Tag: #employmentlaw

banner services

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.

Back to the top

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.

Back to the top

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.

Back to the top

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.

Back to the top

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.

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 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 General Update – June 2023

  • Employment,

  • 27th June 2023

Employment Law

This month we bring you updates on government reforms to employment law and the ping-pong battle over which laws shall be retained following Brexit; which companies are failing to pay national minimum wage, a review in diversity and goals for the 4 day week for political parties to endorse; our UK strike laws are being critiqued and we will soon know which occupations we are most lacking in the UK.

  • Brexit: Government consults on reforms to working time rules, holiday pay and TUPE
  • Brexit: Lords put further amendments back to Commons on REULRR Bill
  • Pay: Department for Business and Trade names companies failing to pay NMW
  • Diversity: Parker review sets new targets for FTSE 350 and private companies
  • Working Patterns: 4 Day Week campaign launches Mini Manifesto
  • Trade Unions: International Labour Organization comments on UK strike laws
  • Immigration: MAC intends to publish its shortage occupation list review in autumn 2023

Brexit: Government consults on reforms to working time rules, holiday pay and TUPE

On 12 May 2023, the government published a consultation paper, setting out its plans regarding the future of retained EU employment law. The consultation paper confirms the government’s intention to keep retained EU employment laws in the following areas without any change: family leave rights (maternity, paternity, adoption and parental leave), ‘atypical’ workers’ rights (part-time workers, fixed-term workers and agency workers), and information and consultation rights. However, certain reforms are proposed in the areas of working time, paid holiday rights and rights upon the transfer of a business or an outsourcing. The government says it has identified areas for reform of laws it considers are ‘too onerous for business to be used effectively or too complex for workers to know, understand and use’. Amanda Steadman, principal knowledge lawyer at Brahams Dutt Badrick French LLP, sets out in her article the proposed changes in the consultation and the next steps.

Back to the top

Brexit: Lords put further amendments back to Commons on REULRR Bill

On 24 May 2023, the House of Commons debated the Lords amendments to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (REULRR Bill), with a majority of MPs disagreeing with three amendments. Lords amendments 6, 15 and 42 were rejected and Lords amendments 1 and 16 were further amended. Lords amendments 2 to 5, 7 to 14, 17 to 41 and 43 were agreed to.

On 20 June 2023, the House of Lords debated Commons amendments to the REULRR Bill. The Lords approved two amended motions, proposing amendments in lieu of those previously rejected by the House of Commons. These amendments relate to the two outstanding issues in debate—environmental protection and parliamentary scrutiny. Continuing the ‘ping pong’ process, the House of Commons considered the Lords message on 21 June 2023, with the government moving that the Lords amendments be rejected again. The Bill was scheduled to return to the House of Lords on 26 June 2023.

Back to the top

Pay: Department for Business and Trade names companies failing to pay NMW

The Department for Business and Trade (DBT) has published the names of 202 employers who have failed to provide their lowest paid staff the national minimum wage (NMW). Approximately 63,000 workers across the companies did not receive NMW as a result of deductions from wages (39%), failure by the companies to properly compensate for working time (39%) and incorrect apprenticeship rates (21%).

In the top 3 in this Round 19 are WH Smith Retail Holdings Ltd, Lloyds Pharmacy Ltd and Marks and Spencer PLC. Some in the list owe as little as £5500 to one employee but the larger offenders have failed to pay cumulatively hundreds of thousands of pounds to thousands of workers.

Employers are reminded that the minimum wage law applies to all parts of the UK. Employers should always carry out the necessary checks (guidance is available on the Gov website: Calculating the Minimum Wage), and HMRC consider all complaints from workers, so they are reminding workers to check their pay with advice available through the Check your pay website.

Back to the top

Diversity: Parker review sets new targets for FTSE 350 and private companies

The Parker Review Committee has published a 2023 update report on ‘Improving the Ethnic Diversity of UK Business’. The independent review, which published its first report in 2016, was commissioned by the former Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to consult on ethnic diversity in UK boards. The review also set several diversity targets for FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies. The update contains the results of the review’s survey of those targets in 2022 in addition to a number of new targets to be achieved by 2027.

Back to the top

Working Patterns: 4 Day Week campaign launches Mini Manifesto

The 4 Day week campaign has published a ‘Mini Manifesto’, which they are calling on political parties to endorse ahead of the next general election. 4 Day Week is a national campaign for a 32-hour working week with no reduction in pay. The manifesto lays out the campaign’s key principles and goals.

