Tag Archive: #strikes

  • Employment Law General Update – November 2022

    This month’s news seems to be full of inequality as we report on the gender pay gap, perceptions and experiences of racism at work, menopause, striking transport workers, bias in recruitment, carer’s leave and new protection from redundancy measures for those on pregnancy-related leave.

    • Gender Pay Gap: ONS 2022 gender pay gap data published
    • Race Discrimination: 2021 survey considers perceptions and experiences of racism at work
    • ACAS: Survey finds 1 in 3 employers feel under-equipped to support women during menopause
    • Trade Unions: New Transport Strikes Bill introduced to House of Commons
    • Technology: Research suggests using AI to reduce bias in recruitment is counter-productive
    • Leave: Government backs Carer’s Leave Bill
    • Redundancy: Government backs Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill

    Gender Pay Gap: ONS 2022 gender pay gap data published

    The Office for National Statistics (ONS) releases annual statistics on differences in pay between women and men by age, region, full-time and part-time work, and occupation as compiled from its Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings. The ONS analysis of the gender pay gap is calculated as the difference between average hourly earnings (excluding overtime) of men and women as a proportion of men’s average hourly earnings (excluding overtime) across all jobs in the UK. It does not measure the difference in pay between men and women doing the same job and is different from compulsory gender pay gap reporting.

    The ONS encourages focus on long-term trends rather than year-on-year trends. It notes that the data for 2020 and 2021 was subject to uncertainty and should be treated with caution. This is due to earnings estimates being affected by changes in workforce composition and the furlough scheme during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as disruption to data collection and lower response rates.

    Over the past decade, the gender pay gap has fallen by approximately a quarter among full-time employees. In April 2022, the gender pay gap for full-time employees was 8.3%. While this is higher than the 2021 gap of 7.7%, it continues a downward trend since April 2019 when the gap was 9.0%.

    In 2022, the occupation group for managers, directors and senior officials has seen the largest fall in its gender pay gap figure (10.6%) since the pre-pandemic April 2019 figure (16.3%). This reflects signs of more women holding higher-paid managerial roles. In terms of geography, the gender pay gap is higher in all English regions than in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

    Other trends seen in 2021 remain:

    • The gender pay gap is much higher for full-time employees aged over 40 years (10.9%) than those aged below 40 years (3.2%). 
    • Higher earners experience a much larger difference in hourly pay between the sexes than lower-paid employees.

    Back to the top

    Race Discrimination: 2021 survey considers perceptions and experiences of racism at work

    Following a survey of 1,193 UK employees (507 White, 419 Asian, 267 Black), Pearn Kandola, a business psychology consultancy, has published a new report, Racism at Work in the UK 2021. The survey replicated the approach previously taken by Pearn Kandola in 2018 (see Racism at Work Survey Result, 2018), asking participants about their perceptions and experiences of racism at work and actions their employers have taken to combat racism.

    Of the employees surveyed, 74.8% considered racism to be a problem in the workplace. Of the 52.2% who had witnessed racism at work, 29.8% confronted the perpetrator, 22.4% reported the incident to a manager or HR department while 28.3% took no action.

    Racism at work was experienced by 34% of the respondents. Black respondents were 15.1 times more likely than White respondents, and 1.9 times more likely than Asian respondents, to experience workplace racism. Asian respondents were 8.1 times more likely to experience racism at workplace than White respondents. These results suggested that the likelihood of Black and Asian employees experiencing racism at work had generally increased between 2018 and 2021. For White respondents it had decreased.

    Almost half of employees worked for organisations that had taken action to promote greater racial equality at work (49.7%). Most frequently this involved anti-racism training and general awareness raising. Internal policies and procedures were changed both to make them more inclusive and to make it easier to report racism to senior colleagues.

    The report recommendations include recognition that experiences differ both between and within racial groups, and for employees to be trained to become active bystanders who know how to challenge racism.

    Back to the top

    ACAS: Survey finds 1 in 3 employers feel under-equipped to support women during menopause

    ACAS has reported on the outcome of a survey in which it commissioned YouGov to ask British businesses how well equipped they felt their workplaces were to support women going through the menopause. Responses indicated that while 46% felt either very or fairly well equipped, 33% considered that they were either not that well equipped or not equipped at all, and 21% of respondents did not know. With regard to confidence in managers having the necessary skills to support staff, 46% felt either very or fairly confident, 37% were either not very or not at all confident and 17% did not know.

