The changes to the toolkits include:
the extension of protection from redundancy to include pregnant women and those on maternity, adoption and shared parental leave;
offering suitable alternative employment to pregnant women and those on maternity, adoption and shared parental leave in a redundancy situation, including giving priority over other employees regarding alternative roles;
providing the right to request flexible working from the first day of employment;
increasing flexibility in how paternity leave can be taken.
Recruitment: DSIT publishes guidance on responsible use of AI in recruitment
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) have published ‘Responsible AI in Recruitment’ guidance. It centres on ensuring good practice for the procurement and deployment of AI systems for HR and recruitment. It specifically focuses on technologies used in the hiring process, such as sourcing, screening, interview and selection. AI can automate and simplify these processes. However, it also highlights risks such as perpetuating existing biases, digital exclusion, and discriminatory job advertising and targeting.
Whistleblowing: The Environment Agency launches portal for its workers to report wrongdoing
The Environment Agency (EA) has launched a whistleblowing portal, allowing water industry workers to report serious environmental wrongdoing by their water companies. Internal water company whistleblowers are encouraged to alert the EA to any concerns, which will then be assessed by the regulator’s expert intelligence teams. Reporters’ identities will be protected and treated as confidential sources. The portal builds on the whistleblowing reports that the EA can already receive under the Prescribed Persons (Reports on Disclosures of Information) Regulations 2017, SI 2017/507.
The data contained within this document is for general information only. No responsibility can be accepted for inaccuracies. Readers are also advised that the law and practice may change from time to time. This document is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute accounting, legal or tax advice. Professional advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the contents of this document.
This month’s newsletter highlights some critical aspects of employment law...
News & Views
Employment Law Case Update – January 2024
Anne-Marie Pavitt,
26th January 2024
Employment Law
We welcome you back into the land of employment law cases with a few of cases from the back end of 2023. Learn how the ACAS Code plays a crucial role in handling whistleblowing cases, and its implications for compensation uplifts and the limitations of contractual terms. We take a look at how future discrimination claims can be waived when done correctly in a settlement agreement, and evaluate how timings should be considered when looking at constructive dismissal cases, particularly where the claimant has a long employment history and there have been efforts at negotiation.
Whistleblowing: Using the ACAS Code for grievances and compensation uplifts, and whether contractual terms can limit losses
In SPI Spirits (UK) Ltd & Anor v Zabelin [2023] EAT 147, the claimant was the Group Chief Investment Officer for the first respondent company (SPI Spirits). He agreed a 30% pay cut from April to June 2020 because of the effects of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on the business. When the first respondent said that the pay cut was being extended to at least 1 September 2020 the claimant raised, in an email of 4 June 2020 and at a meeting on 5 June 2020, various issues including alleging that the pandemic was being used as an excuse to cut pay and that employees were being intimidated. On 8 June 2020 the claimant had a telephone discussion with the second respondent (Shefler), the majority shareholder in the group, who suggested that the claimant should resign if he didn’t agree to proposed changes to bonuses. When the claimant queried why he should resign the second respondent dismissed him. The claimant brought claims including of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment on the grounds of having made whistleblowing protected disclosures (including regarding (a) the claimant’s pay; (b) the claimant’s 2020 bonus; (c) staff welfare; and (d) coronavirus pretence).
The outcome of the case was that the EAT confirmed that a grievance must be in writing for the ACAS Code on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures to apply but, once that has occurred, if new grievances arise they do not each have to be put in writing for the Code to be engaged, unless there is a ‘material change’ in the nature or scope of the complaint or redress sought such that fairness requires it. In addition, the uplift to compensation for an employer’s failure to follow the ACAS Code also applies to awards made against individuals if the relevant individual was responsible for the failure. Finally, contractual terms limiting loss will not be upheld if they produce an outcome which would have the same effect as disapplying or limiting a statutory provision, according to the EAT.
Equality Act: Unknown future claims can be waived in a settlement agreement if sufficiently particularised
In Bathgate v Technip Singapore PTE [2023] CSIH 48 the Inner House of the Court of Session held that the various protections for the employee built into section 147 of the Equality Act 2010 do not exclude the settlement of future claims so long as the types of claim are clearly identified and the objective meaning of the words used encompassed settlement of the relevant claim. Section 147 of the Equality Act 2010 allows claims for discrimination to be settled using a settlement agreement provided that the settlement agreement relates to the ‘particular complaint’. Accordingly, a settlement agreement can relate to a future complaint if there is sufficient description of it in the claims waived.
There has been significant uncertainty for some time about whether or not future claims an employee might acquire against their employer but which have not yet arisen could, with the correct wording, be effectively waived as part of a settlement agreement. This decision by the Inner House of the Court of Session (the Scottish equivalent to the Court of Appeal) comes unequivocally to the conclusion that future claims can be waived in a settlement agreement so long as they are sufficiently identified in accordance with the requirements in Hinton v University of East London [2005] EWA Civ 532.
Whilst employers would be wise to consider including future claims in settlement agreements, those representing individuals may try to exclude future claims. However, it should be noted that the decision in this case may not necessarily be followed in England. While decisions from the Inner House of the Court of Session are often considered by employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in England, they are not strictly binding, so caution should be exercised.
Constructive Dismissal: Was resignation too slow to have been ‘the last straw’?