Back to the top

Trade Unions: International Labour Organization comments on UK strike laws

The International Labour Organization (ILO) has critiqued the UK’s strike laws and called for the UK government to bring union laws in line with international law. In a rare intervention that has not been used against the UK since 1995, the ILO issued an instruction for ministers to seek assistance from the ILO and report back on progress by 1 September 2023. The Trades Union Congress has called this ‘hugely embarrassing’ for ministers.

Back to the top

Immigration: MAC intends to publish its shortage occupation list review in autumn 2023

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has confirmed, by way of an update to its guidance webpage, that it intends to publish its report reviewing the shortage occupation list in autumn 2023. This is later than the anticipated date of June 2023, as stated in previous press releases.

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 General Update – September 2022

  • Employment,

  • 26th September 2022

Employment Law

A change in prime minister has brought about some immediate changes to laws affecting employment law, such as the Bill on which laws will be retained from the EU, repeal of the off-payroll rules (IR35) and the dropping of the Bill of Rights Bill, which was set to replace the Human Rights Act. Sadly, two reports recently demonstrate that racism and gender discrimination persist at work, while FTSE 100 company chief executives are getting a massive pay rise. Meanwhile, ACAS has published new guidance on staff suspensions.

  • Brexit: Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill 2022-23 introduced to House of Commons
  • IR35: Off-Payroll Rules to be repealed by April 2023
  • Human Rights: Bill of Rights Bill 2022-23 dropped by government
  • Equality: New TUC report highlights prevalence of racism at work
  • Discrimination: New report highlights persistence of gender discrimination in the workplace
  • Pay: Chief executives of FTSE 100 companies see average pay jump of 39%
  • ACAS: New guidance on staff suspensions published by ACAS

Brexit: Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill 2022-23 introduced to House of Commons

On 22 September 2022, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill 2022-23 was introduced to the House of Commons, and written ministerial statements were made summarising the Bill’s provisions. A full legal update on the Bill will follow.   The written statements explain that the Bill includes provisions to:  

  • Sunset retained EU law. Retained EU law in EU-derived secondary legislation and retained direct EU legislation will expire on 31 December 2023 unless otherwise preserved. Special features of EU law will be removed from retained EU law that remains in force after that date (assimilated law), ending the principle of the supremacy of EU law, general principles of EU law and directly effective EU rights on 31 December 2023. EU interpretive features will no longer apply to assimilated law. (The sunset date can be extended until 2026 for specified pieces of legislation.)
  • Reverse the priority currently given to retained direct EU legislation over domestic UK legislation passed before the end of the transition period when they are incompatible, with a power to amend the new order of priority to retain specific legislative effects where necessary in specific circumstances.
  • Give domestic courts greater discretion to depart from retained EU case law, and provide new court procedures for UK and devolved law officers to refer or intervene in cases involving retained EU case law.
  • Downgrade the status of retained direct principal EU legislation for amendment purposes so that it no longer has parity with Acts of Parliament.
  • Give the government powers to make secondary legislation so that retained EU law or assimilated law can be amended, repealed and replaced more easily, and enable the government (via Parliament) to clarify, consolidate and restate legislation to preserve its current effect.  

The government’s news story added that all required legislation relating to tax and retained EU law will be made via the Finance Bill or subordinate tax legislation, and the government will introduce a bespoke legislative approach for retained EU law concerning VAT, excise, and customs duty in a future Finance Bill.    

Back to the top

IR35: Off-Payroll Rules to be repealed by 6 April 2023

In his autumn statement on 23 September, Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng announced that the UK government will scrap the 2017 and 2021 reforms to the IR35 off-payroll working rules in the next Finance Act, aimed to be enacted on 6 April 2023. Addressing the House of Commons he said, “reforms to off payroll working have added unnecessary complexity and cost for many businesses.” This has come as a bit of a shock to many industry experts who have commented that it’s unheard of for a Chancellor to repeal primary tax legislation without consultation. It is just the reforms which are being axed, and not the IR35 system itself, which will likely be celebrated by independent contractors who have found the measures to have wrought havoc to their business and added unnecessary levels of additional work for both the contractors and the businesses that engage them.

IR35 reform in the public sector was introduced in 2017 meaning that public sector bodies become responsible for determining the IR35 status of contractors – the responsibility shifted from the contractor to the end client, rather than the contractor taking the responsibility. In addition, the reforms meant the liability also shifted from the contractor to the fee-paying party (often the recruiter) in the supply chain. IR35 reform in the private sector in 2021 mirrored this but applied only to medium and large businesses. Small companies remained exempt.

