Employment Law Updates Archives - Page 9 of 11

Unfair dismissal during workplace reorganisation

August 6th 2020October 17th 2013 by Charlotte Pengelly

Employment Law Bulletin reports on a recent case of unfair dismissal during a period of reorganisation and redundancy, in which the EAT found in favour of the Claimant. When four senior management posts were reduced to two, which included a new Business Development Manager position, the Claimant took the decision to apply as she considered … Read more

Uber’s lost employment tribunal and what it means

August 6th 2020November 16th 2017 by Vicki Ellis

A controversial and highly publicised case has now received a ruling at the Employment Tribunal which states that two drivers who provide services to Uber are in fact classified as ‘workers’ under the Employment Rights Act 1996. You can read the judgement here: Aslam and Farrar v Uber This has a significant impact on the … Read more

The Trade Union Act 2016 Explained

August 6th 2020October 11th 2016 by Emily Errington

The government announced a series of modernising reforms to the rules on industrial action in 2015. Welcome to the Trade Union Bill, which received royal assent on 4 May 2016 to become the Trade Union Act 2016. By tabling this new legislation, the government sought to strike a balance between upholding the ability to strike … Read more

Early Conciliation

August 6th 2020May 6th 2014 by Lucy Fitzgerald

In an attempt to reduce the high number of Tribunal proceedings in the UK, new legislation came into force today making it mandatory for a claimant to notify ACAS if they are planning to make a claim to an Employment Tribunal.

Early Conciliation was announced as part of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 and has been available since 6 April 2013. For Tribunal claims lodged on or after 6 May 2014, a Tribunal claim will not be accepted unless the complaint has been referred to ACAS in the first instance and then an Early Conciliation Certificate issued confirming that the requirements of Early Conciliation have been met.

Although now law for a claimant to notify ACAS of their intention to lodge a claim to an Employment Tribunal, it is still voluntary to come to an agreement outside the courts. If either party refuses to engage in the process the claimant will be issued with an Early Conciliation Certificate and they will be able to proceed with their claim to the Tribunal. There are certain exceptions when a claimant may not need to make an Early Conciliation Notification to ACAS, such as when a claimant is part of a larger group of claimants and someone within that group has already made a request relating to the same dispute.

For employers, the Early Conciliation process will give an indication as to the strengths and weaknesses of a case and an opportunity to resolve differences with a claimant in the early stages rather than at the Tribunal stage, saving time and money. With Early Conciliation lasting up to a month, and with the option to extend by an additional 14 days, providing both parties agree, this will have significant implications on the time limits for claimants to bring a claim. Employers will need to take into consideration that Early Conciliation involves a ‘stop the clock’ mechanism. So, where the time limit for bringing a claim would have expired during the Early Conciliation period or during the month after the Early Conciliation Certificate was issued the time limit will now be extended for a whole month and not just the period of Early Conciliation.

Phasing Out the Default Retirement Age

August 6th 2020March 15th 2011 by Lucy Fitzgerald

With effect from 6 April 2011, the current Default Retirement Age (DRA) of 65 years is being phased out over a transitional period running until 30 September 2011.

At present, employers are required to write to employees not more than 12 months, but not less than six months, before their 65th birthday informing them that they are approaching retirement and making them aware that they are allowed to request to work beyond their retirement date.

From 6 April 2011 employers will no longer be able to issue any notifications for compulsory retirement using this process.

The last day employees can be compulsorily retired using the current procedure is 30 September 2011. This means the last day to provide six months’ notice, as required by the current procedure is 30 March 2011.

Good Work: The Government’s Response to the Taylor Review

August 6th 2020February 22nd 2018 by Vicki Ellis

The Taylor review was an independent review of modern working practices giving consideration to different forms of work and the impact on workers rights in addition to the challenges facing the labour market. The government has now published its response to that review which we have detailed in this post to outline the key points … Read more

How to avoid discrimination in recruitment

August 6th 2020December 2nd 2013 by Lucy Fitzgerald

Some employers have a more casual attitude to recruitment procedures than they do to other people management practices such as discipline and grievance, or performance management. However, a recent case serves as a reminder that businesses must ensure that all of their recruitment activities comply with employment law to avoid being unable to defend the company against claims of discrimination in recruitment.

Case law

In Mohammed v Bloomsbury Bowling, the employer’s Head Chef asked Mr Mohammed to attend for interview after viewing his CV online. The CV in question did not include his date of birth or age. Mr Mohammed claimed that he was asked at the interview how old he was. When he replied that he was 40, the Head Chef said that he was under instruction by the General Manager to reject his application because he was too old.

Naturally, the company presented a different version of events. The Head Chef confirmed that he had interviewed Mr Mohammed but had doubts about his ability to work in a busy kitchen. He told Mr Mohammed at the end of the interview that he would not be offering him the job. The Head Chef admitted to making a joke about Mr Mohammed’s greying hair and the stress of working in kitchens but said that this was only to put him at ease. The company denied age discrimination.

In coming to a conclusion, the employment tribunal was not provided with documentary evidence in relation to the company’s recruitment procedures. It could not make a decision based on fact about whether the General Manager had or had not instructed the Head Chef not to appoint on the basis of age.

However, it did take note of the failure to provide a recruitment procedure, the comment about grey hair, the fact that the successful candidate was ten years younger and the contradictory evidence provided by the company. This moved the burden to the company to prove that discrimination in recruitment had not taken place.

Reviewing the rules on the right to be accompanied

August 6th 2020December 1st 2013 by Lucy Fitzgerald

We all know that employees have a right to be accompanied in disciplinary hearings. However, a recent Personnel Today article points to two cases that show that the legislation isn’t always straightforward. In Toal v GB Oils Ltd, two employees raised grievances and asked to be accompanied by a specific trade union official. The employer … Read more

Travel time should be counted as working time

August 6th 2020September 15th 2015 by Charlotte Pengelly

In a highly significant ruling, the European Court of Justice has confirmed that for workers without a fixed office, time spent travelling to and from their first and last appointments should be regarded as working time. This could affect workers such as regional sales professionals, mobile technicians and repair workers, and carers who travel from home directly to … Read more

Case law

Looking for an Outsourced Human Resources Services Company?

Want HR insights delivered straight to your inbox?