Tag: #directdiscrimination

banner services

News & Views

Employment Law General Update – November 2023

  • Employment,

  • 22nd November 2023

Employment Law

This month’s employment law updates cover various critical issues. The Work and Pensions Committee seeks input on statutory sick pay, while the Government has published its response to the EU employment law consultations. The Home Office updates illegal working penalty guidelines, and we have Government guidance on the handling labour unions before strikes. The TUC’s data on the disability pay gap underscores the importance of inclusivity, and a WoRC report examines systemic factors in the exploitation of migrant workers. Stay informed for compliance in this evolving employment landscape.

  • Sick Pay: Work and Pensions Committee publishes call for evidence on statutory sick pay
  • Retained EU Employment Law: Government response to consultation and new draft regulations available
  • Immigration: Home Office publishes updated code of practice on illegal working penalties
  • Trade Unions: Government publishes guidance on issuing work notices ahead of strike action
  • Disability: TUC publishes latest data on disability pay gap
  • Immigration: WoRC report looks at systemic drivers of UK migrant worker exploitation

 Sick Pay: Work and Pensions Committee publishes call for evidence on statutory sick pay

The Work and Pensions Committee has issued a call for evidence on statutory sick pay (SSP), requesting the public views and ability to submit evidence until Friday, 8 December 2023. The Work and Pensions Select Committee calls for this inquiry to assess the existing ‘effectiveness of SSP in supporting claimants and if SSP should be reformed to better enable a recipient’s recovery and return to work’.

Back to the top

Retained EU Employment Law: Government response to consultation and new draft regulations available

Retained EU Employment Law consultation response

The government has officially released its response to the ‘Retained EU Employment Law’ consultation, addressing proposed reforms within the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR) related to annual leave, holiday pay calculations, and record-keeping requirements. Additionally, it responded to the consultation concerning the annual leave entitlement calculation for part-year and irregular hours workers in light of the Supreme Court’s Harpur Trust v Brazel 2022 ICR 1380 decision.

The government has proposed the introduction of a ‘rolled-up’ holiday pay system for irregular hours and part-year workers and allow for an annual leave accrual method of 12.07% of hours worked for these groups. This means that instead of receiving a separate payment when taking annual leave, certain workers, specifically those with irregular hours or part-year employment (which may include agency workers), will get an extra amount added to their regular pay.

However, the government has decided not to proceed with the idea of creating a single annual leave entitlement that combines the ‘basic’ and ‘additional’ annual leave entitlements into a single 5.6-week entitlement (i.e. four weeks required by EU law and the 1.6 weeks mandated by the Working Time Regulations). Instead, they want to maintain two separate “pots” of annual leave with two different pay rates. This means that workers will still receive four weeks of leave at their normal pay rate and 1.6 weeks at a basic pay rate.

Additionally, the government plans to pass laws to make it clearer what should be included in the calculation of normal remuneration for holiday pay. They are also considering more significant changes to how holiday pay rates are determined.

In response to the Harpur Trust ruling, the initial proposal suggested using a 52-week reference period to calculate annual leave entitlement. However, many people raised concerns about the extra work this would create and the challenges it posed for workers whose hours changed from year to year or for those in their first year of employment.

To keep things simpler, the government has opted for a different approach. They will use an accrual method to figure out annual leave entitlement, where workers get 12.07% of the hours they’ve worked in a specific pay period. This method was commonly used before the Harpur Trust decision and better reflects the hours a worker has actually worked in the current year. For other workers in their first year of employment, things will remain the same. They will continue to accrue annual leave by receiving 1/12th of their statutory entitlement on the first day of each month and adjusting it accordingly.

The response also mentions that the government will maintain certain EU case laws to protect workers’ rights regarding carrying over unused annual leave when they can’t take it due to maternity, family-related leave, or being sick. They will also introduce a way for irregular hours and part-year workers to accrue annual leave when they’ve had periods of maternity, family-related leave, or sickness.