In Leaney v Loughborough University [2023] EAT 155, the claimant had been a university lecturer and warden of a halls of residence with over 40 years’ service at the University. A student had made a complaint against him in 2018, which he disputed and had led to disciplinary action and in turn a grievance being raised by the claimant. He subsequently resigned as warden in December 2019, and asked several times for a grievance appeal to be held. They told him several times to draw a line under the matter but the claimant persisted. On 29 June 2020, he was told that the university could not look at the issue any further. There followed a period of negotiation between solicitors but due to be back at work that autumn, the claimant was so anxious he was signed off sick by his GP on 10 September 2020, and then resigned with notice on 28 September 2020, thereafter claiming constructive unfair dismissal, alleging a cumulative breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence.
The claimant claimed the notification he had received on 29 June 2020 was the ‘last straw’. The tribunal held that he had affirmed the contract of employment during the three months between 29 June, and his resignation on 28 September 2020 because he should have tendered his resignation prior to this.
The EAT disagreed with the tribunal’s approach and remitted the issue of affirmation for reconsideration, holding:
that the tribunal’s focus should not necessarily be on how much time has passed when considering whether affirmation has taken place, but should take into account all the surrounding facts and circumstances should be weighed.
where there has been a period of delay then length of service should be taken into account in deciding whether the contract has been affirmed but it is fact sensitive. It is understandable that an employee with long service may take longer to consider their position (without necessarily having affirmed) before removing themselves from a secure job, but the surrounding context is vital and should be applied on an case-by-case basis.
a period of negotiation before resignation is relevant. Negotiations could be an employee’s attempt to give the employer the opportunity to ‘put things right’ before resigning and therefore such a delay may not necessarily amount to affirmation of the contract.
His claim was dismissed on the basis that, between the date of the last matter that could potentially be relied upon as a last straw, and the date of resignation, he had affirmed the contract. Having regard to the facts found, and the matters relied upon by the claimant as relevant to the question of whether there had been affirmation, the tribunal erred in its approach to affirmation. The EAT found the tribunal had focused incorrectly on things that did not happen (the Claimant did not delay his resignation because of student exams and did not state that he was working under protest), which, if they had happened, might have pointed away from affirmation. Instead, they should have honed in on what conduct there had been which might have amounted to affirmation. The EAT therefore remitted the matter to the same tribunal for fresh consideration of that issue, in light of the facts found, and, as necessary, the further issues to which the complaint gave rise.
The data contained within this document is for general information only. No responsibility can be accepted for inaccuracies. Readers are also advised that the law and practice may change from time to time. This document is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute accounting, legal or tax advice. Professional advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the contents of this document.
This month’s newsletter highlights some critical aspects of employment law...
News & Views
Employment Law General Update – January 2024
Anne-Marie Pavitt,
26th January 2024
Employment Law
Welcome back to another year of invaluable insights and updates in the dynamic world of employment law. This month, discover the upcoming changes and trends that will shape employment law in the early months of 2024, stay compliant with the most recent holiday pay regulations by accessing the latest government guidance, and learn about ACAS’s updated Code of Practice for handling flexible work requests and adapt to the evolving landscape.
As ever, stay informed and up-to-date with Dixcart Legal.
There are four pieces of legislation that came into effect on 1 January 2024.
First, the Employment Rights (Amendment, Revocation and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2023 amends the Working Time Regulations in relation to paid holiday for irregular hours workers and part-year workers from 1 April 2024, plus in relation to the calculation of normal pay, the carrying forward of paid holiday and record-keeping requirements. These regulations also expand the information and consultation obligations on small businesses under TUPE for transfers on or after the 1 July 2024.
The second piece of legislation was the Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Regulations 2023. They make various changes to the Equality Act 2010 to reproduce certain interpretive effects of retained EU law which would otherwise cease to apply in the UK after the end of 2023. They include amending the definition of disability to take into account a person’s ability to participate in working life on an equal basis with others, providing an express right to claim indirect discrimination by association and preserving the single source test for equal pay comparisons.
The third and fourth pieces of legislation are the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (Commencement No. 1) Regulations 2023 and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment) Regulations 2023. They make fundamental changes including abolishing the principle of supremacy of, and general principles of, EU law, as well as replacing references to ‘retained EU law’ with the term ‘assimilated law’ in UK legislation (including the Equality Act 2010).
A significant change which came into force on 6 January 2024 (under section 1 of the National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2023) was the reduction from 12% to 10% in the employee primary Class 1 National Insurance Contributions rate, as announced in the government’s recent Autumn Statement.
From 22 January 2024 the maximum civil penalty for the illegal employment of an adult who is subject to immigration control will triple, from £20,000 to £60,000 for each offence pursuant to the Immigration (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2023.
Looking forward to April 2024, there will be two sets of regulations affecting the national minimum wage coming into force on 1 April 2024. The first, the National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2024, will increase the minimum rates for workers, including the new rate of the national living wage of £11.44 an hour for the first time to all those aged 21 and over. The second set of regulations, the National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2023, will remove the exemption for live-in domestic workers so that nannies and au pairs will have to be paid the national minimum wage.
Then, on 6 April 2024, the right to request flexible working will become a day one right (under the Flexible Working (Amendment) Regulations 2023) and the rate for Statutory Sick Pay will increase to £116.75 per week (under the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2024). In addition, on that date, two family-friendly pieces of legislation will come into force:
the Maternity Leave, Adoption Leave and Shared Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2024 will extend existing protections if an employee is on maternity, adoption or shared parental leave when a redundancy arises, so that those protections also apply during pregnancy, and for a period of time after the relevant leave has ended; and
the Carer’s Leave Regulations 2023 will allow employees to take up to one week of unpaid leave per year to provide, or arrange, care for a dependant with a long-term care need.
