Before we begin here is a joke about cake. What do you call a women with a cake on her head? Victoria (cue slow clap, I’ll get my coat).
An employee at Harrods was dismissed for theft after eating a £7.50 slice of cake. A customer had sent it back for being too dry and the employee also ate a slice of fresh cake as a comparator. Whilst it does seem harsh to dismiss an employee for eating a cake that would have been disposed of anyway what worries us more is that someone purchased a single slice for £7.50! And it was dry!
The employee brought claims of race, sex and age discrimination against Harrods due to an alleged Female Lithuanian Mafia that ran the kitchens. However the claims were dismissed as there was no evidence to substantiate the claims and the employee did not highlight these issues in the disciplinary procedure. In other words his case was wafer thin…..
Despite not being a conventional Case of the Week there is a lesson for employers. When an employee with less than two years’ service brings a discrimination claim for every protected characteristic they could fall into it is quite possible that they are simply clutching at straws or taking the biscuit…..
Posted: Jul 31, 2015 by admin in Age Discrimination, Employment Tribunal
Following on from our previous piece about the Top Gear steak-gate controversy, a recent article in the Telegraph has suggested Jeremy Clarkson, James May and Richard (not a real hamster) “The Hamster” Hammond have been unable to set up a rival show on ITV due to restrictive covenants in their previous contract.
It seems that the trio can make a show for ITV but it cannot be about cars so at present the idea is on hold. It has been hinted that there are two possible options:
1) Wait two years for the covenant to expire and begin an ITV rival to Top Gear in 2017.
2) Take the show to a non-UK channel such as Netflix or Amazon that will bypass the restrictive covenant.
If I was the BBC I would be most concerned about option 2. By 2017 Chris Evans will have had chance to entrench himself into Top Gear fans head and after two years of no rival show any defectors will have probably returned to viewing. Furthermore BBC to ITV crossovers rarely work, anyone remember Adrien Chiles? Actually, it’s better no one remembers those dark times.
On the other hand going to Netflix or a similar non-UK network would allow an instant competitor to Top Gear. This would have more global broadcasting power than ITV and be easily available in the UK as well.
Restrictive covenants can be notoriously hard to enforce but with Top Gear being a key BBC brand worth over £50 million in global revenue it is worth fighting to make sure that such a valuable asset is safe in what will be a transitional phase. To be deemed enforceable the covenant must be; reasonable, necessary to protect business interest, and, last no longer than necessary to protect said interests.
Depending on your view of Top Gear and its former presenters will depend on whether you think the covenant meets the criteria and therefore enforceable. As someone who doesn’t’ like Top Gear or Jeremy Clarkson I am far more interested in outcome of this this than the future versions of the show.
Posted: Jul 31, 2015 by admin in Redundancy
Court fees have been highly contentious since they were first introduced in July 2013. The fees were initially introduced to ease the burden of the court service on the exchequer and also prevent petty and vindictive claims.
However, since their introduction there has been an alarming drop in the number of claims, which were down by 55% after 6 months of fee introduction and 75-80% after a year. This drop is partly due to the spike in claims before fees were introduced but it cannot be possible that ¾ of tribunal claims are unfounded.
The committee aims to answer the following questions:
- How have the increased court fees and the introduction of employment tribunal fees affected access to justice? How have they affected the volume and quality of cases brought?
- How has the court fees regime affected the competitiveness of the legal services market in England and Wales, particularly in an international context?
Many employers and HR personal may be cheering about the drop in claims and in some cases they are right to. Anyone who has dealt with a malicious, drawn out, costly, bonkers or all of the above claim will rejoice that they never have to deal with a similar claim again.
But it does seem that many claims are slipping through the net. Employees who don’t get paid the minimum wage, get unfairly dismissed without notice or have unlawful deductions made from their wages often don’t have a spare £1,150 to bring a claim. For that reason it would seem the fees have created a barrier to justice.
Posted: Jul 31, 2015 by admin in Employment Tribunal
Changes are being proposed by HMRC to the £30k tax free allowance on termination payments. If these proposals are implemented we will end up with Employees paying more tax on their termination payments and Employers paying more Employer’s NICS on termination payments.
I would urge anyone with an interest in this topic to respond to the consultation as this valuable allowance does cushion the blow of loss of employment. It seems clear from the consultation that the powers that be at HMRC do not understand how termination payments work in practice, in particular with settlement agreements.