Additionally, the government will proceed with changes to record-keeping requirements in the Working Time Regulations (WTR). This change clarifies that businesses do not have to keep daily records of how many hours each worker works. This clarification aims to address concerns that a previous ruling by the European Court of Justice might have required employers to track the exact daily hours worked by each employee, rather than maintaining adequate and proportionate records based on the workplace and working patterns.

Regarding TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings), the government will move forward with its proposal to simplify consultation obligations during a transfer. Small businesses (with fewer than 50 employees) will be allowed to directly consult with employees if there are no existing employee representatives, avoiding the need to organize elections for new representatives. Additionally, businesses of any size can directly consult with employees (if there are no existing representatives) when a transfer involves fewer than ten employees.Top of Form

Draft Regulations

The Department of Business and Trade has published the draft Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Regulations 2023. The draft SI restates some protections in relation to pregnancy, maternity and breastfeeding, indirect discrimination, access to employment and occupation, equal pay and the definition of disability which would otherwise be lost from 1 January 2024 under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (REUL(RR)A 2023).

These draft regulations are proposed to reproduce in domestic law certain interpretive effects of retained EU law which, under REUL(RR)A 2023, will cease to apply to the UK statute book after the end of 2023. This will mean that, in the areas covered by this instrument, the law will continue to have the same effect after the end of 2023 as it did before. They are due to come into force on 1 January 2024.

The draft Employment Rights (Amendment, Revocation and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2023 will amend the Working Time Regulations 1998 (in relation to record-keeping, paid holiday for irregular hours workers and part-year workers, normal pay, and the carrying forward of paid holiday) and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (in relation to information and consultation obligations on small businesses for transfers on or after 1 July 2024) and revoke the European Cooperative Society (Involvement of Employees) Regulations 2006. They are due to come into force on 1 January 2024.

Back to the top

Immigration: Home Office publishes updated code of practice on illegal working penalties

The Home Office has published a new draft Code of Practice on the civil penalty schemes for employers (preventing illegal working). The draft is an update to the version published in March 2022 and will be the sixth version of the code. This latest version of the code will be applied to all right to work checks from 22 January 2024 including where a follow-up check is required to maintain a statutory excuse, even if the initial check was undertaken using a previous version of the code which was current at the time.

The draft code has been amended further to the issue of draft Statutory Instruments (SIs) which will raise the starting point for penalties to £45,000 for a breach (if there are no previous breaches in the last three years) and £60,000 for repeated breaches. The draft codes will come into force at the same time as the related SIs, which are: (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2023 and the Immigration (Restrictions on Employment and Residential Accommodation) (Codes of Practice) (Amendment) Order 2023. These are each stated to come into force on 22 January 2024, or, if later, on the twenty-first day after the day on which it is made. However, the code assumes 22 January 2024 as a commencement date.

Back to the top

Trade Unions: Government publishes guidance on issuing work notices ahead of strike action

The Department of Business and Trade has published guidance for employers, trade unions and workers on issuing work notices ahead of strike action. Work notices, which were introduced under the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, allow employers to require a workforce to meet minimum service levels for an upcoming strike period where the trade union has given notice to the employer of the strike and the employer provides a service covered by minimum service level regulations.

The new guidance is designed to be read alongside the government’s range of guidance on industrial action which can be found here.

The guidance covers:

  • the purpose of a work notice and the steps for preparing it;
  • considerations when preparing a work notice;
  • considerations upon deciding to issue a work notice;
  • consulting with trade unions;
  • guidance on producing a work notice;
  • guidance on notifying workers of a notice;
  • duties on workers and trade unions following issue of a work notice;
  • data protection issues.

The full guidance can be found here.

Back to the top

Disability: TUC publishes latest data on disability pay gap

The Trade Union Congress (TUC) has published new analysis [TUC slams “zero progr<a id=”back”></a>ess” on disability pay gap in last decade | TUC] of the pay gap between non-disabled and disabled workers. According to data from the TUC, the pay gap is currently higher than it was 10 years ago, with non-disabled workers earning approximately 14.6% more than disabled workers.