Also in April 2024, the rate of Statutory Maternity Pay (and other family related statutory payments) will increase to £184.03 per week (also under the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2024).
Finally in this round-up, on 9 May 2024, two sets of regulations relating to trade unions will come into force (the Trade Union Act 2016 (Commencement No. 6) Regulations 2023 and the Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2023). These will have the combined effect of restricting when relevant public sector employers can make deductions from their workers’ wages in respect of trade union subscriptions.
As if that was not enough, other legislation to look out for that is not Employment law-related but relevant for all companies is the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 in relation to the failure to prevent fraud. Companies House has published a blog post on 22 January 2024 detailing the initial changes which will apply from 4 March 2024: Get ready for changes to UK company law – Companies House (blog.gov.uk)
Holiday Pay: Government publishes new guidance on pay and entitlement
The government has published new guidance on the holiday pay and entitlement reforms from 1 January 2024. The guidance covers the meaning of an irregular hours worker and a part-year worker, holiday entitlement for these workers, carry-over of leave and holiday pay calculations.
The government has now published guidance to accompany the changes made to the Working Time Regulations 1998, SI 1998/1833, by the Employment Rights (Amendment, Revocation and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2023, SI 2023/1426, with effect from 1 January 2024.
The guidance is arguably of more limited impact than anticipated because:
it expressly states that:
‘It does not provide definitive answers to all individual queries. It is not intended to be relied upon in any specific context or as a substitute for seeking advice (legal or otherwise) on a specific circumstance, as each case may be different.’
in relation to some grey areas, the guidance just restates the legislation and does not provide any examples of what factually would meet the requirements set out (e.g. in relation to what an employer must do to give a worker a reasonable opportunity to take their leave and encourage them to do so);
it does not expressly address the issue of whether or not annual bonuses should be included in holiday pay calculations.
The guidance does, however, include illustrative examples of who would, and would not, fall within the definitions of an irregular hours worker and a part-year worker. In relation to the latter category, the guidance states that a worker with an annualised (flat) salary over 12 months would not qualify as a part-year worker even though there are periods of one week or more when they are not working as there are no weeks in which they are not receiving pay.
What does the guidance cover?
The guidance covers:
the definitions of an irregular hour worker and a part-year worker
holiday entitlement for these workers
carry-over of leave, and
holiday pay calculations.
Some particular points worth highlighting are set out below.
Irregular hours and part-year workers
The guidance gives examples as to who would fall within or outside these definitions.
The examples demonstrate that a truly zero hours (casual) worker would count as an irregular hours worker whereas a worker on a rotating (but fixed) two-week shift pattern, for which the number of hours alternates, would not.
The guidance explains that part-year workers with fixed hours, for example, teaching assistants who only work during term-time, and who are paid only when working, would count as part-year workers. However, workers with an annualised (flat) salary over 12 months (e.g. most teachers) would not count as a part-year worker as there are no weeks where such a worker is not receiving pay.
Holiday pay rates and order of leave
The guidance explains that in respect of full-year workers who are legally entitled to 5.6 weeks of paid statutory holiday entitlement per year:
the first four weeks of this entitlement must be paid at a worker’s ‘normal’ rate of pay
the remaining 1.6 weeks’ entitlement can be paid at ‘basic’ rate of pay.
The guidance notes that:
‘The regulations do not state which entitlement should be used first. Many employers choose not to distinguish between the 2 pots of leave, and to pay the entire 5.6 weeks at the ‘normal’ rate of pay. If an employer wishes to pay different holiday rates for different periods of leave, then they should consider explaining this clearly and consistently to the worker, for example in the worker’s contract or staff handbook.’
Annual bonuses
The guidance does not expressly deal with the question of whether annual bonuses should be included when calculating holiday pay. However, the principles set out in the guidance may assist in how this issue is to be determined. For example, the guidance states that:
‘Holiday pay is based on the legal principle that a worker should not suffer financially for taking holiday. The amount of pay that a worker receives for the holiday they take depends on the number of hours they work and how they are paid for those hours. Pay received by a worker while they are on holiday should reflect what they would have earned if they had been at work and working.’
This would support the exclusion of an annual bonus when calculating holiday pay in circumstances where the annual bonus (and its amount) is paid irrespective of the number of weeks of annual leave taken, as to do otherwise would result in the worker being paid more for the period of holiday than their normal pay.
The position is not so straightforward, however, where bonuses are linked to performance which is related to time worked, as in that scenario a worker taking their full entitlement to annual leave may get a reduced bonus compared to a worker who took no annual leave.
It may be that employers will choose to make it clear in their bonus policies or schemes that workers are encouraged to use their full entitlement to annual leave and will not be penalised in terms of bonus for doing so, in an effort to clearly put themselves into the former rather than the latter category, and exclude annual bonuses from holiday pay calculations.
Starting to use rolled-up holiday pay
For irregular hours and part-year workers, for holiday years starting on or after 1 April 2024, employers can choose to use rolled-up holiday pay.
In terms of practicalities, the guidance states that:
‘If employers intend to start using rolled-up holiday pay, they should check their workers’ contract in case this amounts to a variation of contract. Employers should tell their workers if they intend to start using rolled-up holiday pay and for this payment to be clearly marked as a separate item on each payslip. The holiday pay should be paid at the same time as the worker is paid for the work done in each pay period. Employers of agency workers must include this information in the agency worker’s Key Information Document.’
