It’s not 1975 – gay couples do now have rights!

Posted on by Tim Bishop

I have to make an admission here – I reached the grand old age of 50 this year – so I very much grew up in the 70s. I have, as a result of a happy childhood, got a soft spot for the 1970s, despite his reputation as the decade that taste forgot. I’m a huge Bowie and Roxy Music fan [to those of you under 40 – they were the really cool artists in the 70s]. However, I am amazed when other people to need to behave as if it is still 1975.

The latest example came in the legal case of Bull and Another v Hall and Another – which made it all the way to the Court of Appeal.

The case concerned a gay couple who had been refused a room in a hotel on the basis that they were unmarried – though they have already booked the room. The Court of Appeal, in its wisdom, concluded that there had been clear discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. In effect, by insisting that only a married couple could share a room, the hotel were effectively discriminating against gay couples – who, in the absence of gay marriage, could never satisfy this hotel’s particular requirement.

It’s worth noting that under the new Equality Act, it is not considered discrimination for any employer [or hotel for that matter] to allow access to services, facilities and benefits – if such availability is restricted to both civil partners and married couples.

Costs order cap increases

Posted on by Tim Bishop

Amongst all the noise about changes on April 6 to the unfair dismissal compensation qualifying period (increasing the qualifying period for an unfair dismissal claim from one to two years), few people seem to have picked up that, under new legislation also introduced on April 6, the cap on the maximum that any employment tribunal can award employers in respect of their legal costs has significantly increased from £10,000 to £20,000.

Furthermore, it appears that employment tribunals are being encouraged to make a costs order whenever “it is appropriate”. If this advice is taken, then it seems quite likely that there will be an increased in the number of legal costs awards in respect of employment tribunal claims.

Law Society slams Employment Tribunal fees

Posted on by Tim Bishop

In a press release earlier this week from the Law Society, the organisation representing solicitors throughout England and Wales, John Wotton, president of the Law Society, has strongly criticised the government’s proposals for the introduction of fees for issuing an Employment Tribunal claim or an appeal to the employment appeal tribunal. Mr Wotton described the move is as potentially denying access to justice to those who have recently been sacked who, he claims, would as a result no longer have an effective right to have their case heard at an Employment Tribunal. He continued that “access to justice in employment matters will be confined to those with the means to afford these fees”.

His comments add to those already by a number of industry experts and come the day after the House of Lords rejected six separate parts of the proposed Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill – giving the government a bloody nose on a range of issues including permitting legal aid to remain available for medical reports in medical negligence claim cases. These defeats come hard on the heels of the government’s own concessions in the bill with regard to medical negligence for those children with severe injuries, those victims of domestic violence and domestic child abduction.

Settlement Agreement -the new name for your Compromise Agreement

Posted on by Tim Bishop

As you may be aware, in April 2012 there will be a number of changes to employment law. Probably the most high profile of all the proposed changes is the increase in the qualification period for unfair dismissal compensation claims, from one year up to 2 years. However, the reforms due to be implemented in April 2012 are far more wide-ranging than that. In particular , hidden away in the small print is the proposal that the humble compromise agreement receives a new name – “settlement agreement”. Given the general understanding is that the government’s reforms are aimed at cutting red tape and reducing unnecessarily restrictive regulation, whilst of course safeguarding the rights of employees, quite how these aims are going to be furthered by this change of name remains unclear. Are you, whether you are an employer or employee really more likely to agree to a so-called settlement agreement then you would think to the old-fashioned UK compromise agreement – is this change of name really going to encourage dispute resolution and avoid employment tribunal claims? I suspect not. Not only that, but I suspect this totally unnecessary change will create some confusion in the public and amonst lawyers in general. Settlement agreement is already a common use phrase – particularly by divorce solicitors when dealing with financial settlements following divorce.

I suspect, despite the government’s best intentions, for the foreseeable future, that the general public and to a certain extent their employment solicitors will continue to refer to “compromise agreements”. My theory – if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

For more information about settlement agreements [ or compromise agreements if you prefer], click here to visit our specialist  Compromise Agreement Solicitor website, or call a specialist employment solicitor from our team  01722 422300  - wherever you live or work in England and Wales.