The key findings of the analysis include:

  • the pay gap is only marginally lower than it was when the TUC launched disability Pay Gap Day in 2016/17;
  • disabled women face the biggest pay penalty with non-disabled men earning an average of 30% more;
  • the industry with the biggest pay gap is financial and industrial services which currently stands at 33.2%;
  • disabled workers are twice as likely to be unemployed than non-disabled workers;
  • one in 10 BME disabled workers are unemployed compared to nearly one in 40 white non-disabled workers;
  • disabled workers are more likely to be on zero-hours contracts than non-disabled workers.

The TUC has called for action from the government to put an end to discrimination against disabled workers in the labour market and has backed Labour’s New Deal for Working People.

Back to the top

Immigration: WoRC report looks at systemic drivers of UK migrant worker exploitation

The charity Work Rights Centre (WoRC) has published a report which looks at what lies behind increasing reports of migrant worker exploitation in the UK, particularly in certain sectors such as health and care. Drawing on 40 case studies, interviews with caseworkers, and policy analysis, the report identifies the post-Brexit work sponsorship system and piecemeal/weak labour enforcement as two key systemic drivers. It makes a number of recommendations, including reforms to the work sponsorship system (replacing employer sponsorship entirely, or alternatively a range of reforms to the sponsorship system to facilitate protection of sponsored migrants against exploitation), increasing protections for all workers (including establishing a Single Enforcement Body for all labour rights, giving protection against unfair dismissal from the first day of employment and instituting secure reporting of exploitative practices), and implementing a migrant worker welfare strategy (including the creation of an independent Migrant Commissioner role).

Back to the top

Further Information:

If you would like any additional information, please contact Anne-Marie Pavitt or Sophie Banks on: hello@dixcartuk.com

Back

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.

Related News

banner services

News & Views

Employment Law Case Update – November 2023

  • Employment,

  • 22nd November 2023

Employment Law

This month’s case law shines a light on a less-common area of worker status – where a partnership is providing a service to a company and how to ensure no employee relationship is found, and provides a useful insight into using comparators for discrimination claims.

Worker Status: Individual providing services through genuine partnership cannot be an employee

In Anglian Windows Ltd t/a Anglian Home Improvements v Webb [2023] EAT 138 the EAT held that if there is an agreement between a genuine partnership and an employer for the partnership to provide certain services, then, providing that the arrangement is not a sham, there cannot also be an employment relationship between the individual partner providing those services and the employer, and, accordingly that partner cannot bring a claim of unfair dismissal against the employer (because they do not have the necessary status of being an employee).

This judgment concerns the unusual situation of a partnership entering into an agreement with a company for one of its partners to perform a sales role and then that individual partner trying to claim that they are an employee of that company in order to claim unfair dismissal.

The claimant and his wife had a partnership trading as Webb Consultants. The claimant was appointed as Area Sales Leader for the respondent but provided services (and was paid) through Webb Consultants. The contract provided that the claimant would not be an employee and would ‘at all times remain either a self-employed sole trader, a limited company or a partnership’. The claimant was dismissed and claimed unfair dismissal. The respondent applied to strike out the claim on the basis that it did not have reasonable prospects of success because the claimant was not an employee.

The employment tribunal refused to strike out the claim on the basis that the fact of these arrangements (which involved a genuine partnership and were not suggested to be a sham) did not preclude the possibility of the claimant being able to establish employee status. In reaching this conclusion, the tribunal sought to distinguish the EAT’s decision in Firthglow Ltd v Descombes and anor UKEAT/0916/03. The respondent appealed.