The guidance also notes that if the employer chooses to use rolled-up holiday pay then the entire amount of leave for irregular hours and part-year workers will be paid at the ‘normal’ rate of pay.
Flexible Working: ACAS publishes a revised Code of Practice on requests for flexible working
The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) has published its revised Code of Practice on requests for flexible working. The revised Code of Practice will come into effect in April 2024. Until then the current Code of Practice will continue to apply. The Draft Code of Practice was originally published as part of an ACAS consultation in July 2023. The consultation closed on 6 September 2023.
Following the consultation, ACAS has made a number of changes to what is now the revised Code of Practice. These are:
providing that guidance on consulting with an employee about a flexible working request recommends that where the original request cannot be fully met, employers discuss with the employee any potential modifications
ensuring that formal meetings following the acceptance of a flexible working request are no longer required
providing an extended list of categories of companions allowed to accompany an employee to a request meeting. However, the Code of Practice makes clear that there is not statutory right of accompaniment
recommending that all organisations (not just larger ones) ensure a different manager deals with an appeal over a flexible working request.
All other areas proposed in the initial draft Code of Practice will remain.
The data contained within this document is for general information only. No responsibility can be accepted for inaccuracies. Readers are also advised that the law and practice may change from time to time. This document is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute accounting, legal or tax advice. Professional advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the contents of this document.
This month’s newsletter highlights some critical aspects of employment law...
News & Views
Employment Law Back to Basics – Employing People in England & Wales
Anne-Marie Pavitt,
14th November 2023
Employment Law
We set out below a handy reminder of the issues, obligations and requirements that you need to consider when employing individuals in England for the first time.
Check your business is ready to take on employees
Make sure that your workplace is safe and accessible for employees. All employers have a duty to provide a safe working environment. The Health and Safety Executive website provides a wealth of guidance to assist you in this area Health and safety basics for your business (hse.gov.uk)
Register as an employer and set up PAYE
You will need to register as an employer with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) before your employee’s first payday. Do bear in mind that it can take up to 15 working days to get your employer PAYE reference number. You may choose to engage a payroll providers who can do this on your behalf. Payroll providers can also offer additional support such as providing payslips and calculating holiday entitlements so you should consider if you want or need these extra services or would rather deal with these inhouse.
Obtain Employers’ Liability insurance
All employers must have Employers’ Liability (EL) insurance cover for at least £5 million (from an authorised insurer) as soon as staff are employed. EL insurance will help an employer pay compensation if an employee is injured or becomes ill because of the work they do for you.
Check your employer’s pension obligations
All eligible job holders are entitled to a workplace pension scheme so you need to be aware of your automatic enrolment duties as an employer. Your legal duties begin on the day your first member of staff starts work, and even if you think you will not need to put your staff into a pension scheme, you will still have certain duties you must comply with. A qualified pensions adviser can advise you on complying with such duties. More information can be obtained from The Pensions Regulator Workplace pensions law – auto enrolment | The Pensions Regulator
Recruitment
You may need to advertise the role and interview candidates or instruct a recruitment agency to assist you with this process. You must ensure you avoid any kind of discrimination during the recruitment process and make sure your application and interview process is accessible for employees with disabilities. Consider whether any offer of employment will be conditional upon e.g. reference checks or proof of certain qualifications.
If the potential employee says they have the right to work in the UK you must verify this by either checking their right to work online (if they have given you their share code), checking certain specific original documents or using an identity service provider that offers Identity Document Validation Technology (IDVT). You could face a civil penalty if you employ an illegal worker and have not carried out a correct right to work check.
If the employee does not have the right to work in the UK they may still be able to work in the UK on a short or long-term basis with a work visa, and specialist Immigration Law advice should be obtained on this issue if applicable. We can provide such immigration advice.
Check if you need to undertake a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check
You may wish to know whether a prospective employee has a criminal record and this can done for any employee via a basic DBS check. However, taking into consideration data protection rules, you should first consider whether a basic DBS check is really necessary for the type of role the individual performs and should certainly not have a blanket policy where DBS checks are used for all candidates. Enhanced “standard disclosure” checks are obligatory in certain roles which involve a high degree of trust and security, such as those who work with vulnerable adults or children. You are required to carry out an enhanced check on a candidate if the relevant role is listed in what is known as the “Exceptions Order” and also the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) regulations.
Decide how much you will pay the employee and how you will run your payroll
The rate of pay or salary will of course depend on factors such as the role the employee will be undertaking, their level of experience and/or knowledge and the typical salary expected in your industry. You must ensure the proposed pay complies with National Minimum Wage requirements which can vary depending on the employees age and the type of work they will be carrying out for you. You could either use payroll software to run your own payroll or instruct a payroll provider to do it for you. Specialist tax advisers can provide advice on National Minimum Wage, Income tax and National Insurance issues.
Prepare a Contract of Employment
Employees are legally entitled to a written statement setting out certain prescribed particulars of employment on or before their first day of employment. Some of the prescribed particulars must be included in a single document and the rest can be given in instalments, not later than two months after the beginning of the employment. Employers often put most or all of the required information into a single document, being the contract of employment. This contract is essential to give details of all the terms and conditions that will apply to the employment. Careful thought should be given to whether any additional terms should also be included, such as, requirement to undertake a probationary period, whether you will pay enhanced company sick pay and whether you want the right to place employees on garden leave, or pay them in lieu of notice at the end of employment. Such additional protections are not automatically included in a standard statement of employment. If you want these useful additional protections do get in touch and we can talk through your requirements and prepare a bespoke employment contract for your new recruits.
