Synergy Employment Law Solicitors HR Update

Gender pay gap 'to last 98 years'. Really?

2011-08-31T15:04:00.009+01:00

The Chartered Management Institute published a report today which has been drawn from a survey of 34,158 UK executives. The report draws two broad conclusions:

Female executives are earning more than their male counterparts for the first time since its records began, albeit only at junior executive level.

Average earnings amongst those surveyed suggest that men continue to be paid more on average than women doing the same jobs (£42,441 compared to £31,895), revealing a gender pay gap of £10,546. From this data, the CMI extrapolates that the UK has a long way to go before the gender pay gap is finally closed. It predicts this will eventually happen - in 2109!

So, good news and bad news, then. But hang on... without the raw data, it's very difficult to tell if the survey is comparing like with like. Amongst other things, pay can be affected by the different work patterns of men and women, where in the UK they work, how long they have been in the job and whether they work full-time or part-time. No light is shed on why the disparity might exist, and without that we wonder whether the survey does nothing more than provide a bored subs' desk with a snappy headline and a few column inches filled.

Draft Agency Workers Regulations Guidance Published

2011-04-04T17:45:00.003+01:00

Due to come into effect on 1 October 2011, the Agency Workers Regulations will give temporary agency workers the right to equal treatment in comparison to permanent workers as regards basic working conditions.

The Department for Business Innovation and Skills has now published Draft Guidance on the Regulations. BIS is accepting comments on the Draft Guidance until 15 April, with final guidance expected to be published later this month.

You can download the Draft Guidance here.

Synergy Employment Law Solicitors - Spring 2011 Employment Bulletin online now!

2011-02-21T14:41:00.004Z

Our Spring 2011 Employment Bulletin is available online. You can download it here now!

Limits on tribunal awards go up today

2011-02-01T11:37:00.003Z

Because of a hefty rise in the RPI index, the maximum compensatory award for any unfair dismissal with an effective date of termination on or after 1 February 2011 is rising from £65,300 to £68,400.

The maximum amount of a week's pay, used to calculate (amongst other things) statutory redundancy pay and the basic award in claims of unfair dismissal is also going up today - from £380 to £400.

You can see the relevant statutory instrument (if you really want to) here.

Miriam O'Reilly Speaks. Only this time, blink and you'd miss it...

2011-01-16T21:42:00.003Z

Every Sunday in the Telegraph, Sir Terry Wogan offers his musings on some matter or other that's caught his attention during the week. This week he's given his tuppence worth on the Miriam O'Reilly age discrimination case. So far, so unremarkable (although his point of view is more interesting and relevant than most). But our Miriam, clearly scanning the Internet for every mention of her case, hasn't just read Terry's article - she's commented on it, too.

See what she had to say here...

Blogosphere reacts to the scrapping of the default retirement age

2011-01-14T12:25:00.004Z

Dr Ros Altmann, the Director General of Saga, has managed to get the same article in both the Guardian and the Telegraph today. She is, of course, delighted that the default retirement age is to go. But, as usual, the really interesting bit is the replies that her article is attracting.

The arguments broadly fall into two categories.

On the one hand, by forcing people to retire before at a particular age, you make them stop working, producing and earning. So they end up contributing less in output to the economy and pay less taxes into the pot, meaning the country is less wealthy and the government doesn't have as much money to spend. Which creates more jobs for young and old alike.

On the other hand, increasing the retirement age will not cause the economy to grow (at least in the short to medium term) and will instead increase the supply of workers, driving down wages. The young will have less opportunity to get on the career ladder. And if older workers are at the top of their career income they are more expensive to employ and, if generally less efficient, this may reduce efficiency, competitiveness and the total number of jobs available.

In reality, the precise ramifications of scrapping the default retirement age are just too complex and subtle for any commentator to predict. But from an employment law perspective, the most immediate issue is likely to be how employers will treat a workforce which, as a general rule, may become less productive as employees reach old age. If an employee becomes less able over time but insists on staying put, what then? Most employment lawyers would agree that 'capability' is by far the most difficult 'fair reason' to rely on in dismissing an employee, as it carries an obligation to allow an employee to come up to scratch via support, training, redeployment and so on - all of which can take months. This can be hurtful to an employee and easy for another solicitor to challenge (usually pointing to the employee's most recent appraisal which, more often than not, will be glowing because the employer didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings). So will scrapping the default retirement age promote good industrial relations or become a source of conflict? We suspect this is one where time (and a hefty raft of case law) will tell...

Run on shares in carriage clock factories expected: default retirement age to be scrapped in October

2011-01-13T12:48:00.002Z

The Government has today published its response to the consultation on phasing out the default retirement age. Fulfilling a pledge in the coalition agreement, from October employers will not be able to force staff to retire at 65.

The Government's intention is that the change will be phased in between April and October, giving firms time just 6 months to prepare and change their human resources policies.

You can view the Government's response to consultation here.

Coalition Floats its Employers' Charter

2011-01-10T10:16:00.003Z

The newspapers today carry details of the Government's plans to relax key elements of employment legislation in a bid to encourage economic growth.