    ACAS advises that employers:

    • Develop a menopause policy that explains how the menopause can affect people differently and what support is available.
    • Provide awareness training for managers on the menopause and how to deal with it sensitively and fairly.
    • Consider making practical changes at work to help staff manage their symptoms, such as the availability of cold drinking water and temperature control.

    Back to the top

    Trade Unions: New Transport Strikes Bill introduced to House of Commons

    On 20 October 2022, the Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill had its first reading in the House of Commons. The Bill is intended to balance the right to strike with ensuring people can commute to work and make vital journeys to access education and healthcare during strikes. It will enable employers to ensure minimum service levels in specified transport services during strikes by requiring sufficient employees to work.

    The Bill sets out the legal framework through which minimum service levels will be achieved using minimum service specifications, which include minimum service agreements, minimum service determinations and minimum service regulations. Employers and trade unions may negotiate and reach agreement on minimum service levels by entering into a minimum service agreement. Where the parties have failed to reach an agreement after three months, the matter will be referred to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) which will make a minimum service determination. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State may set minimum services levels through minimum service regulations which will apply where an agreement has not been entered into and a determination has not been made.

    When a union gives an employer notice of a strike which relates to a specified transport service, and the employer and union are bound by a minimum service specification as regards the employer’s provision of that service, the employer may give a work notice to the union. That notice will identify the people required to work during the strike in order to ensure that minimum levels of service are provided and specify the work they will be required to carry out during the strike. Where an employer has given a work notice and the union fails to take reasonable steps to ensure that those identified in the notice do not take part in the strike, the union will not be protected from an action in tort by the employer.

    The Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2022, which will extend to England, Scotland and Wales, will come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which it is passed.

    Back to the top

    Technology: Research suggests using AI to reduce bias in recruitment is counter-productive

    Cambridge University researchers have suggested that using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to reduce bias in recruitment is counter-productive in their report Does AI Debias Recruitment? Race, Gender, and AI’s “Eradication of Difference”.

    The research considered the suggestion that using AI in recruitment can objectively assess candidates by removing gender and race from their systems and, in doing so, make recruitment fairer and help organisations to achieve their DEI goals and establish meritocratic cultures. The researchers built their own simplified AI recruitment tool, to rate candidates’ photographs for the “big five” personality traits: agreeableness, extroversion, openness, conscientiousness and neuroticism. However, they found the software’s predictions were affected by changes in people’s facial expressions, lighting and backgrounds, as well as their choice of clothing.

    Recommendations made as a result of the research include developers shifting from trying to correct individual instances of bias to considering the broader inequalities that shape recruitment processes. Those, such as HR professionals, tasked with using technology must understand the limitations of AI and need suppliers to explain where AI is being used in their systems and how it is being used to evaluate candidates. The research also suggested that there remains an insufficient contribution from AI ethicists, regulators and policymakers in the scrutiny of AI-powered HR tools.

    The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s Resourcing and talent planning report (September 2022) found that only 8% of employers used AI to interpret job requirements and scan databases or the open web for relevant candidates and that 5% of employers used AI to either screen candidates (shortlisting based on a job description) or select them (through analysis of interview responses to match hiring criteria or using chatbots for first-stage interviews).

    Back to the top

    Leave: Government backs Carer’s Leave Bill

    On 21 October 2022, the government announced that it was backing the Carer’s Leave Bill, a Private Members’ Bill sponsored by Wendy Chamberlain MP. The Bill had its first reading in the House of Commons on 15 June 2022 and its second reading was passed with government support on 21 October 2022.

    The Bill will introduce a new and flexible entitlement of one week’s unpaid leave per year for employees who are providing or arranging care. It will be available to eligible employees from the first day of their employment. They will be able to take the leave flexibly to suit their caring responsibilities and will not need to provide evidence of how the leave is used or who it will be used for which, it is hoped, should ensure a smooth process. Employees taking their carer’s leave entitlement will be subject to the same employment protections that are associated with other forms of family-related leave, meaning they will be protected from dismissal or any detriment as a result of having taken time off.

    Between 16 March and 3 August 2020, the government consulted on its proposal to give employees who are also unpaid carers a week of unpaid leave each year to provide care. On 23 September 2021, the government response to the consultation confirmed that it would introduce a statutory right of up to one week of unpaid carer’s leave when Parliamentary time allowed.