Prepare Employee Policies
Large employers often include a wide variety of employee policies in an Employee Handbook whereas those with fewer staff may prefer to prepare standalone policies covering the basic legal requirements. At minimum an employer should provide employees with access to:
a grievance procedure and a disciplinary procedure;
a health and safety policy which sets out your general approach to health and safety (this must be a written policy for those with five or more employees).
an employee privacy notice – employers are required to provide employees with specific information about the processing of their personal data to comply with data protection legislation.
Tell HMRC about your new employee
Before you pay your new starter you must register your employee with HMRC using a Full Payment Submission.
If you’re looking to recruit for the first time why don’t you give our Employment team a call?
Dixcart Legal Limited – November 2023
Dixcart UK has an experienced team of specialist accountants, lawyers, tax and immigration advisers who can advise on all aspects of employing people in the UK. Please get in touch for further details on hello@dixcart.com
The data contained within this document is for general information only. No responsibility can be accepted for inaccuracies. Readers are also advised that the law and practice may change from time to time. This document is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute accounting, legal or tax advice. Professional advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the contents of this document.
This month’s newsletter highlights some critical aspects of employment law...
News & Views
Employment Law Case Update – October 2023
Anne-Marie Pavitt,
24th October 2023
Employment Law
An interesting look at how not to exclude staff on maternity leave, how to properly handle transgender workers, calculating holiday pay where employees are subject to compulsory overtime and the use of contract clauses to retain employees where discretionary bonus payments are payable which do not amount to restraint of trade.
Sex Discrimination: Erosion of reputation as “an effective and useful member of staff” due to pregnancy is discriminatory
Sex Discrimination: ‘Deadnaming’ transgender worker amounts to less favourable treatment
Holiday Pay: Landmark case confirms a gap of three months or a correct payment does not necessarily break a series of deductions
Contract: Bonus clause conditional on staying in employment not restraint of trade
Sex Discrimination: Erosion of reputation as “an effective and useful member of staff” due to pregnancy is discriminatory
In Smith v Greatwell Homes (3316461/2021) a tribunal had to consider the employer’s actions and treatment of Ms Smith, following her declaration to her boss that she was pregnant. This case was reported in People Management on 13 October 2023:
Ms Smith began working at Greatwell Homes in March 2019 as a business improvement analyst within the business improvement team, where she was apparently a valuable and ambitious member of staff. The tribunal noted she was a “credible and consistent witness”. Within her team there were three members of staff: herself, a business improvement manager and a head of business intelligence. However, the person occupying the post of business improvement manager – the person who was meant to be Ms Smith’s line manager – had been absent from August 2019 due to long-term ill health. She never returned to work and resigned in early 2020. Consequently, Ms Smith was required to take on a “significant proportion” of the responsibilities that should have been her line manager’s.
The firm’s head of property services and compliance, Miss Herzig, viewed Ms Smith as a valuable member of the team and encouraged her to apply for a more senior post with line management responsibilities should one become available. In April 2020, Ms Smith informed Miss Herzig that she was pregnant. The tribunal found the news was not effectively communicated to human resources by Miss Herzig, and Ms Smith was required to confirm with HR that she was expecting a baby on two further occasions. “We find that this was symptomatic of the respondent’s attitude towards the claimant and/or to the fact she was pregnant,” it said.
Ms Smith’s first claim arose during the same month. All staff were given a free day off by the company as a thank you for their efforts during the Covid pandemic. The day off was a Friday, however, when Ms Smith mentioned that she did not work Fridays, the firm refused to allow her to take a different day off. In September 2020, she went on maternity leave. Other than a few emails from HR about pension matters and some personal messages from Miss Herzig, Ms Smith did not hear from her employer during her maternity leave.
Then in April 2021, Ms Smith received a text message from Miss Herzig in which she was informed that someone had been appointed as her new manager and the firm had also hired a Governance and Assurance Manager, which was only published internally on the company intranet. These were both roles, the tribunal ruled, that would have been opportunities for Ms Smith to progress within the company. The claimant was not happy about the text and what she perceived to be a lack of communication from the respondent during her maternity leave, which went against the company’s maternity policy – which stated that employees on maternity leave must be informed of job vacancies. She commenced a grievance which was heard by Mr Wilesmith, but it was not upheld.
In August 2021, the respondent began to send job adverts to Ms Smith. This included a re-advertisement of the Governance and Assurance Manager’s post, as the current person occupying the role was on a 12-month contract and it would end in April 2022. The claimant resigned by letter dated 31 August. By a letter of the same day, the respondent accepted her resignation.
The tribunal held that Ms Smith was treated less favourably by the respondent on the grounds that she was on maternity leave, and commented that neither Miss Herzig nor Mr Wilesmith were impressive witnesses. It noted: “Neither demonstrated sufficient knowledge, skills or empathy in the way they dealt with the claimant throughout this process. It was the tribunal’s view that both were ill-equipped to deal with equality and diversity issues. It is incumbent on an employer to make sure that appropriately skilled and experienced staff deal with equality and diversity issues. The respondent had singularly failed in this regard.”
Regarding the free day off, the tribunal said the firm’s decision to not allow her to reschedule a day off was “unfavourable towards part-time workers, and therefore indirectly discriminatory towards female members of staff, as well as deeply unsympathetic in relation to the claimant herself”. It also ruled that Ms Smith “clearly [had] less favourable treatment” because she was on maternity leave as she was “barred from the opportunity” of participating in any recruitment process, or the chance to compete with other applicants to progress her career.