Although no timeframe has been given for their implementation, key proposals include:

Raising from one year to two years the qualifying period of employment before an employee can bring a claim of unfair dismissal. The present qualifying period of one year was introduced in June 1999. Prior to that date, an employee had to be employed for two years before being able to claim unfair dismissal.
With a view to reducing the number of vexatious allegations, workers will face a fee when lodging an employment tribunal claim.
Small companies may be excluded from some of the more onerous employment regulations (it remains to be seen what these are).
The length of time that firms have to pay statutory sick pay to employees is set to be reduced.

Interesting stuff - and certain to encourage debate (see, for example, the reader comments on the The Daily Telegraph's website. At the time of posting, a comment thread hasn't appeared on The Guardian's website - we're betting it'll be feisty!).

Merry Christmas

2010-12-21T14:35:00.012Z

Synergy Employment Law Solicitors will be open for business as normal until 1pm on Christmas Eve. We will be closed for the festive period, returning on Tuesday 4 January 2011.

We wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous New Year!

Looking forward to your Royal Wedding Bank Holiday? You'd better check your contract first...

2010-12-15T11:17:00.006Z

I was in India when William and Kate announced they were going to tie the knot. The big story in Tamil Nadu was the wedding of the state governor's grandson in Madurai - there were billboard sized posters everywhere and wall to wall coverage on local telly. So I missed all the excitement (well, modest excitement) back home. Which included the best bit of all - to mark Wills and Kate's big day, David Cameron promised us all an extra Bank Holiday on April 29!

Well, not quite. Under the Working Time Regulations, a worker is entitled to 5.6 weeks' annual leave in each leave year. This is equivalent to 28 days for a five-day working week. Provided that an employer gives 28 days' paid holiday (or the pro-rata equivalent for part time workers) in a holiday year, then they're acting within the letter of the law. There's no automatic right to have a Bank Holiday off work - that's for the contract of employment to cover.

You can see where this is going, can't you?

Basically, if your contract of employment says that you're entitled to 20 days' paid holiday plus Bank Holidays, then you'll have the chance to do a bit of flag waving outside Westminster Abbey and rejoice in your extra paid day out of the office.

If your contract of employment says that you're entitled to 28 days' paid holiday inclusive of Bank Holidays... well, on the face of it your holiday entitlement is exactly the same as before. And (making his feelings abundently clear) Paul Kenny, general secretary of the GMB, has said: "There is no legal obligation to have a day off or extra pay, so yet again this Government is promising one thing and delivering the exact opposite."

So what does your contract of employment say?

No doubt many employers will use their discretion as to how they deal with this situation - and here at Synergy we're interested to know what the general approach will be...

Annual compensation limit increase announced

2010-12-14T10:00:00.003Z

The new maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal is going up from 1 February 2011. Currently at £65,300, it will be increasing to £68,400. The new maximum for a "week's pay" goes up from £380 to £400.

Once these increases have come into effect, the maximum award for unfair dismissal award (basic plus compensatory) will be £80,400.

Full details are available to view here.

2011 statutory payment rates announced

2010-12-13T16:41:00.002Z

The Government has announced proposed increases in the rates of statutory benefits which are expected to apply from 11 April 2011.

The standard rates for Statutory Maternity, Paternity and Adoption Pay will increase from £124.88 to £128.73.
The weekly earnings threshold for these payments will rise from £97 to £102.
Statutory Sick Pay will increase from £79.15 to £81.60, with the weekly earnings threshold also rising from £97 to £102.
Maternity allowance will increase from £124.88 to £128.73, with the earnings threshold remaining at £30.

Full details are available on Hansard.

Associative Pregnancy Discrimination

2010-10-11T17:02:00.002+01:00

In Kulikaoskas v MacDuff Shellfish, the EAT has held that it is not possible for a man to bring a claim of "associative" pregnancy discrimination.

Before the Equality Act 2010 came into force on 1 October 2010, the law in Great Britain on associative discrimination was inconsistent across the different discrimination strands. Whilst under the Race Relations Act 1976 it was unlawful to treat an employee less favourably because of the race of a third party, associative discrimination was, generally speaking, not unlawful.

However, the domestic discrimination legislation had to be read in the light of European law. In Coleman v Attridge Law, Mrs Coleman was forced to quit her job after she requested time off to look after her four-year-old disabled son. Following decisions of the ECJ and the EAT, it was held that direct disability discrimination could arise where a person is treated less favourably because of the disability of a third party (e.g, Mrs Coleman’s son).

In Kulikaoskas, the Claimant and his partner were both dismissed from their employment after less than three weeks in the job. Mr Kulikaoskas alleged that he had been dismissed because of his partner’s pregnancy. He bought a claim under s3A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which provided that a person discriminates against a woman if, during pregnancy and maternity leave, he treats her less favourably on the ground of her pregnancy.

The tribunal refused to accept Mr Kulikaoskas’s discrimination claim. He appealed on the grounds that s3A of the SDA 1975 had to be interpreted in the same way as the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 had been in the Coleman case – in other words, he should be protected against associative pregnancy discrimination.