Posted: Jul 31, 2015 by admin in Settlement Agreements
When the Bear Scotland verdict was published last year many employers were wary employees could bring backdated holiday pay claims back to 1998 when the Working Time Regulations were introduced. As of 1st July if you are yet to receive a claim you are now safer from historical claims.
However employers are still liable for claims dating back as much as 2 years if they are found to have not paid employee the correct amount of holiday pay.
Posted: Jul 31, 2015 by admin in Employment Tribunal
Welcome back, this week’s case is about unauthorised absences and victimisation. It is also a good example of an employer successfully appealing a tribunal decisions on the grounds of substitution, something which is rarer than hens teeth!
The questions this week are:
Is it fair to dismiss an employee who has been instructed to use accrued holiday for going on holiday without the company’s consent?
Can an employee have a holiday request rejected if they have not even been allocated work for the days they have requested?
Mrs Blake, the Claimant, had been employed by Leeds Teaching Hospital, the Respondent, as a Porter since for 1987. In 2012 she was given a final written warning for sending confidential information to her personal email and transferred to work as a Security Officer. The Claimant had previously committed protected acts by making allegations of sex discrimination against herself and supporting a colleague in a disability discrimination case.
Prior to moving roles the Claimant had a large amount of untaken accrued holiday, she was advised to take this as soon as possible before she was officially to be put on the security rota. She wrote to her manager requesting dates but was declined for not filling out a holiday form. She made further requests and applied for holiday using the appropriate form and these were all approved.
The Claimant still had untaken accrued holiday and was looking to book a cruise with her family. She called her manager to ask if the dates were ok and upon confirmation from her manager booked and paid for the cruise. She then filled out a holiday form but this was rejected.
The Claimant asked why the holiday request was rejected and requested a formal meeting with the Respondent. The Respondent rejected this request and instead sent a letter explaining that two other members of the security team were away on the requested dates and also stated that any leave taken without consent would be viewed as an unauthorised absence.
The Claimant went on the cruise anyway and upon her return was subject to disciplinary action and dismissed for a serious conduct offense and failing to follow a reasonable management instruction whilst on a final written warning. The Claimant was paid notice pay but nonetheless brought claims for unfair dismissal and victimisation discrimination to tribunal.
The tribunal allowed both claims citing the fact she had been instructed to take all her holiday and had prior verbal consent as reasoning for justifying the absence and that the Claimant had been subjected to unfair treatment on account of her previous protected acts. It also noted the fact the Claimant was not on the work rota anyway as further justification for unfair dismissal.
The Respondent appealed the decision on the grounds that the ET had substituted its own view for that of a reasonable employer. It highlighted the lack of scrutiny of the Claimant’s evidence which it believed lacked credibility, particularly in relation to the victimisation claim.
The EAT decided that the ET had placed too much importance on the response used by the employer without properly examining the evidence. It also failed to recognise that a Respondent has a number of reasonable responses and that dismissal could have fallen into that category. The appeal was allowed and remitted to a fresh ET.
No, it is poor practise to informally allow/encourage an employee to take holiday then reject their holiday requests. If this employee has not technically started work or is not scheduled to work in the holiday period then it does give the employee room to manoeuvre and leaves the employer vulnerable, especially since taking holiday is a health and safety issue!
A more important legal point from this case is that the ET can make mistakes, even in a scenario like this where there has been questionable decision making by the employer, the ET fell foul to substituting its own view for that of the Respondent’s instead of that of a reasonable employer. Lesson, sometimes it can be worth fighting an ET decision.
If you enjoyed this article please share it
Posted: Jul 24, 2015 by admin in Unfair Dismissal
Case of the week will be slightly different this week, most of the case law we cover is either in the Employment Tribunal (ET) or Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT).
However, today’s case is from the next court up in the food chain, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (EWCA).
The questions this week are:
Is dismissing an employee for ignoring safety precautions justified when the malpractice is commonplace throughout the company?
Should an employee’s length of service mitigate their conduct for one off incidents?
Can two employees commit the same misconduct and get different disciplinary sanctions?
Mr Newbound, the Claimant, had worked for Thames Water Utilities Ltd, the Respondent, as a valve co-ordinator. His job was to maintain all large valves that controlled the Respondent’s water assets.
The Claimant and another employee, Mr King, were scheduled to assess a large sewer valve. This would involve them being in a confined space and was considered dangerous work by the Respondent.