Employment judge Wood said: “In our view, it is clear that Miss Herzig’s view of [Smith] as an effective and useful member of staff had been eroded by the knowledge that she had become pregnant and was on maternity leave. It may have been, in part, a subconscious attitude. Nonetheless, we are clear that it was the reason, or a significant part of the reason, for the unfavourable treatment.” It also said the firm’s decision to send Smith job ads in August 2021 for vacancies that were expected to become available in April the following year were just “window dressing” to disguise the treatment that had gone before. Greatwell Homes was consequently ordered to pay Ms Smith £50,000.
Sex Discrimination: ‘Deadnaming’ transgender worker amounts to less favourable treatment
InAB v Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (ET/2303616/2021) the tribunal ruled that the Borough of Kingston Council had committed several acts of direct discrimination against its employee, Miss AB, because of her status as a transgender woman her while she was undergoing a gender transition by using her previous name. The Employment Tribunal upheld 10 of her claims and awarded her nearly £25,000 in damages.
The majority of the claims that succeeded were instances in which she was ‘deadnamed’—the term for referring to a trans person by the name, and therefore gender, that they used before they transitioned. The council used Miss AB’s deadname on her office door pass, her pension records, the staff directory, the internal complaints system and her parking pass, according to the judgment. All of these instances amounted to ‘less favourable treatment’ and were ‘because of the claimant’s protected characteristic’, the tribunal found. The tribunal also sided with Miss AB when she argued that management’s decision to remove some of her job responsibilities was an act of direct discrimination. ‘We conclude that [Miss AB’s manager] in taking this action was not simply acting unreasonably, but that the claimant’s protected characteristic was part of the reason for this treatment’, the tribunal ruled. ‘The claim therefore succeeds’.
The panel also found that management’s response to a complaint from Miss AB was direct discrimination because they failed to take the complaint seriously. It found that management ‘did not treat the claimant’s allegation with respect’ and demonstrated ‘a dismissive attitude towards the issue’. ‘We have to conclude that some part of his reaction was because of the claimant’s protected characteristic’, the panel ruled. Similarly, the tribunal held that a manager fell foul of discrimination law when he failed to properly escalate Miss AB’s complaint. ‘Again, we have to conclude that some part of his reaction and his lack of action was because of the claimant’s protected characteristic’, the panel said.
However, many of Miss AB’s claims failed because she filed them too late and did not give the judge a sufficient reason for her delay. Miss AB argued that her employer’s decision to cut off her direct contact with internal councillors was a discrete, rather than ongoing, act. However, the tribunal found that although the decision had ongoing consequences, it was a discrete act and it fell outside the tribunal’s time limits. The panel also found that a reprimand one of the managers gave Miss AB also took place too long before she filed her claim, but added that the claim would have failed in any event because the reprimand was a reasonable management response to her failing to obey an instruction.
The tribunal disagreed with Miss AB’s argument that the council’s failure to implement a health and safety risk assessment for gender transition was discrimination. There was no obligation to undertake such a risk assessment, the judgment said. The panel also found that the council did fail to have appropriate Equalities Act policies in place but said this ‘was not because of the claimant’s protected characteristic but because of HR failures on a wider scale’.
The tribunal awarded Miss AB £21,000 as compensation for injury to feelings plus £4,423 in interest.
The Claimants were police officers and civilian staff working for the police in Northern Ireland. The case arose because they had historically only received basic pay for annual leave but the parties had agreed there had been an underpayment because the holiday pay should have included periods of compulsory overtime. The claimants brought claims for underpayment of holiday pay, and the question before the court was how far did this underpayment go back? The relevant Northern Irish legislation (mirroring the Employment Rights Act 1996) provided that a claim could only be made in respect of a payment made in the three months before the claim was brought. However, if the deduction was part of a series, the deductions could be linked together provided that the claim was brought within three months of the last of the series of deductions.
Previously, the EAT in Bear Scotland v Fulton had previously concluded that deductions could only be linked in a series if there was a gap of three months or less between each deduction but here the Supreme Court has now held that where a series of deductions are all based on an employer failing to properly meets its obligations to pay holiday correctly and, but for the mandatory cut off after 3 months which was set out in Bear Scotland, they would otherwise constitute a series, employees should be able to link each deduction. To hold otherwise would produce unfair consequences.
The Supreme Court held that:
(1) the EU principle of equivalence requires the police officers to be allowed the more advantageous series extension found in the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 even though they are not workers for the purposes of that legislation,
(2) the series extension is therefore read into the relevant part of the Working Time Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 to achieve this, and
(3) what constitutes a series of deductions is a question of fact which does not require a contiguous sequence and is not necessarily brought to an end by a gap of three months or a correct payment if that correct payment was calculated when the claimants were at work.
It further found that, (1) there is no legal requirement that leave derived from different sources must be taken in a particular order, (2) it is inappropriate to apply a general principle of using calendar days in the reference period when calculating a worker’s normal pay, and (3) the appropriate reference period when calculating normal pay in any case is a question of fact.