The EAT dismissed his appeal. Its primary reason for doing so was that European law did not require section 3A of the SDA 1975 to be read as covering associative pregnancy discrimination. It distinguished the Coleman case because it had been decided under the Framework Directive. On the other hand, Mr Kulikaoskas’s claim fell under the remit of the Pregnant Workers’ Directive and the Equal Treatment Directive, which recognised that special protection is required in respect of the biological condition of pregnancy. If the intention of these Directives was to define discrimination as less favourable treatment of a person “in relation to a woman’s pregnancy” they could have done so.

Because it considered the law to be clear, the EAT declined to make a reference to the ECJ. Although it was not required to consider the position under the Equality Act 2010, it did comment that, given the same facts, it was not entirely clear if Mr Kulikaoskas’ claim would have succeeded under the new regime. Time, and case law, will tell…

Equality Act 2010 comes into force today

2010-10-01T11:10:00.003+01:00

The majority of the Equality Act 2010's provisions come into force today, 1 October 2010. The provisions coming into force include:

The basic framework of protection against direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation in services and public functions, premises, work, education, associations and transport.

The new concept of "discrimination arising from disability", to restore the protection from "disability-related discrimination" lost as a result of the House of Lords' decision in London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm.

Preventing employers from asking pre-employment health questions, except in specified circumstances (s60).

Making pay secrecy clauses unenforceable (s77).

New powers for employment tribunals to make recommendations in relation to the workforce as a whole (s124).

The general provisions allowing voluntary positive action (s158).

There are still a number of provisions that have not yet come into effect and which the government is currently "considering how to implement", perhaps the most notable of which are:

Provisions relating to combined discrimination (s14); and
Provisions relating to positive action in recruitment and promotion (s159).

If you haven't already reviewed your equal opportunities policy documentation - and ensured any standard compromise agreement refers to the new legislation - there's no time like the present!

National Minimum Wage goes up today

2010-10-01T11:06:00.001+01:00

The national minimum wage goes up today, 1 October 2010. The new hourly rates are:

Standard (adult) rate: £5.93 (up from £5.80).
Development rate (workers aged between 18 and 20): £4.92 (up from £4.83).
Young workers rate (workers aged under 18 but above the compulsory school age who are not apprentices): £3.64 (up from £3.57).

The adult rate will be extended to 21-year-olds; it currently applies to workers aged 22 and over.

It is also worth noting a new minimum wage of £2.50 per hour for apprentices. This will apply to apprentices under 19 or those aged 19 and over but in the first year of their apprenticeship.

Full details are available here.

Victimisation: Liability of the Provider and Recipient of a Discriminatory Reference

2010-09-27T16:03:00.006+01:00

People often assert that they have been the victim of "victimisation" without understanding what it is. In essence, victimisation is a particular form of discrimination that involves treating a person less favourably because he or she has complained (or intend to complain) about discrimination, or because they have given evidence in relation to another person's complaint.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now handed down an interesting decision addressing this area of law. In the case, Bullimore v Pothecary Witham Weld Solicitors, Ms Bullimore was a solicitor who lost an offer of employment because her former employer provided a poor reference. The reference specifically cited the fact that she had previously pursued a claim of sex discrimination against it and went on to refer to her "poor relationship" with the firm's partners and to her "inflexible" opinions. The employment tribunal, quite correctly, found that Ms Bullimore had been the victim of unlawful victimisation by both her former employer and her prospective employer.

The employment tribunal then went on hold that Ms Bullimore's claim for loss of future earnings against the reference provider was too remote. The EAT disagreed with this reasoning, observing that if this were the case and the prospective employer had withdrawn its offer of employment for a non-discriminatory reason, Ms Bullimore would have been left with no remedy for her loss of earnings. The EAT remitted the case back to the employment tribunal, the Respondents having already agreed that they would apportion damages between them to reflect their respective culpability and their degree of responsibility for the loss that Ms Bullimore had suffered.

Bonfire of the Quangos: Equality and Human Rights Commission to go?

2010-09-24T12:33:00.003+01:00

The Daily Telegraph has published a leaked list of 177 quangos due to be abolished, which include a number of employment and training related quangos such as the the Union Modernisation Advisory Fund. A further 94 quangos remain "under review" and may be scrapped in the future. Perhaps the most notable of which, from an employment perspective, is the Equality and Human Rights Commission. 350 bodies escape the axe, including Acas and the UK Commission for Employment and Skills.

You can see the full list here.

New guide to managing work-related stress published

2010-09-22T10:35:00.003+01:00

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, in conjunction with the HSE and Acas, has published a new guide to managing stress at work. Entitled "Work-related stress: what the law says", it explores the potential legal consequences of ignoring these responsibilities, and gives advice on tackling stress through good management.

The guide is available to download here.

Survey shows coalition split on workers' rights

2010-09-21T17:57:00.003+01:00

The British Chambers of Commerce has published results from a survey of MPs that suggest some divisions within the Coalition on top business concerns. The ComRes-conducted survey found clear discrepancies among MPs from the two Coalition parties, perhaps the most remarkable of which being on the issue of whether the balance of employment law has shifted too far towards the employee, to the detriment of the employer. 87% of Conservative MPs surveyed agreed that it had; 71% of Liberal Democrats polled disagreed. This is a notable difference of opinion on an issue that the BCC claims is preventing businesses from taking on more staff.