The repeal of the 2017 and 2021 reforms from 6 April 2023 doesn’t abolish IR35 but takes us back to the rules in place from 2000 (the Intermediaries Legislation). This puts the onus back on the worker to correctly assess their status and pay the correct amount of tax. It should be noted that for services provided before 6 April 2023, the current rules will still apply, even where the payment is made on or after 6 April 2023.

However, contractors may need to hold off rejoicing just for now. Some Tory Ministers are already claiming they may rebel against the next Finance Act if the pound falls below the dollar. Dave Chaplin, CEO of IR35 Shield, says: “When you read the financial impact of the repeal in the Government’s Growth Plan document, you’ll see that there are six billion pounds worth of reasons why all rejoicing would be premature, and why all parties in the supply chain should not be complacent as we approach April 2023, nor beyond.”

Back to the top

Human Rights: Bill of Rights Bill 2022-23 dropped by government

On 7 September 2022, it was reported in the press that the Bill of Rights Bill 2022-23 had been dropped by the new government headed by Liz Truss and would not progress to its second reading, which had been scheduled to take place on 12 September 2022.   The Bill would have repealed the Human Rights Act 1998 and reframed the UK’s legal relationship with the ECHR, to which the UK would have remained a signatory.   Press reports suggest that the government is looking at different legislative options for reform.  

Back to the top

Equality: New TUC report highlights prevalence of racism at work

The TUC has published a report ‘Still Rigged: Racism in the UK Labour Market 2022‘, based on extensive polling, which shows that racism and racial inequality continue to be experienced in the workplace. In addition to racism impacting the types of work ethnic minority workers are employed to do, two in five people reported having experienced racism at work in the past five years. The most common types of racial harassment are racist jokes and banter (27%), being made to feel uncomfortable through use of stereotypes and appearance-based comments (26%), being bullied or harassed (21%), and racist remarks directed at the respondent or in their presence (21%). Most instances were perpetrated by fellow employees and 15% were made by a customer, client or patient. For one in six respondents, the racism was perpetrated by a manager.

Only 19% of people who experienced racist incidents reported the last incident to their employer. Nearly half of people who did not report instances of racist abuse (44%) said that they did not believe the issue would be taken seriously. Even when incidents were reported to an employer, action was taken to prevent future harassment in only 29% of instances.

The TUC has recommended that the government, employers, enforcement bodies and trade unions work together to deliver a “collective, pre-emptive response“. Specifically, the TUC suggests that the “floor of working rights” be improved for everyone, that employers have a duty to embed race equality practices in their workplaces and that there are swift and effective penalties when workers experience racism.

Back to the top

Discrimination: New report highlights persistence of gender discrimination in the workplace

Randstad has published a new report ‘Randstad: Gender equality in the workplace 2022 (September 2022)‘ on gender equality in the workplace. To inform the report, 6000 workers in the construction, education, healthcare and technology sectors were surveyed. The survey sought insight into the status quo of UK workplaces, the persistence of gender discrimination, how employers in these sectors support their employees and what areas workers would like to see their employers focus on in the coming year. Among the findings are statistics which show that:

  • Inappropriate behaviour or comments from male colleagues had been witnessed or encountered by 72% of women surveyed.
  • Only 18% of women surveyed had never experienced gender discrimination.
  • 7% of women reported having been passed over for promotion due to perceived gender discrimination.
  • Just under 10% said they had been offered a less important role because of their gender.
  • Employers are not doing enough to support female employees during the menopause, according to 73% of the women surveyed.

The report also highlights findings that are specific to each sector. Recommendations are made in three areas; ensuring the recruitment process is inclusive, fostering an inclusive workplace culture and weaving inclusion into the employee lifecycle.

Back to the top

Pay: Chief executives of FTSE 100 companies see average pay jump of 39%

Research by the High Pay Centre and Trades Union Congress (TUC) shows that the median average pay for CEOs of FTSE 100 companies increased by 39%, from £2.5 million in 2020 to £3.41 million in 2021. During the pandemic, many CEOs took a voluntary pay cut when employees were placed on furlough, but CEO pay has now surpassed the 2019 median of £3.25 million. A similar pay increase was found in the average wages of FTSE 250 CEOs (38%). The average bonus received by CEOs also jumped from £828,000 in 2020 to £1.4 million in 2021.