The EAT disagreed with the tribunal’s finding. The EAT held that the tribunal had erred in seeking to draw a distinction between this case and Descombes, where it had been held that, where the relevant work was being undertaken under an agreement with a partnership, that precluded the possibility of one of the individual partners being able to claim he was an employee. The tribunal ought to have followed Descombes. Although it was open to the EAT not to follow a previous decision at this level, none of the circumstances that might warrant adopting this course of action. Moreover, the agreed facts, confirmed by the tribunal’s own findings, meant that the possibility of the existence of a contract of employment between the claimant and the respondent was precluded in the circumstances of this case. That being so, the claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal could have no reasonable prospect of success and the tribunal ought to have allowed the respondent’s strike out application. Therefore the appeal was allowed, the tribunal’s judgment set aside and a finding substituted that the claimant’s claim must be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

Although employers might, as a result of this judgment, be tempted to engage people to work for them through a partnership (as a means of avoiding them gaining rights as employees) the fact that the courts and tribunals will look behind any such arrangement to determine whether it is a sham, and not reflecting the true agreement between the parties, should discourage them from doing so in practice.

 Back to the top

Constructive Unfair Dismissal: Incorrect use of hypothetical comparators

In The No. 8 Partnership v Simmons [2023] EAT 140 the claimant pursued claims of constructive unfair dismissal and of direct associative disability discrimination, relating to the respondent’s refusal to grant her time off for her dependent father under section 57A Employment Rights Act 1996. In considering the claim of direct discrimination, the Employment Tribunal constructed hypothetical comparators without first giving the parties the opportunity to give evidence or make submissions on the hypothetical circumstances envisaged. The tribunal also found that the reason for the refusal of section 57A leave was the respondent’s unwarranted misinterpretation of the section and that one of the decision-makers was dismissive of the care that aged parents required. Having found that the respondent had thus discriminated against the claimant, the tribunal concluded that this meant that it had breached the implied term of trust and confidence, which had also been breached by the respondent’s failure to personally communicate with the claimant before reaching any decision. The respondent appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. By failing to afford the parties the opportunity to address its hypothetical comparisons (in evidence or submissions), the tribunal had adopted an unfair procedure. The comparators thus constructed were also flawed as they failed to provide a like-for-like comparison for the purposes of section 23 Equality Act 2010 and, in the case of the second case, relied on a comparison with an individual sharing the same protected characteristic as the claimant. Moreover, given its finding as to the respondent’s reason for refusing section 57A leave, it was perverse of the tribunal to conclude that this was because of the claimant’s father’s disability. That conclusion was also perverse given the tribunal’s further finding that one of the respondent’s partners would have treated any carer of an aged parent (regardless of disability) in the same way.

Having allowed the appeal against the finding of discrimination, this also undermined the tribunal’s reasoning on constructive unfair dismissal. The alternative basis for that conclusion was, however, also flawed as the tribunal had failed to apply the correct test when determining whether there had been a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and had failed to provide an adequate explanation of it finding that a breach arose from a failure of personal communication.

Back to the top

Race Discrimination: Differentiating comparators

In the direct race discrimination case of Virgin Active Ltd v Hughes [2023] EAT 130, the question before the EAT was whether it was correct for the employment tribunal to consider a colleague who had made a comment about her own race as a valid comparator for a claimant who had made a comment about a colleague’s race.

The claimant in this case was a gym manager who had been dismissed. He had won several claims at the tribunal, including unfair dismissal, automatic and ‘ordinary’ unfair dismissal, and race discrimination concerning the handling of his disciplinary process and a grievance. The respondent appealed on various grounds and succeeded in overturning the findings related to race discrimination.

The tribunal had considered three of the claimant’s colleagues as comparators, even though their situations appeared significantly different from the claimant’s. The tribunal argued that the differences in treatment of these comparators shifted the burden of proof and upheld the complaint.

However, the EAT disagreed with the tribunal’s approach. It pointed out that the tribunal had not adequately assessed whether the claimant’s comparators were indeed suitable comparators, given their differing circumstances. A tribunal should carefully evaluate any material differences between a claimant and a valid comparator. The more significant the differences in their circumstances, the less likely the disparate treatment indicates discrimination. To illustrate this, the EAT provided an example: if two individuals of different races both undergo a job interview and one succeeds while the other does not, this alone wouldn’t be enough to shift the burden of proof. However, if both candidates scored equally in an assessment but were treated differently, that might indeed warrant shifting the burden of proof.