You can read the BCC's Press Release here.

Twitter

2010-09-16T17:11:00.002+01:00

Well, we've finally taken the Twitter penny. You can find us on there by looking for "SynergyEmpLaw", or by clicking here. We'll be tweeting regularly to pass on anything in the employment law and HR arenas that happen to catch our eye. Log on and join the conversation!

Handing in your notice? This is the week you're most likely to do it...

2010-09-14T15:57:00.002+01:00

This caught our eye: a staggering 37% of people handing in their notice this year will do so this week - the third week in September. And 24% of people do it in the first week of February. Actually, this is perhaps less surprising than it sounds - each of these weeks fall four weeks after the end of the traditional holiday seasons. And as the research comes on the back of EU figures showing British employees work harder than most of Europe (only Romanians and Bulgarians put in longer hours) it all starts to make perfect sense.

You can find the rest of the story here.

Pope to criticise equality laws

2010-09-13T16:42:00.005+01:00

It has been reported that, in a speech on Friday, the Pope will criticise Britain's equality laws, and that they shouldn't overshadow Christians' rights to express their religion.

It's probably worth reminding ourselves of the area of law this largely stems from. First up - indirect discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. In an employment context, this means that an employer must not have selection criteria, policies, employment rules or any other practices that apply to everyone regardless of religion, but have the effect of disadvantaging employees or job applicants of a particular religion or belief, unless the employer can show that they are justified. Attempts by Christians to rely on this legislation have led to a number of high profile media stories (perhaps most famously Eweida v British Airways, in which an air stewardess claimed, unsuccessfully, that BA's dress code, which forbade the wearing of a visible cross, was indirectly discriminatory). Secondly, Under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 no-one should be refused goods or services on the grounds of their sexuality; this sparked outrage in April this year when the then shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, defended two Christian B&B owners who refused a room to a couple on the basis that they were gay.

In short, expect a heated media debate over the next few days...

Read more here.

Annual Tribunal Statistics Published

2010-09-08T11:03:00.002+01:00

The annual statistics for the Employment Tribunal and EAT for the twelve months to 31 March 2010 have been published - and, as ever, they make for interesting reading. We've had a look at them so you don't have to, and the main points to note are:

Employment Tribunal claims rose year on year by 56%. This has been linked to a rise in multiple claims (up by nearly 90%) and the changing economic climate.
Because of "multiple airline industry cases that are re-submitted every three months", the greatest increases came in working time claims (297%) and claims for unauthorised deductions (122%).
Claims for breach of contract increased by 29%, for age discrimination by 36% and claims for redundancy payments increased by a whopping 76%.
71% of equal pay claims and 57% of sex discrimination claims do not make it to a tribunal hearing, making them the claims most likely to be withdrawn.
The claim most likely to be settled via ACAS conciliation is disability discrimination (45%).
The claim that is most likely to be successful at tribunal is a claim for redundancy pay (24% of which were successful).

A question we're always asked by parties to a tribunal claim is "how much am I/they going to get?". There's inevitably a how-long-is-a-piece-of-string element to any answer you can give, but we can say what the mean/median and maximum amount of any award was for any particular claim. And they are:

Unfair dismissal: £9,120 (mean), £4,903 (median), £234,549 (maximum);
Race discrimination: £18,584, £5,392, £374,922;
Sex discrimination: £19,499, £6,275, £442,366;
Disability discrimination: £52,087, £8,553, £729,347;
Religious discrimination: £4,886, £5,000, £9,500;
Sexual orientation discrimination: £20,384, £5,000, £163,725;
Age discrimination: £10,931, £5,868, £48,710.

If you want to see all of the statistics in detail, the report is available to download here.

It's World Cup time again, so there must be an employment angle - right?

2010-06-09T16:45:00.002+01:00

The Federation of Small Businesses has produced guidance on how to deal with employees wanting to take time off during the finals. The guidance recommends a flexible working system to accommodate requests for time off, by granting annual leave or (if possible) special unpaid leave. Other suggestions include allowing staff to listen to the radio or watch the television at work. For those who call in sick in order to watch matches or deal with hangovers, a reminder about potential disciplinary action is recommended, together with a policy of requiring medical evidence for sickness absence during the tournament.

If you think all that sounds handy, you can grab a copy of the guide here.

Equality Act 2010 published

2010-04-13T12:46:00.001+01:00

The Equality Bill received Royal Assent on 8 April 2010 and became the Equality Act 2010. The Act can be viewed here, having been made publicly available on 13 April 2010.

The majority of the Act's provisions will take effect in October 2010.

Synergy Employment Law Solicitors secure High Court Bonus Ruling

2010-02-15T09:52:00.003Z

Julian Fidler, partner at Synergy Employment Law Solicitors, has secured a victory in the High Court for a former executive against the investment bank and stockbroker, Seymour Pierce.