    Back to the top

    Redundancy: Government backs Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill

    On 21 October 2022, the government announced that it was backing the Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill, a Private Members’ Bill sponsored by Dan Jarvis MP. The Bill had its first reading in the House of Commons on 15 June 2022 and its second reading was passed with government support on 21 October 2022.

    Currently, the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations concerning redundancy “during” periods of maternity leave, adoption leave or shared parental leave. For example, under regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/3312), before making a woman on maternity leave redundant, an employer must offer her a suitable alternative vacancy where one is available with the employer or an associated employer.

    The Bill will amend the ERA 1996 to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations providing protection against redundancy “during or after” an individual taking the relevant leave. It will also add a new provision to the ERA 1996 allowing for regulations about redundancy “during, or after” a “protected period of pregnancy”. While the detail will be provided by the regulations, the explanatory notes to the Bill suggest that, by extending protection after a protected period of pregnancy, a woman who has miscarried before informing her employer of her pregnancy will benefit from the redundancy protection.

    On 25 January 2019, BEIS published a consultation on extending this protection to apply from the date an employee notifies the employer in writing of her pregnancy, to six months after her return from maternity leave. The consultation also asked whether this protection should be extended to similar types of leave such as adoption leave and shared parental leave. On 22 July 2019, the government published its response to the BEIS consultation suggesting that it would bring forward legislation when Parliamentary time permitted.

    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

  • Employment Law Case Update – November 2022

    This month’s news highlights cover a variety of issues including consultations in redundancy, settlement agreements reaching too far, a substantial compensation award against Royal Mail, facts versus intentions in relation to employment status and a look at what’s next for Mercer v Alternative Future Group when the Supreme Court is asked to look at the legislative gap in protection for striking workers.

    • Redundancy: Consultation not meaningful if it takes place after decision to apply selection criterion that inevitably leads to a pool of one
    • Settlement Agreements: Unknown future claims cannot be settled in advance
    • Whistleblowing: Tribunal awards compensation for career loss, psychiatric injury and substantial injury to feelings against Royal Mail
    • Employment Status: The parties’ intentions do not determine employment status
    • Unions: Supreme Court to hear bid to protect striking workers

    Redundancy: Consultation not meaningful if it takes place after decision to apply selection criterion that inevitably leads to a pool of one

    In Mogane v Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Another [2022] EAT 139, the EAT allowed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the employment tribunal in relation to a claim of unfair dismissal by reason of redundancy. The EAT held, among other things, that the tribunal had overlooked aspects of the issue of consultation in its deliberations, conflating consultation on alternative employment with the broader consultation required in a redundancy situation. Consultation was a fundamental aspect of a fair procedure. That aspect applied equally, with appropriate adaptation, to redundancy situations where there was no collective representation.

    In order that consultation was ‘genuine and meaningful’ a fair procedure required that consultation took place at a stage when an employee or employee representative could still, potentially, influence the outcome. In circumstances where the choice of criteria adopted to select for redundancy had the practical result that the selection was made by that decision itself, consultation had to take place prior to that decision being made. It was not within the band of reasonable responses, in the absence of consultation, to adopt one criterion which simultaneously decided the pool of employees and which employee was to be dismissed.

    The implied term of trust and confidence required that employers would not act arbitrarily towards employees in the methods of selection for redundancy. While a pool of one could be fair in appropriate circumstances, it should not be considered, without prior consultation, where there was more than one employee.

    Back to the top

    Settlement Agreements: Unknown future claims cannot be settled in advance

    In Bathgate v Technip UK Ltd  [2022] EAT 155, Scottish EAT has held that s.147 of the Equality Act 2010 does not allow a qualifying settlement agreement to settle future claims unknown to the parties at the time of entering into the agreement. The judge considered that the existing case law was not to contrary effect. While the decision concerns the interpretation of s.147(3)(b) of the Equality Act 2010, it applies to settlement agreements made under other statutes where there is a corresponding provision (for example, s.203(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996)).

    S.147(3)(b) requires the agreement to identify “the particular complaint“. This is not satisfied by a long list of claims defined by reference to their legal character or section number. Parliamentary intention was that settlement should only be available in the context of an agreement which settles a particular complaint that has already arisen between the parties, and the purpose of the statutory provision is to protect employees when agreeing to relinquish the right to bring proceedings. The statutory words suggest that Parliament anticipated the existence of an actual complaint or circumstances where the grounds for a complaint existed, and the precision of those words is not apt to describe a potential future complaint.