The Respondent ran through the safety procedures for entering the sewer and explained the need for external breathing apparatus as the air could be toxic. The Claimant signed a form to acknowledge the need for breathing apparatus but was not told about the repercussions of not following the procedures.
Upon arriving at the sewer the Claimant and his site manager ran various tests into the safety of the site and the gas detector readings showed the air was not as toxic as predicted. The Claimant, his site manager and Mr King, agreed that no breathing apparatus would be needed. They entered the sewer and took gas detectors to continuously monitor the air quality.
The Claimant’s senior manager then arrived on site and halted the work after noticing the site manager had not arranged for a safety winch to be on site. At this point the senior manager observed the Claimant and Mr King leaving the sewer without the breathing apparatus. The work resumed and the job was completed without further problems.
Due to the senior manager witnessing the Claimant not wearing any breathing apparatus the Respondent investigated the work carried out that day. Due to the serious breach in health and safety procedure the Respondent suspended the Claimant and commenced disciplinary action.
The Respondent only interviewed the site manager and not the Claimant about the incident. The Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct whilst his site manager was only given a formal written warning. The Claimant appealed the decision citing a general lack of health and safety knowledge across the company as the reason for him not using breathing apparatus as his manager had allowed them to not use it as well.
The appeal was unsuccessful and the Claimant begun tribunal proceedings. The ET found that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed as even though his conduct had been a serious breach of health and safety procedures the Claimant himself was unaware of the procedures and believed he would be able to rely on his vast experience to decide what action needed to be taken. It further highlighted the fact that the conduct was approved by the site manager who was not dismissed.
The Respondent appealed and the EAT ruled that the lack of knowledge for health and safety procedures should not mitigate the Claimants conduct. It also did not factor in any differential treatment the Claimant and his manager received, the Claimant’s length of service, nor the fact he was interviewed for his own disciplinary investigation.
The Claimant then appealed to the Court of Appeal, we are now through the looking glass here and onto the next level. The EWCA ruled that the original ET had made no error in law when it reached its verdict. It cited the length of service, disproportionate treatment of Claimant and manager, lack of health and safety knowledge and failure to conduct a full investigation as fair justification for the ET’s decision.
The EWCA then stated the EAT should not have allowed the appeal, its decision was cast aside and the ET judgment was restored.
An employee should not be dismissed for a breach of procedure if the conduct is commonplace or not known to the general workforce.
When deciding to dismiss an employee for GM there are several mitigating factors that should be taken into account including length of service and conduct by other employees. If the conduct is similar but the outcome different the reason for this must be fully justified.
A further point would be that sometimes an EAT decision isn’t final. If the decision reached is a bad one then the courts will rectify this as they will not want it to become a precedent for future cases, particularly GM dismissals!
If you have work that involves working in confined spaces make sure that your employees are fully trained in a way that complies with the Confined Spaces Regulations. If you would like some e-learning for health and safety training please email us ( email@example.com ).
Posted: Jul 17, 2015 by admin in Employment Tribunal, Unfair Dismissal
Good afternoon, we hope today’s case will pass the time on a sunny Friday afternoon.
This weeks’ case is rather juicy and concerns protected disclosures, office romances gone sour, driving planes whilst drunk and just in case that isn’t enough drama there is also a bit of embezzlement involved (cue dramatic music).
The question this week is:
Can an employee be dismissed for making protected disclosures if they haven’t told the employer they have made them?
Ms Schaathun the Claimant, was a 10% shareholder and company secretary for Executive & Business Aviation Support Ltd, the Respondent, who manage the maintenance of private and corporate jet aircraft. The Claimant was also in a relationship with the company’s Managing Director.
The MD then tried to end his relationship with the Claimant, the Claimant was then seen at the Respondent’s office copying and taking bank statements and other documents. She was concerned that the MD had been putting personal expenditure through the company.
She also became aware of other issues and made protected disclosures to numerous bodies including; the Environment Agency about the Respondent storing hazardous chemicals at its premises,
HMRC in relation to the Respondent’s abuse of its tax allowance,
Solicitors and an aviation regulator regarding the MD operating aircraft under the influence of alcohol.
In the meantime the Claimant was removed as company secretary. The Respondent argued that this was because there was no longer a requirement for one. The Claimant was still employed by the Respondent in a different role.