Malcolm Rutherford's claim was for his 2007 fourth quarter bonus. Seymour Pierce had argued that it was a condition of the bonus payment that Mr Rutherford should be employed and not under notice of termination, and that he had left the company by the time it was due to be paid. Despite this, Mr Justice Coulson ruled that Malcolm Rutherford be paid a bonus of £70,000.

Julian told the Financial Times Newspaper: "The result in this case illustrates an important lesson for City of London financial institutions and indeed other employers."

Full story here.

Maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal to go... down

2009-12-17T14:40:00.002Z

The annual review of compensation limits has, for the first time, resulted in a reduction to the maximum compensatory award limit. The maximum compensatory award will drop from £66,200 to £65,300 with effect from 1 February 2010. The reduction reflects the 1.4% drop in the Retail Prices Index from September 2008 to September 2009.

The limit of a "week's pay" (for basic award and redundancy pay purposes) will remain the same at £380.

A response to a discriminatory remark can amount to misconduct

2009-11-11T17:55:00.002Z

In Orr v Milton Keynes Council, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the fact that an employee had been the subject of racist remarks does not necessarily excuse his response to them and that his behaviour could constitute misconduct, giving rise to a fair dismissal.

The employee, Mr Orr, had been dismissed for gross misconduct due, in part, to his conduct in a meeting at which his manager had made a racist remark. The EAT confirmed that the correct test to apply in these circumstances is the usual test for unfair dismissal to determine whether the dismissal was fair. Mr Orr's contention was that "but for" the discrimination, the dismissal would not have occurred; however, the EAT rejected this approach, stating that discrimination will only be relevant to the fairness of the dismissal if the employer had reached the decision to dismiss for discriminatory reasons.

How not to design a logo

2009-10-15T12:38:00.003+01:00

The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) is an independent office of HM Treasury, established to help Government deliver best value from its spending. And it's just paid a lot of money for a swanky new logo. It's on their website, stationery, pens and, no doubt, t-shirts, mugs and mousemats.

OK, it's not HR related - but we can see why its employees dissolved into gales of laughter when they turned the logo on its side...

Anyway, if you want to learn more about this hitherto slightly overlooked Government Agency, the website's here.

One in ten men out of work by 2010

2009-10-13T11:41:00.003+01:00

A stark analysis of official statistics by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has shown that the recession is causing more job losses amongst men than women.

The publication, "Men Not At Work", reveals that, whilst unemployment amongst women stands at 6.9%, the number of men without work has climbed to 9%. This is an increase of 50% since the beginning of the recession, compared with a 33 per cent increase for women. John Philpott, the CIPD’s chief economist, has predicted that one in ten men will be unemployed by 2010.

The groups most likely to be out of work are young males aged 18-24 and black men, with one in five out of work. A separate study by the TUC has shown that, amongst the 16-24 age group, 900,000 are now out of work, with this figure set to reach 1 million.

You can read the full story here.

Discrimination: awards for injury to feelings go up

2009-10-09T11:01:00.004+01:00

A successful claim of discrimination at an employment tribunal will, in addition to compensation for financial loss, invariably give rise to compensation for injury to feelings suffered as a result of the discrimination. It is a compensatory award, not a punitive award, so tribunals should have regard to the actual injury to feelings suffered and not inflate the award simply because it takes a dim view of an employer's behaviour.

The anti-discrimination legislation does not contain guidance as to how a tribunal should evaluate injured feelings, and employment tribunals have, for a number of years, used the "Vento guidelines", so called after the Court of Appeal's decision in Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2002).

This case set clear guidelines for the amount of compensation to be given for injured feelings and set out three bands of potential awards. The "bottom band" is applied to less serious cases, such as a one-off incident or an isolated event. The "middle band" is applied to serious cases which do not merit an award in the highest band, and the "top band" is for the most serious cases, such as where there has been a lengthy campaign of harassment. Awards can exceed this only in the most exceptional cases.

In Da'Bell v NSPCC (2009), the Employment Appeals Tribunal has now revised the value of the three bands, to take inflation into account since the Vento case. They are now:

Bottom band: £600 - £6,000 (up from £500 - £5,000 in Vento);
Middle band: £6,000 - £18,000 (up from £5,000 - £15,000); and
Top band: £18,000 - £30,000 (up from £15,000 - £25,000).

The transcript of the case is not yet available, but because the judgment has been handed down it has immediate effect.

Conservatives talking tough on employment law...

2009-10-06T16:32:00.006+01:00

Interesting statements of intent are beginning to emanate from Manchester, where the Conservatives are this week holding their party conference. One of their big beasts, Ken Clarke, the shadow business secretary, has promised that a Conservative government would operate a "one in, one out" policy that would require an existing business law to be cut before a new one was introduced, with the aim of reducing the overall regulatory burden by 5%. Members of the public will be invited to nominate unpopular regulations (we can certainly think of a few) to be reviewed by Parliament. More here.

This comes on the back of a promise made last year by Alan Duncan, the previous shadow business secretary, to consult on changes that need to be made to employment tribunals. He's on record describing them as "a pretty grotty system that needs a real shake-up".

Controversial stuff, but we're pretty sure the more cynical out there will wonder whether we've heard this all before...

Legislation coming into force from 1 October...