    The EAT also considered the territorial scope of the Equality Act 2010 as it applies to seafarers. It held that an employee does not cease to be a seafarer, within the meaning of s.81 of the Equality Act 2010, by working onshore for the last six months of employment, having worked for nearly 20 years on ships. S.108 of the Equality Act 2010, which deals with post-employment claims, is dependent on the employee’s rights during employment. Where an employee is excluded from the territorial scope of the Equality Act 2010 by s.81 during employment, they are also excluded post-employment.

    Back to the top

    Whistleblowing: Tribunal awards compensation for career loss, psychiatric injury and substantial injury to feelings against Royal Mail

    Following a remedies hearing, an employment tribunal has awarded substantial compensation for unfair dismissal and detriment in Jhuti v Royal Mail Group ET/2200982/2015 (3 October 2022), a whistleblowing case that had previously been subject to an appeal in the Supreme Court.

    The tribunal found that the claimant had suffered a “lengthy and intense period of bullying” over five months prior to taking sick leave and being dismissed. This treatment had “destroyed the claimant’s life“, leaving her with PTSD and recurrent episodes of severe depression, and leading to the breakdown of her relationship with her teenage daughter. The medical evidence was that she would never work again due to the combined effects of her illness and the stigma of six years’ unemployment since her dismissal.

    As well as financial compensation for total career loss to age 67, the tribunal awarded £55,000 general damages for psychiatric injury, £40,000 for injury to feelings and £12,500 aggravated damages to reflect the respondent’s oppressive conduct at the remedies hearing. It also made a 0.5% uplift for unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.

    Back to the top

    Employment Status: The parties’ intentions do not determine employment status

    In Richards v Waterfield Homes Ltd and another [2022] EAT 148, an employment tribunal erred in finding that, in a working relationship which had numerous indicators of employment status and only one in favour of self-employment, that the latter should be determinative of the issue. Self-employment (implicit in the use of the CIS scheme (a construction workers tax scheme) to pay the claimant, “under which registrants know they will be treated as self-employed”) was only one of the factors to be considered.

    Looking at the findings as a whole, and consistent with case law, the only proper conclusion open to the employment tribunal was that the claimant was indeed an employee. The case was remitted to the employment tribunal for a remedy hearing on that basis.

    Back to the top

    Unions: Supreme Court to hear bid to protect striking workers

    The Supreme Court will hear arguments from UNISON, the UK’s largest union, that a recent Court of Appeal decision unfairly allows employers to punish striking workers, as historic numbers take industrial action. UNISON will support Fiona Mercer, a former trade union representative, in her appeal at the Supreme Court against Business Secretary, Grant Shapps. His predecessor, Kwasi Kwarteng, had intervened in March 2022 to reverse Mercer’s win against her employer, Alternative Futures Group (AFG), a health and social care charity.

    The EAT in Mercer v Alternative Future Group [2021] IRLR 620, ruled that AFG had violated the European Convention on Human Rights when it suspended Mercer in a dispute over plans to cut allowances for sleep-in staff. But the government successfully argued to the Court of Appeal, in Mercer v Alternative Future Group Ltd and another (Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy intervening) [2022] EWCA Civ 379, that keystone labour legislation (the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992) does not protect striking workers from detrimental treatment.

    Workers cannot be fired for taking part in industrial action, but that protection expires after 12 weeks—and there is a ‘legislative gap’ in what other protection is available to employees taking industrial action, the Court of Appeal said. That gap means ‘unscrupulous employers’ can make life difficult for workers who exercise their right to strike, UNISON said as it revealed that it had won permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. No date has been set for the hearing, although UNISON said it expects it in the second half of 2023.

    The union is expected to argue that the UK is obliged by international labour law and precedents from the European Court of Human Rights to protect workers from detriment short of dismissal. The government is likely to counter that those standards exceed what is required under domestic legislation.

    UNISON’s general secretary, Christina McAnea, said the appeal is “a chance to fix a glaring legal loophole“. “Employees only strike as a last resort and shouldn’t face punishment for protesting about their employer’s behaviour“, McAnea continued. Hundreds of thousands of workers are thinking about industrial action as they struggle to cope with low pay in the face of soaring prices. Everyone must be able to exercise their rights without fearing they’ll be treated unfairly for standing up for themselves at work“.

    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

  • Employment Law Case Update – September 2022

    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