Contract: Bonus clause conditional on staying in employment not restraint of trade
In Steel v Spencer Road LLP (trading as Omerta Steel) [2023] EWHC 2492 (Ch) the Chancery Division dismissed the appellant’s appeal from a decision which had dismissed his application to set aside a statutory demand served by the respondent. The appellant was a former employee of the respondent. Under the terms of his employment contract, his remuneration was by way of a basic annual salary plus a discretionary bonus scheme. The bonus was conditional on the appellant remaining in the employment of the respondent for three months from the date of payment of any bonus, and not having given or been given notice to terminate his appointment during that period.
In January 2022, the appellant was paid a bonus which was an amount considerably larger than his basic salary at the time. Later, he gave notice of termination of his employment in February. The respondent had requested repayment of the bonus under the clawback provisions in the employment contract. The appellant refused to do so and had argued that the bonus clawback provisions were unenforceable on the grounds that they were in restraint of trade and/or penalty clauses. The court held, among other things, that there was no doubt that an employee bonus or commission scheme which was conditional on the employee remaining in employment for a specified period of time operated as a disincentive to that employee resigning. That had not, however, turned such a provision into a restraint of trade.
The data contained within this document is for general information only. No responsibility can be accepted for inaccuracies. Readers are also advised that the law and practice may change from time to time. This document is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute accounting, legal or tax advice. Professional advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the contents of this document.
This month’s newsletter highlights some critical aspects of employment law...
News & Views
Employment Law General Update – October 2023
Anne-Marie Pavitt,
24th October 2023
Employment Law
Lots of useful guidance available this month: from the DWP about using fit notes; requirements for employers with regard to right to work checks; and understanding the UK GDPR and DPA legislation to protect your employees’ data.
Right to Work Checks: Employers are no longer required to verify a digital CoA with the ECS
Data Protection: UK government approves the UK-US data bridge
Data Protection: An employer’s guide to understanding UK GDPR and DPA 2018
Health at Work: DWP updates guidance on fit notes
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has updated three pieces of guidance on fit notes, for patients and employees, employers and line managers, and healthcare professionals respectively. This guidance is to explain actions required if you are given a fit note by an employee. It gives advice on what different sections of the fit note mean and how you can use it most effectively to support the health and wellbeing of employees in your organisation. You can view the guidance for employers and line managers here. There is also a checklist and set of case studies to accompany it.
Right to Work Checks: Employers are no longer required to verify a digital CoA with the ECS
The Home Office has updated its guidance for employers carrying out right to work checks on or after 17 October 2023. It removes the requirement for employers to verify a digital Certificate of Application (CoA) with the Home Office Employer Checking Service (ECS) for outstanding EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) applications made on or after 1 July 2021. The online right to work checking service will also not direct employers to verify a digital CoA with the ECS. This requirement has also been removed from the right to rent guidance for landlords.
Data Protection: UK government approves the UK-US data bridge
From 12 October 2023, UK businesses will be able to export personal data to US entities who are certified under the UK Extension to the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (DPF), without the need to conduct a Transfer Risk Assessment, and without needing to enter into the relevant standard contractual clauses or to implement supplementary measures. While this only covers some US organisations in certain circumstances, it is nonetheless a welcome development. You can read more about this from the Information Commissioner here.
Data Protection: An employer’s guide to understanding UK GDPR and DPA 2018
The ICO has recently updated its guidance to understanding GDPR and DPA and explains the importance of an employer’s compliance with Retained Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR) and the DPA 2018, particularly in the context of processing a worker’s health information. As a worker’s health data is considered particularly sensitive and is therefore provided a special level of protection under UK GDPR, the Guidance emphasises that there are specific rules an employer is obliged to follow when dealing with such data. The Guidance considers:
how an employer can use a worker’s health data fairly (in essence, providing valid justifications for gathering and using health information, ensuring transparency in the process when communicating the necessary privacy information to workers and documenting all decisions made throughout the process); and
how an employer can lawfully process a worker’s health data. In lawfully processing a worker’s health data, the Guidance specifies that a ‘lawful basis’ under Article 6 of Retained Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the UK GDPR, must be identified. It further details the additional, stricter requirements needed to process special category data under Article 9 of Retained Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the UK GDPR (which encompasses health information).
To assist employers in navigating the legal sphere surrounding the management of health data, the guidance helpfully identifies the six lawful bases for handling personal data and provides common examples for when these bases might be applicable. The six lawful bases identified are contract, legal obligations, legitimate interests, vital interests, public task and consent. However, as mentioned above, the employer must also adhere to the requirements under Article 9 and identify a special category condition for processing health data.
The guidance outlines the 10 conditions which an employer might wish to rely upon and any additional conditions required to satisfy Article 9. The typical workplace scenarios identified revolve around the lawful and good practice procedures an employer should apply when it comes to sharing a worker’s health data, administering sickness absence documentation and managing information concerning a worker’s impairment or disability. The Guidance is helpful in that it directly answers key questions an employer may have in the context of health data, such as ‘How do we handle sickness and injury records?’ and ‘What if we use medical examinations and drugs and alcohol testing?’. The Guidance clearly outlines the relevant legal requirements and provides good practice advice for each of these common questions.
To assist employers further in ensuring compliance with data protection rules in the context of a worker’s health data, the ICO has also provided several checklists which can be easily accessed by employers whenever they are required to process such information. The checklists can be found here and relate to circumstances involving genetic testing, occupational health schemes, health monitoring, sickness and injury records, and sharing a worker’s health information.
This article has been developed from an original article published by Dentons UK employment hub which can be viewed here.
The data contained within this document is for general information only. No responsibility can be accepted for inaccuracies. Readers are also advised that the law and practice may change from time to time. This document is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute accounting, legal or tax advice. Professional advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the contents of this document.