2009-09-30T12:45:00.004+01:00

Government regulations dictate that changes to legislation that affects business can only be implemented on the 1st October or 6th April. In case you hadn't been keeping an eye on your calendar, it's that time again...

Important changes in employment legislation taking effect from 1 October 2009 will be:

National Minimum Wage
Increases in the hourly rates of the National Minimum Wage will see the Standard (adult) rate rise to £5.80 (from £5.73); the Development rate rise to £4.83 (from £4.77); the Young workers rate rise to £3.57 (from £3.53) and the Accommodation offset rate rise to £4.51 (from £4.46).
Tips
From 1 October, employers will be prohibited from counting service charges, tips and gratuities processed through their payrolls towards the payment of the National Minimum Wage.
Maximum limit of a week's pay
The maximum limit of a "week's pay" will be increased from £350 to £380 - and will stay at this amount until February 2011. This increase will affect all compensation payments to which the week's pay limit is relevant (for example, calculating statutory redundancy payments and basic awards in cases of unfair dismissal).

And last, but certainly not least...

The House of Lords Supreme Court Rules 2009
With barely a whimper, from 1 October 2009 the House of Lords will be replaced by the Supreme Court as the highest appeal court. The Supreme Court Rules 2009, which will govern the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court, will also come into force. The Rules will apply to appeals which were proceeding, and petitions for leave which were lodged, in the House of Lords before 1st October 2009.

Heyday decision: employers can force employees to retire at 65

2009-09-25T11:48:00.003+01:00

The High Court has just handed down its decision in the Heyday appeal, with the upshot that it is legal for UK law to allow employers to force employees to retire at 65.

The BBC report on the story here - expect to hear a lot more in the days to follow...

Farewell Stratford Employment Tribunal

2009-09-24T12:11:00.002+01:00

Well, it's the end of an era - from today, Stratford Employment Tribunal is no more. It's moving to (what we hope will be) plush new facilities in the Docklands area of east London.

The East London Tribunal Service's new address will be: 2nd Floor Anchorage House 2 Clove Crescent East India Dock London E14 2BE. But it just won't seem the same...

More here.

E-mail and Internet misuse at work...

2009-09-10T14:23:00.005+01:00

A number of stories have been appearing in the press recently which have caught our eye. In this month alone, it's been reported that

Portsmouth City Council has blocked access to Facebook after it found that its staff spent up to 572 hours a month on the social networking site (we're presuming collectively and not individually);
Staff from PC World and Currys.digital, perhaps unwisely, have been busy flooding a Facebook Group with messages labelling their customers “stupid”; and
A memory stick infected with a virus wrecked Ealing Council’s IT system, leaving it with a bill for £½ million in emergency IT work and lost revenue. Ouch.

The common denominator - misuse of IT. The potential liabilities to employers are enormous - lost productivity, lost income, repair bills, legal action for harassment and defamation... it's enough to make your toes curl into Turkish slippers. An IT policy can help prevent problems arising in the first place by making it clear what employees can and can't do and the potential consequences for transgression. And if things do go wrong, it can help defend claims when they do arise. So, if your workplace relies on computer systems and hasn't devised and implemented an IT policy governing their use, why not...?

EHRC begins legal action against the BNP

2009-08-28T09:54:00.002+01:00

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued county court proceedings against the British National Party in relation to its constitution and membership criteria. Although it had originally threatened to take legal action in respect of the BNP's employment practices, it has taken the decision not to pursue this aspect of its claim after a commitment by the BNP to comply with the law in this area. The Commission will instead pursue proceedings on the basis of concerns that the BNP will continue to discriminate against potential or actual members on racial grounds.

A hearing date of Wednesday 2 September has been set for the Commission’s application for an injunction against the BNP.

More here.

Pressure group urges a High Pay Commission

2009-08-19T16:49:00.002+01:00

Compass - the left leaning pressure group - is urging the government to establish a High Pay Commission to curb excessive pay, "to review top pay and look at measures to ensure excessive pay can't damage the economy again".

It's an interesting proposal - but we can't help thinking that the law of unintended consequences might apply if a government ever did think to tread this path. It's easy to think in terms of pinstriped "fat cats", but it would, presumably, apply equally to footballers. If clubs could only pay up to £100,000 a year, all our sporting talent would ply their trade elsewhere, and talent from overseas would stay there. Hey presto! The Premiership would end up at a level somewhere between the Blue Square Premier League and the Isthmian League (look them up), which we're pretty sure no-one would want to watch. And where would all that lovely tax revenue have to come from then?

Anyway, if there was an easy answer, we're pretty sure someone would have come up with it by now - but you can read the Compass statement here, along with some interesting follow up comments from readers online.

And on the subject of what to put on your CV...

2009-08-14T10:20:00.002+01:00

It seems that, in Greater Manchester, exam boards are now giving out certificates for catching the bus. We look forward to this hard-earned qualification featuring prominently on your average resumé...