Previous research by the thinktank suggested that the pay ratios of FTSE 350 companies between CEOs and median employees would increase to new highs after the pandemic. The report shows that CEOs receive 109 times the average pay of British workers, a higher gap than in 2019 when CEOs received 107 times the average pay of British workers.

Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the TUC, highlighted that the CEO pay jump comes at a time where workers are experiencing “the biggest real wage falls in 20 years.” Workers’ building dissatisfaction at significantly below inflation pay rises in the context of the current cost of living crisis is being increasingly manifested in industrial action. Strikes across multiple industries have already taken place, with further walk-outs due in the coming months.

Back to the top

ACAS: New guidance on staff suspensions published by ACAS

ACAS has published new guidance to advise employers on how to consider and handle staff suspensions at work, specifically during investigations. The guidance covers deciding whether to suspend someone, the process for suspending someone, supporting an employee’s mental health during suspension and pay and holiday during suspension.

ACAS recommends that because of the risk of breaching the employment contract and the stress that can be caused, a suspension should only be used when it is a reasonable way of dealing with the situation (such as while an investigation is carried out and there is a need to protect evidence, witnesses, the business, other staff or the person being investigated) and there are no appropriate alternatives. Employers should consider each situation carefully before deciding whether to suspend someone.

Suggested alternatives to suspension include:

  • Changing shifts, site or working from home.
  • Working with different customers or away from customers.
  • Stopping working with certain systems, tools or on specific tasks.

A suspension may also be appropriate in order to protect an employee’s health and safety (such as in medical or pregnancy circumstances).

Employers should support a suspended worker by explaining the reason for the suspension, making it clear that it does not mean that it has been decided they have done anything wrong, maintaining pay and benefits, keeping the suspension as short as possible, keeping it confidential wherever possible, and staying in regular contact throughout. The worker should be informed of their suspension in person if possible. It is good practice to allow them to be accompanied at any suspension meeting and for the suspension to be confirmed in writing.

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 – September 2022

  • Employment,

  • 26th September 2022

Employment Law

Whilst strikes were temporarily abandoned in England as a mark of respect for the passing of Queen Elizabeth II and her funeral, the unions have not been resting. Several unions have started judicial review proceedings against the government in response to new regulations regarding the use of supply agency workers. The tribunals have been reviewing COVID-related employment issues, how far a belief in one’s football team can be stretched and protecting a woman’s right to a private life versus the rights of the claimant to a fair trial and freedom of expression. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has been considering the matter of confiscating earnings received by a CEO who got the job by lying about his experience.

  • Strikes: Unions commence judicial review of regulations permitting supply of agency workers during strikes
  • COVID-19: Two and a half weeks is not long enough for long COVID to become a disability
  • COVID-19: Requirement for employees to exhaust holiday and TOIL before receiving further paid leave for COVID-related absences was not discriminatory
  • Equality Act: Supporting a football club is not a protected philosophical belief
  • Human Rights: EAT makes anonymity order to protect non-party and non-witness who was subject of false lurid sexual allegations
  • Fraud: A confiscation order should strip the profit from fraudulently obtained employment

Strikes: Unions commence judicial review of regulations permitting supply of agency workers during strikes

Separate but similar judicial review proceedings have been issued by unions in response to new regulations that allow employment businesses to supply agency workers to replace striking staff.

The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022/852) came into force on 21 July 2022 and have already resulted in a report by the TUC to the International Labour Organization over alleged infringement of workers’ rights to strike.

Unison issued proceedings in the High Court on 13 September 2022, arguing that the government’s decision is unfair and is based on unreliable and outdated evidence from a 2015 consultation. It also argues that the government has failed to consider Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which protects the right to freedom of association, and international labour standards on the right to strike.

On 20 September 2022, the TUC began similar proceedings in collaboration with 11 other unions, arguing that the Secretary of State failed to consult unions, in contravention with the Employment Agencies Act 1973, and that the regulations violate Article 11 of the ECHR. The teachers’ union, NASUWT, has also announced its intention to issue proceedings. The claims are all likely to be heard together.

A response is required from the Business Secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, within 21 days of proceedings being issued.

Back to the top

COVID-19: Two and a half weeks is not long enough for long COVID to become a disability

In Quinn v Sense Scotland ETS/4111971/2021, an employment tribunal has determined that an employee who caught COVID-19 two and a half weeks before her dismissal did not have long COVID and was not disabled under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) at the relevant time.