This month’s newsletter highlights some critical aspects of employment law...
News & Views
Update Statements for the Register of Overseas Entities
Anne-Marie Pavitt,
27th September 2023
Commercial Law
September 2023
August 2022 saw the introduction of the Register of Overseas Entities at Companies House in the UK following the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 (the Act) coming into force in March 2022. Pursuant to that legislation all overseas entities who own properties in the UK acquired at any time on or after:
1 January 1999 in England & Wales,
8 December 2014 in Scotland; and
1 August 2022 in Northern Ireland
are required to submit an application to the Registrar at Companies House detailing their beneficial owners unless they are exempt.
An update statement must be filed every year by all overseas entities on the Register of Overseas Entities. The update statement requires the overseas entity to confirm that all the information about the overseas entity on the register is still correct, and update anything that has changed.
It is most important to bear in mind that it is a criminal offence if an overseas entity does not file an update statement. The overseas entity ID will become invalid until such time as the record is brought up to date.
Timings
According to Government guidance an overseas entities statement date is within a year of the date the overseas entity was registered, or within a year of your last update statement.
The overseas entity has 14 days from the “statement date” to file. After this, the filing will be considered to be late.
So for example, if the original application was registered on 22 September 2022 the first statement date will be 21 September 2023. The update statement will be due by 5 October 2023.
Overseas entities can find the updated statement by searching for the entity on the Companies House register.
What if nothing has changed?
An overseas entity must file an update statement even if there have not been any changes to the overseas entity and its beneficial owners during the update period. This confirms that the information on the register is correct.
What information needs to be reviewed and updated?
The overseas entity will be asked to review all the information shown on the register about the entity and its beneficial owners or managing officers. It must update any information that has changed.
The overseas entity may be asked to re-enter home addresses for individual beneficial owners and managing officers.
All information must be correct as at the date of the update statement.
Verification checks must be completed on any information that is being changed and on any new beneficial owners or managing officers that are being added. Such information will need to be verified by a UK regulated agent no more than 3 months before the date of the update statement.
We at Dixcart Legal are UK regulated agents and can assist with this process. Please contact us at hello@dixcartuk.com or call on +44 (0)333 122 0010 if you would like our assistance.
The verification process can take some time to complete therefore we strongly recommend that you contact us well in advance of the statement date.
What if someone is no longer a registrable beneficial owner or managing officer?
As part of the update statement the overseas entity will need to tell Companies House:
The date that any registrable beneficial owner or managing officer ceased being so during the update period and make sure that the information is correct as at that date.
About anyone that both became and ceased to be a registrable beneficial owner during the update period. The information provided must be correct as at the date that the registrable beneficial owner ceased being one.
Authentication Code
An authentication code is a unique 6 character code that every overseas entity needs in order to file online. To request an authentication code you should search for the overseas entity on Find and update company information – GOV.UK (company-information.service.gov.uk) and select “Request authentication code”. The code will be sent to the email address held on record for the overseas entity.
Companies House fees
The Companies House fee for filing the update statement is £120.
What you will need to file an update statement
To file an update statement you will need:
To sign in to or create a Companies House account
The Overseas Entity’s ID number
The overseas entity’s authentication code
The name and email address of someone Companies House can contact about the update
Details of the UK regulated agent who has undertaken any required verification checks, if relevant
A credit or debit card to pay the Companies House £120 fee.
What happens if the update statement is late?
If an overseas entity does not file the update statement in time:
It will be committing a criminal offence and could be prosecuted or fined.
Its overseas entity ID will not be valid and it will not be able to buy, sell, transfer, lease or charge its property or land in the UK.
A note will be added to the overseas entities’ public record stating that it has not filed its update statement.
Who can’t currently use the update service?
At present the following cannot use the update service:
Where there are any trusts involved in the overseas entity; and
Where any beneficial owners or managing officers have their personal information protected at Companies House.
In such instances the overseas entity needs to file the update statement on paper, even if it does not need to make any changes to the trust information. Further guidance can be obtained in such situations by emailing enquiries@companieshouse.gov.uk
Contact Dixcart Legal at hello@dixcartuk.com or call on +44 (0)333 122 0010 if you would like our assistance.
The data contained within this document is for general information only. No responsibility can be accepted for inaccuracies. Readers are also advised that the law and practice may change from time to time. This document is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute accounting, legal or tax advice. Professional advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the contents of this document.
From 1st May 2024, Companies House will be increasing its filing fees for various services as part of its broader initiative to improve the integrity of the UK registry under […]
What is the purpose of the Act and who will it affect? On 26th October 2023 the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) passed into UK law, marking […]
News & Views
AMBER Employment Services Employment Law Webinar – ‘Redundancy and Employment Update’
Anne-Marie Pavitt,
14th July 2023
Tune in to this insightful webinar on Employment Law and Redundancy, Hosted by Anne-Marie, Director of Dixcart Legal.
The data contained within this document is for general information only. No responsibility can be accepted for inaccuracies. Readers are also advised that the law and practice may change from time to time. This document is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute accounting, legal or tax advice. Professional advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the contents of this document.
With the end of the year fast approaching, Anne-Marie Pavitt will be giving a roundup of the changes in Employment Law taken place during 2022, and looking ahead to future […]
In this webinar, Anne-Marie Pavitt and Sophie Banks from Dixcart Legal, will be providing an Employment law update with a round-up of the changes this year
Let's talk
Let's talk to see how we can make it happen for you and your business.