One in five now lie on their CV

2009-08-13T14:47:00.002+01:00

Powerchex - those nice pre-employment screening people - have published their annual pre-employment screening survey. And it makes intresting reading. Amongst other nuggets, the survey reveals that

the number of candidates whose CVs contain a discrepancy increased this year to 19% – the highest level for three years.
Brokers have a disproportionately large number of candidates applying to them with hidden criminal records.
there was a sharp increase this year in the number of under‐21 year olds with discrepancies on their CVs.
Candidates educated in the state sector are 25% more likely to lie on their CV than those educated in the independent sector.

The "big three" CV fibs are inflating academic grades, overstating job title and duties and lying about the reason for leaving a job. All of which emphasises the importance of getting the recruitment procedure right from the start - and always making job offers conditional upon receipt of satisfactory references!

FSA publishes new rules on pay and bonuses

2009-08-12T16:40:00.005+01:00

You wait all week for something to write about and then three stories come in at once...

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has published new rules on how financial institutions should determine pay and bonuses for staff. In doing so, it makes clear that it wants to see bankers' pay deals linked far more closely with the long-term profitability of the banks. It says that bonuses should not be guaranteed for more than a year, and that senior employees should have their bonuses spread over three years.

Firms have until the end of October to provide the FSA with a remuneration policy statement, which will enable the FSA to check compliance with the code. Non-compliant firms could face enforcement action or, should they pursue risky processes, be forced to hold additional capital.

Well, that's what the press release says - we'll be dissecting the new rules in greater detail and will be reporting on them soon. In the meantime, you can read the new rules here.

Unemployment hits a 14 year high

2009-08-12T10:31:00.006+01:00

Official figures released today reveal that, in the three months to June, unemployment leapt by 220,000 to hit its highest rate since the summer of 1995. The Office for National Statistics said that the total number of unemployed now stands at 2.44 million, with 1.58 million now claiming Jobseaker's allowance.

It all means that three quarters of a million people have lost their jobs in the space of a year.

Full story here.

Employment Trends 2009

2009-08-12T09:47:00.002+01:00

Have you been wondering how employers are looking to weather the economic storm? A survey of 704 organisations, conducted during April and May, has some pointers for you. It found that a majority of employers are planning a pay freeze for their next pay review (55%), a recruitment freeze (61%) and changing their organisation of working time in order to cut costs (62%). On a more positive note, whilst the average value of a quarter of bonus schemes had been reduced, 62% of the companies surveyed still had their bonus structures in place.

"Employment trends 2009: Work patterns in the recession", published by the CBI and Harvey Nash, is available to download here.

High heels in the workplace? Ban 'em!

2009-08-06T17:23:00.002+01:00

According to the TUC, high-heeled shoes are sexist, demeaning to women, a health and safety hazard and should be banned from the workplace. Yikes!

Actually, if you read the motion to be debated by the TUC at its conference next month, the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists (who probably know a reasonable amount about feet)think that high heels "can be a hazard" and that "more should be done to raise awareness of this problem so that women workers and their feet are protected." Still, never let that get in the way of a good story, eh?

The "story" is all over the papers, but you can read what The Daily Mail has to say about it here...

Only in America...

2009-08-05T10:38:00.002+01:00

While it's been relatively quiet on the employment news front in Blighty, a story from the US caught our eye.

Trina Thompson graduated from Monroe College in New York in April with a degree in IT. Four months on she hasn't found a job... so she's suing the college for the $70,000 she spent on tuition.
Our Trina alleges that the college didn't give her the leads and career advice it had promised her.

With commendable understatement, a college spokesman has said that the claim is "completely without merit".

More here...

Working Time Regulations - doctors in training

2009-07-31T10:55:00.001+01:00

A quick reminder - the average weekly working time limits for doctors in training will be reduced to 48 hours from tomorrow, 1 August 2009...

Problems with... presenteeism?

2009-07-29T16:52:00.002+01:00

Interesting article in The Times today... managing presenteeism. Is this a bigger problem than the £13.2 billion absenteeism costs British Industry every year? A penny for your thoughts...

Another Bank Holiday in the offing?

2009-07-27T11:46:00.004+01:00

Despite the rain, the traffic and the overcrowded beaches, the UK loves its Bank Holidays - but against an EU average of 10.8 public holidays a year, the UK limps in last with only 8. Portugal and Spain enjoy between 12 and 14, and Austria has a whopping 13 every year. Now Work and Pensions Secretary Yvette Cooper has told the Daily Mirror that is to announce that Britain will officially recognise Workers' Memorial Day and will "consider" making it a bank holiday, commemorating people killed at work. A nation celebrates - General Election around the corner, perhaps?

Right to representation at internal disciplinary procedings

2009-07-24T12:04:00.004+01:00

It has long been considered trite that, whilst an employee will be entitled to be accompanied by a colleague or a trade union representative at an internal disciplinary hearing, that right does not extend to legal representation. It now seems this is no longer quite the case.

You may recall a case earlier this year concerning a teacher successfully arguing, on Human Rights grounds, that he was entitled to legal representation at an internal disciplinary hearing because, had the allegations been upheld, his employer would have reported him to the Secretary of State on the basis that he was unfit to work with children. The High Court held in his favour because the gravity of the allegations meant that he was entitled to legal representation at the disciplinary hearing.