Additionally, the judgment highlighted that delay, on its own, is not sufficient grounds for an appeal. (The judgment had been delayed due to the Employment Tribunal Judge’s serious ill-health.)

Back to the top 

Further Information:

If you would like any additional information, please contact Anne-Marie Pavitt or Sophie Banks on: hello@dixcartuk.com

Back

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.

Related News

banner services

News & Views

Employment Law Case Update – July 2022

  • Employment,

  • 27th July 2022

Employment Law

This month we look at the saga of the ‘fire and rehire’ issue affecting Tesco employees and how whistleblowers can be fairly dismissed depending on their conduct. We also have two interesting cases about how direct discrimination can be viewed – the doctor who refused to address transgender people by their chosen pronouns who had not been discriminated against versus the feminist who expressed beliefs which could not be objected to (as core beliefs) even though they were capable of causing offence, and was discriminated against.

  • Fire and Rehire: Court of Appeal overturns injunction restraining termination and re-engagement of Tesco employees
  • Whistleblowing: Whistleblower’s dismissal not automatically unfair as decision-makers’ view of conduct when making protected disclosures separable from content or fact of disclosures
  • Direct Discrimination: EAT upholds tribunal decision that Christian doctor was not discriminated against for refusing to address transgender people by their chosen pronoun
  • Direct Discrimination: Gender critical feminist suffered direct discrimination for expressing her beliefs in a manner that was not “objectively offensive”

Fire and Rehire: Court of Appeal overturns injunction restraining termination and re-engagement of Tesco employees

In USDAW and others v Tesco Stores Ltd [2022] EWHC 201, the Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court’s injunction restraining Tesco from dismissing and re-engaging a group of warehouse operatives to remove a contractual pay enhancement known as “Retained Pay“. This had been incorporated through collective bargaining with the trade union USDAW as a retention incentive during a reorganisation. The collective agreement stated that the enhanced pay would be a “permanent feature” of each affected employee’s contractual entitlement, and could only be changed through mutual consent, or on promotion to a new role.  

The High Court had found that there was an implied term not to use termination and re-engagement as a means of removing Retained Pay. However, the Court of Appeal held that such an implied term was not justified. Neither could the employees rely on promissory estoppel since there had been no unequivocal promises related to termination. Furthermore, it was not “unconscionable” to remove a benefit that the employees had already received for over a decade and that far exceeded any redundancy payment to which they would have been entitled had they not accepted the Retained Pay.

In any event, even if there had been a breach, the court held that the injunction was not justified. The court was not aware of any previous cases in which a final injunction had been granted to prevent a private sector employer from dismissing an employee for an indefinite period. Moreover, the terms of the injunction had not been sufficiently clear.  

Back to the top

Whistleblowing: Whistleblower’s dismissal not automatically unfair as decision-makers’ view of conduct when making protected disclosures separable from content or fact of disclosures

In Kong v Gulf International Bank (UK) Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 941, the Court of Appeal has upheld the EAT’s decision that an employment tribunal directed itself properly on the issue of the separability of the protected disclosures made by an employee and the reason in the minds of the decision-makers for her dismissal. The tribunal had properly considered and applied the guidance on the issue set out in authorities such as Martin v Devonshire Solicitors UKEAT/0086/10 and NHS Manchester v Fecitt and others [2012] IRLR 64. Despite the fact that the tribunal had found that the employee’s conduct when making the protected disclosures had been broadly reasonable and she had not, as alleged, questioned her colleague’s professional integrity, her dismissal was not automatically unfair because the decision-makers believed that she had acted unreasonably. The reason for dismissal in the minds of the decision-makers could be properly separable from the fact of the protected disclosures being made. The court rejected the submissions of Protect as intervenor that an employee’s conduct in making a disclosure should only be properly considered separable from the making of a protected disclosure where that conduct constitutes wholly unreasonable behaviour or serious misconduct.  