Mrs Quinn was employed as Head of People. She tested positive for COVID-19 on or around 11 July 2021. She subsequently experienced fatigue, shortness of breath, pain and discomfort, headaches, and brain fog. These symptoms affected her everyday life and disrupted her sleep. She struggled with shopping and driving and stopped socialising and exercising. On 26 July, she contacted her GP to arrange an appointment. On 27 July, she was dismissed from her employment. She consulted with her GP on 2, 8 and 22 August, during which time she was deemed unfit to work due to ongoing symptomatic COVID-19. On 12 September, she was deemed unfit to work due to post-COVID-19 syndrome and diagnosed with long COVID.

Mrs Quinn brought a direct disability discrimination claim, among other claims. As a preliminary issue, a tribunal had to determine whether she was disabled at the time of her dismissal. She relied on the impairment of long COVID including having COVID-19 for longer than normal. She submitted that COVID-19 and long COVID are part of the same condition, and that other 50-year-old women with no underlying health conditions recovered more quickly than her after two weeks. Consequently, it could have been predicted that she would experience long COVID.

An employment tribunal found that she was not disabled under the EqA 2010 for the following reasons:

  • At the time of her dismissal, she did not have long COVID. She was not diagnosed with long COVID until some six weeks later.
  • While the impairment of COVID-19 had a substantial adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, this effect had lasted only two and a half weeks at the relevant time and was not long term.
  • The substantial majority of people who catch COVID-19 do not develop long COVID. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the risk of developing long COVID “could well happen“.

Mrs Quinn’s case could be distinguished from that of Mr Burke, who had been absent from work with COVID-19 for nine months at the time of his dismissal. 

Back to the top

 

COVID-19: Requirement for employees to exhaust holiday and TOIL before receiving further paid leave for COVID-related absences was not discriminatory

In Cowie and others v Scottish Fire and Rescue Service [2022] EAT 121 , the EAT (Eady P) has held that it was not discriminatory for the fire service to require employees to have used up accrued holiday and time off in lieu (TOIL) before being eligible to apply for additional paid “special leave” to cover COVID-19 related absences.

Two groups of employees brought discrimination claims in relation to this requirement. One group alleged indirect sex discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) and the other alleged discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the EqA 2010.

The tribunal dismissed the section 19 claims because there was no evidence of group disadvantage to women. It upheld the section 15 claims, agreeing that the requirement to exhaust holiday and TOIL was unfavourable treatment. However, it did not award any compensation since there was no evidence of any injury to feelings. The claimants and the employer appealed to the EAT.

The EAT allowed the employer’s appeal. In relation to the section 15 claims, the tribunal had identified the relevant treatment as being the requirement to use up holiday and TOIL. However, this requirement only arose when the claimants sought access to paid special leave. It was wrong to separate the conditions applicable to the benefit from the benefit itself. The relevant treatment was therefore the granting of paid special leave. This was clearly favourable treatment. The treatment could have been more favourable if the conditions were removed, but it did not become unfavourable simply because it could, hypothetically, have been more favourable.

The same error arose in relation to the section 19 claims. The PCP was defined as the requirement to exhaust TOIL or annual leave. However, the PCP only operated in the context of the paid special leave policy. Since the provision of paid special leave was clearly favourable, the PCP could only amount to a disadvantage if the conditions of entitlement were artificially separated from the benefit itself.

The EAT therefore found that neither the section 15 nor the section 19 claims could succeed. Nevertheless, it considered and rejected the claimants’ grounds of appeal, finding that the tribunal had been entitled to conclude that there was not sufficient evidence:

  • To show group disadvantage in the section 19 claims.
  • To justify an award of compensation for injury to feelings in the section 15 claims.

Back to the top

Equality Act: Supporting a football club is not a protected philosophical belief

At a preliminary hearing in McClung v Doosan Babcock Ltd and others [2022] UKET/4110538, an employment tribunal has held that supporting Rangers Football Club (Rangers) does not amount to a protected philosophical belief within the meaning of section 10(2) of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010).

Mr McClung had supported Rangers for 42 years, was a member of the club and received yearly birthday cards from them. He never missed a match and spent most of his discretionary income on attendance at games, as well as watching them on television. He believed supporting Rangers was a way of life and as important to him as attending church is for religious people.