Now, hot on the heels of this case comes the Court of Appeal's decision in Kulkarni v Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Trust. This case now makes it clear that, where an NHS doctor or dentist in England is subject to a disciplinary hearing on misconduct or capability grounds, that person has the contractual right to a legal representative, instructed or retained by his medical defence organisation, at that hearing.

Of perhaps greater interest is a remark in the judgment which, whilst not forming part of the decision proper, suggests that Art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights gives a free-standing right to legal representation at internal disciplinary hearings where the allegations are of such gravity a person might be unable to work in the future if they are proved. This would apply to all public sector workers, and is therefore of real significance.

Strictly Age Discrimination: the Arlene saga rumbles on

2009-07-24T10:31:00.005+01:00

Selina Scott - who recently settled her age discrimination case against Channel 5 for an undisclosed five figure sum - has waded into the row over Arlene Phillips' unceremonious eviction from Strictly Come Dancing. Arlene (66) is being replaced by Alesha Dixon (30), presumably to contribute to an aim by Auntie Beeb to target younger viewers. It's worth remembering that Alesha is a former contestant of the programme, and is not a professional dancer or choreographer.

The Age Discrimination Regulations tell us that a person A will be discriminating against another person B if he treats B less favourably than he would treat a comparator "on grounds of B's age". The comparator will be another person whose relevant circumstances are the same, or not materially different, to those of B. Unlike other forms of discrimination, direct age discrimination can be justified, so long as the discriminatory treatment is "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".

So what's a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" when it's at home? Some examples of legitimate aims which might justify age discrimination have been given by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS). These include "facilitation of employment planning", "particular training requirements", "encouraging and rewarding loyalty" and "recruiting or retaining older people". An aim which it believed would not be legitimate would be where "a retailer of trendy fashion items wants to employ young shop assistants because it believes this will contribute to its aim of targeting young buyers".

It may just be us, but doesn't Selina have a point? Anyway, you can read what Selina had to say here...

I've got swine flu? Who do I sue?!

2009-07-23T10:06:00.003+01:00

It was only a matter of time before someone had the lightbulb realisation that they might be able to sue their employer if they get swine flu. We can't help thinking that, on this occasion, this one's being pushed by a barely concealed need to fill column inches...

Full story here.

Fair access to professions

2009-07-22T17:54:00.003+01:00

You will no doubt have seen Alan Milburn doing the media rounds this week, fielding questions on a new publication, "Unleashing Aspiration: The Final Report of the Panel on Fair Access to the Professions". The Report was commissioned by the Prime Minister, was compiled by an independent panel of experts, and weighs in at a hefty 167 pages. It examines barriers to professions, and - to cut a long story short - concludes that top professions contain a degree of elitism which is shutting out young people who originate from middle and lower income backgrounds. It also states that action needs to taken against this "closed shop" mentality, and that the Government should make social mobility its top social policy priority. Whether the Government will be able to act on it with a General Election less than a year away remains to be seen.

If you do fancy wading through the text of the report, you can download it here.

Web photos...

2009-07-22T12:51:00.003+01:00

Since Michael Sissons joined us in February, we've been meaning to update the photographs to update our website - and have finally bitten the bullet! We decided to make use of the pretty idiosyncratic features of our offices - the sculpture we're in front of is, in fact, a giant portrait of Alfred Hitchcock. It sits on top of our meeting rooms and is easily the best indicator that you've actually arrived here!

The photographs will be posted to our website very soon - and we're always interested to know what people think.

Tribunals Service 2008-09 Report and Accounts

2009-07-22T12:17:00.004+01:00

On 16 July 2009, the Tribunals Service published its 2008-09 report and accounts. They can be read here. Amongst other things, you can read about the Tribunals Service and Acas joint development of a new electronic case management system, Caseflow. Their aim is to bring "greater efficiency and flexibility" to the processing of employment tribunal claims. Caseflow is set to be piloted in late July 2009, with a plan to be rolled out to all employment tribunal offices by summer 2010 - we'll be keeping an eye out for it!

The official employment tribunal statistics for 2008 to 2009 will be published later this year.

Disability discrimination - failure to make reasonable adjustments

2009-07-22T09:54:00.002+01:00

The EAT has held, in Fareham College v Walters, that a decision to dismiss can be an unlawful act of disability discrimination by reason of being a failure to make reasonable adjustments. It therefore mitigates the effect of Lewisham v Malcolm. The House of Lords' decision in the latter case, made in June last year, had made disability-related discrimination much more difficult for claimants to establish.

The EAT held that if, at the point at which the employer was considering dismissing the employee, there was a reasonable adjustment which would have avoided the dismissal - for example, allowing the employee to move to another position - the dismissal itself will be an unlawful act of disability discrimination by reason of the failure to make reasonable adjustments.

The full decision can be read here.

Effective date of termination

2009-07-21T16:44:00.001+01:00

An interesting case from the Court of Appeal. In Gisda Cyf v Barratt, the Court agreed with an earlier decision of the EAT and held that the effective date of termination was when an employee actually read a letter informing her that she had been summarily dismissed. It was not the date on which the letter was written, posted or delivered.

You can read the full judgment here.