The Claimant was then invited to a redundancy consultation, the Claimant requested the MD did not attend and the meeting was conducted by an external HR consultant. Following the meeting the Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy.
She brought unfair dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal claims to Tribunal citing the protected disclosures she made and the previous relationship with the MD as the reason for dismissal as there was no redundancy situation.
The ET accepted the unfair dismissal claim but held that as the Claimant had not informed the Respondent of her disclosures they did not qualify as protected disclosures.
The Claimant appealed and the EAT held that despite the Claimant not informing the Respondent about her disclosures they could still have found out about them by other means.
To answer this week’s question, yes, in theory an employer could find out about a protected disclosure without the employee telling them. In this scenario if the prescribed person informs the employer and the employer only has a small number of staff privy to that information it makes it fairly obvious who the whistleblower was.
Posted: Jul 10, 2015 by admin in Employment Tribunal, Unfair Dismissal
Perhaps the least surprising revelation this year is that there is evidence that FIFA may be corrupt. The recent FBI investigation into alleged institutionalised corruption at FIFA has resulted in the arrest of 18 officials and also culminated in FIFA President, Sepp Blatter, resigning.
There are currently ongoing investigations into allegations of bribery and racketeering which has resulted in the allocation of; major tournaments, television rights and funding for sporting infrastructure and stadia. Furthermore the Irish FA was paid $5 million to not take legal action against France over a dubious handball decision in a crucial game.
The UK has now also begun proceedings against Football’s governing body. Under the Bribery Act 2010 any business that is incorporated or trades in the UK is liable for prosecution if it is found to have broken the law. The Act covers bribery committed by an organisation, or on its behalf, anywhere in the world.
It is one of the world’s toughest anti-corruption laws and bribery offences now carry a penalty of up to 10 years’ in prison. The punishment for business and corporations is equally serious with unlimited fines a potential consequence.
Bribery can include many common business practices, such as providing clients with gifts, hospitality and entertainment on a quid pro quo basis. The Act provides for corporate and personal criminal liability by introducing four new criminal offences; bribing another, being bribed, bribing a foreign public official, and failure by a commercial organisation to prevent bribery.
Following on from the recent arrests FIFA will need to make sweeping reforms to remove the bribe culture that is currently embedded into the organisation. With more arrests expected over the coming months be sure to watch this space. If you would like a policy review for bribery then please click here.
Posted: Jun 30, 2015 by admin in Retirement
The European Union has been a contentious issue in the UK from practically the day we joined. However with David Cameron promising a referendum there is a real possibility that the UK might leave the E.U in the near future..
Here are some of the impacts an European separation might have on employment law.
1. Family Friendly Rights
Rights for new and expecting parents are often criticized for not being business-friendly. Recent legislation such as Shared Parental Leave can create both financial and logistical problems for smaller businesses and there is also often a lot paperwork and box ticking involved in family friendly policies.
Whilst an exit from the E.U would in theory allow the UK to repeal current family friendly laws the reality is it would be unlikely that family friendly rights would be scaled down or repealed, for larger firms in particular, family friendly policies are a way of attracting and retaining talented staff.
2. Discrimination Rights
Discrimination rights are often criticised, particularly by smaller businesses, as being very expensive largely due to the cost of implementing reasonable adjustment in both employment and recruiting. Whilst many of the protected characteristics are imposed by the E.U law, some, including race, sex and disability discrimination laws were in force before the UK was required to implement them by the EU.
Whilst it is unlikely an exit from the EU would result in the UK scrapping all discrimination law it would mean that there could be a cap on tribunal awards for discrimination claims, something which E.U law currently prevents.
3. Working Time
This is the topic where most change is likely should Britain leave the EU. The Working Time Directive currently allows a maximum of a 48 hour working week and also sets strict time keeping restrictions. This is a directive that was not in place before joining the E.U so could be amended upon leaving, however it would be met with fierce opposition.
Furthermore the recent Lock v British Gas and Bear Scotland holiday pay cases could be overturned by UK statute.
Finally Agency workers would no longer have the same rights as regular employees. This would allow a more flexible and cost effective flexible labour market. These changes whilst unpopular with employees would be perfectly implementable as they are all results of EU directives.
Considering the in/out referendum will be a big issue for small, medium and large employers it is something worth bearing in mind should the referendum be next year.
Posted: Jun 30, 2015 by admin in Age Discrimination, Religious Discrimination