The tribunal defined Mr McClung’s belief as being a supporter of Rangers but concluded that it was not capable of being a protected philosophical belief. While it was not in dispute that the belief was genuinely held, the tribunal concluded that the remaining Grainger criteria were not satisfied for the following reasons:

  • The tribunal had regard to the explanatory notes to the EqA 2010 which provide that adherence to a football team would not be a belief capable of protection. The definition of “support” (being “actively interested in and concerned for the success of” a particular sports team) contrasted with the definition of “belief” (being “an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof”). Mr McClung’s support for Rangers was akin to support for a political party, which case law had made clear does not constitute a protected philosophical belief.
  • Support for a football club is akin to a lifestyle choice. It did not represent a belief as to a weighty or substantial aspect of human life and had no larger consequences for humanity as a whole. There was a wide range of Rangers fans with varying reasons behind their support, shown in different ways.
  • There was nothing to suggest fans had to behave, or did behave, in a similar way. Support for the Union and loyalty to the Queen were not prerequisites of being a Rangers supporter as Mr McClung had submitted. The only common factor was that fans wanted their team to do well. It therefore lacked the required characteristics of cogency, cohesion and importance.
  • Support for Rangers did not invoke the same respect in a democratic society as matters such as ethical veganism or the governance of a country, which have been the subject of academic research and commentary.

Back to the top

Human Rights: EAT makes anonymity order to protect non-party and non-witness who was subject of false lurid sexual allegations

In Piepenbrock v London School of Economics and Political Science [2022] EAT 119, the EAT has held that the identity of a non-party and non-witness (Ms D) was entitled to the benefit of an anonymity order. False lurid allegations of a sexual nature had been made against her, and not granting the order would lead to a substantial risk of her right to a private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) being infringed. Moreover, there was a substantial risk that the claimant, Dr Piepenbrock, who had made the allegations against Ms D, would abuse the court system in a manner contrary to the interests of justice, which would have a serious detrimental effect on Ms D.

HHJ Shanks held that these considerations substantially outweighed the principle of open justice, Dr Piepenbrock’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR and his right to freedom of expression under Article 10, as well as other parties’ rights under Article 10, including the press. Granting the order sought would not seriously impact these rights and principles, as it would remain open to anyone to describe the case in all its detail, save for the identity of Ms D. The fact that the central allegation against Ms D was lurid and found to be untrue substantially reduced the weight to be accorded to the Article 10 rights at play.

The EAT granted an indefinite order protecting Ms D’s identity from becoming public and maintaining Ms D’s anonymity in an earlier EAT judgment. The order also limited access to documents lodged with the EAT and prevented Dr Piepenbrock or anyone else from disclosing Ms D’s identity. This case serves to highlight the EAT’s power to act to protect individuals’ rights under the ECHR, even where there is no express rule of procedure in the EAT Rules to that effect.

Back to the top

Fraud: A confiscation order should strip the profit from fraudulently obtained employment

In R v Andrewes [2022] UKSC 24, the appellant obtained a CEO position, falsely claiming he had qualifications and relevant experience. He was appointed in December 2004 and remained in post until March 2015. He would not have been appointed had the true position been known. During his time as CEO, he was regularly appraised as either strong or outstanding.

In January 2017, he pleaded guilty to one count of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception and two counts of fraud. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, and the Crown sought a confiscation order against him. His net earnings during the relevant period were £643,602.91. The available amount was agreed to be £96,737.24, and the judge ordered confiscation of that sum. The Court of Appeal allowed the appellant’s appeal and made no confiscation order, holding that to impose such would be disproportionate. The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court.

Appeal allowed, and confiscation order restored, albeit for different reasons:

  • It would be disproportionate to make a confiscation order of the full net earnings as not making any deduction for the value of the services rendered would amount to a further penalty.
  • The legal burden of proof in respect of section 6(5) is on the prosecution who must establish that it would not be disproportionate to require the defendant to pay the recoverable amount.
  • When considering proportionality, the court should seek to confiscate the difference between the higher earnings obtained through fraud and the lower earnings that would have been obtained if there had been no fraud. This approach takes away the profit made by the fraud.
  • The Court held a confiscation order of £244,568 would be proportionate as this represented the 38% difference between his pre-appointment earnings (£54,000 gross) and his post appointment income (£75,000 gross and £643,000 over the course of his fraudulently obtained employment). The recoverable amount was still £96,737.24.

This decision comes across as the kind of compromise more suited to civil litigation than confiscation. The court correctly distinguishes between a job that would have resulted in illegal performance, but acknowledges the appellant stood no chance of getting the job without the falsification of his qualifications. The court was explicit as to its justification for this pragmatic approach, “This is to adopt a principled ‘middle way’ in contrast to either a ‘take all’ approach or a ‘take nothing’ approach“. One wonders if this apparently principled approach will actually lead to fewer appeals on the issue of proportionality in such CV type cases.  

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