This decision makes it clear that even where a worker’s conduct is not objectively unreasonable when they make a protected disclosure, their employer may escape liability when it treats them detrimentally or dismisses them because it subjectively believes that the manner in which they made the disclosures was unreasonable. However, the court stressed that particularly close scrutiny of an employer’s reasons for treating them detrimentally would be needed in such a case to ensure that the real reason for adverse treatment was not the protected disclosure itself.  

It is understood that the employee is considering an appeal to the Supreme Court.  

Back to the top

Direct Discrimination: EAT upholds tribunal decision that Christian doctor was not discriminated against for refusing to address transgender people by their chosen pronoun

In Mackereth v DWP [2022] EAT 99, the EAT has held that a tribunal did not err in dismissing a Christian doctor’s claims of direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment on grounds of religion or belief because of his refusal to address transgender service users by their chosen pronouns. He relied on his particular beliefs in the supremacy of Genesis 1:27 that a person cannot change their sex/gender at will, his lack of belief in what he described as “transgenderism” and his conscientious objection to “transgenderism“. However, Eady P, sitting with lay members, found that the tribunal had erred in several respects when applying the criteria from Grainger Plc v Nicholson UKEAT/0219/09 to determine whether these beliefs were capable of protection under section 4 of the Equality Act 2010. In particular, the tribunal had erred in holding that the beliefs were not worthy of respect in a democratic society. This threshold must be set at a low level so as to allow for the protection not just of beliefs acceptable to the majority, but also of minority beliefs that might cause offence (approving Forstater v CGD Europe UKEAT/0105/20).  

The tribunal had been entitled to find in the alternative that the direct discrimination and harassment claims were not made out. It was permissible to draw a distinction between Dr Mackereth’s beliefs and the way he manifested them, finding that any employee not prepared to utilise a service user’s chosen pronoun would have been treated the same way.  

The tribunal had also been entitled to reject the indirect discrimination claim. In holding that the PCPs were necessary and proportionate, it carefully considered the lack of practical alternatives to face-to-face contact with service users. In noting that Dr Mackereth had not identified any further alternatives, over and above those considered and discounted by his employer, this did not amount to the imposition of the burden of proof on him.

Back to the top

Direct Discrimination: Gender critical feminist suffered direct discrimination for expressing her beliefs in a manner that was not “objectively offensive”

In Forstater v CGD Europe and others ET/22200909/2019, an employment tribunal has upheld a claim of direct discrimination on ground of belief, where an individual’s contract was not renewed because she had expressed gender critical beliefs which some colleagues found offensive. This follows an earlier EAT judgment in which her gender critical beliefs had been held to be protected as a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. They included the belief that a person’s sex is an immutable biological fact, not a feeling or an identity, and that a trans woman is not in reality a woman. The claimant had described a prominent gender-fluid individual as a “part-time cross dresser” and a “man in heels” who should not have accepted an accolade intended for female executives. She had also left a gender critical campaign booklet in the office (which she later apologised for) and posted a campaign video on twitter containing ominous music and imagery, which argued that gender self-ID put women and girls at greater risk.

The respondents argued that it was the way in which the claimant had expressed her beliefs, and not the fact that she held them, that had been the reason for non-renewal. The tribunal held, following earlier case law, that the way in which a belief is manifested is only dissociable from the belief itself where it is done in a manner which is inappropriate or to which objection can reasonably be taken, bearing in mind an individual’s qualified right to manifest their belief under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In this case, the claimant’s tweets and other communications were little more than an assertion of the core protected belief (which could not be objected to even though it was capable of causing offence). In some cases the claimant had been provocative or mocking but this was the “common currency of debate” and was not objectively offensive or unreasonable.

The claimant had also been victimised when her profile was taken off the respondent’s website after she talked to The Sunday Times about her discrimination case. However, her claims of indirect discrimination and harassment were dismissed.

Back to the top

Further Information:

If you would like any additional information, please contact Anne-Marie Pavitt or Sophie Banks on: hello@dixcartuk.com

Back

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.

Related News