Armed forces discrimination claims

Posted on by Tim Bishop

In most civilian employment discrimination cases, the process can sometimes be upsetting due to the nature of the issue, but the procedure is relatively straightforward. For instance, someone who is discriminated against for being pregnant or homosexual would be able to make a discrimination claim under the 2010 Equality Act at an employment tribunal.

When it comes to the military, the process of making a discrimination claim can be a bit more complicated. While the military is an equal opportunities employer and largely bound by the same anti-discrimination rules as anyone else, there are other issues to consider when making a complaint of discrimination in the military.

For instance, you will need to make a Service Redress Complaint. You will need to do this within 3 months of the discrimination occurring in accordance with the 2007 Armed Forces Redress of Individual Grievances (Procedures and Time Limits) Regulations.

It is important that the process if followed very closely in order to ensure your complaint is not rejected and that it completes the procedure within the allotted time frames. The process can be complex and it can be difficult to know exactly what kind of employment claim to make when dealing with military cases.

This is why it is so important to seek legal advice as soon as you can from an employment solicitor who understands military rules and procedures – we do. Call us on 01722 422300 today.

Dates for changes in unfair dismissal claims announced

Posted on by Tim Bishop

The breaking news, revealed yesterday, is that the government have now published the draft legislation online containing plans for increasing the qualification period for unfair dismissal compensation claims from one to two years continuous service.

It appears that the legislation is going to be brought in quickly – it will affect any workers who are employed on or after April 6 this year. However, given the current one-year limit for making an unfair dismissal claim applies to any employee taken on prior to April 6 this year, this means, in effect, that any reduction in claims for being unfairly dismissed [which is what the government is clearly targeting] are not going to happen until at least April 2013.

Furthermore, only workers with at least 24 months service under their belt, are going to be entitled to receive a notice, in writing, containing the reasons for their dismissal.

Employment solicitors are already speculating that the likely outcome of this planned reduction in unfair dismissal claims is a potential increase in whistleblowing and discrimination claims – these particular types of employment tribunal claim tend, however, to be more expensive and carry a risk to employers of higher compensation awards. So we’ll have to see whether the government’s plans succeeds, or whether it backfires and simply produces more of these higher risk claims instead.

New rates for unfair dismissal compensation

Posted on by Tim Bishop

The government has just announced that, with effect from 1 February 2012, there is going to be an increase in the rate of unfair dismissal compensation. In particular, there will be an increase to £430 [up from £400] of the weekly rate which is used in calculations of both basic and additional awards in unfair dismissal claims.

Furthermore, the there will also be a significant increase in what is referred to as the “maximum compensatory amount, that any employment tribunal will be able to award – with the maximum sum increasing from £68,400 up to £72,300.

Also bear in mind that the weekly rate used for any unfair dismissal claim is also used in calculation is for statutory redundancy payments.

Pregnancy Discrimination: the most common causes

Posted on by Tim Bishop

For female employees who are pregnant or on maternity leave, protection both from unfair dismissal and unlawful discrimination due to pregnancy-related absence exists from day one of employment, regardless of the length of the absence.

Often discrimination occurs when a pregnant female employee is dismissed when they have less than one year’s service. Unfortunately for their employers, pregnancy dismissals are an exception to the rule that you have to have been employed for at least 12 months before you bring an unfair dismissal claim, and female employees also have special protection if made redundant whilst on maternity leave. Employers must offer them any suitable available position and first refusal and they do not need to attend an interview. Failure to comply means that the pregnancy or maternity discrimination dismissal is automatically unfair and may also be deemed sex discrimination, which is not subject to any cap on compensation made following an employment tribunal claim.

Despite this, female employees are commonly dismissed under the following circumstances:

• On return from maternity leave their position simply ‘vanishes’ because it has offered to somebody else in a restructure they were not made aware of

• A genuine restructure results in redundancies but the employer is not aware of the right of a female employee on maternity leave to be offered suitable alternative employment before anybody else is offered the role

• Sickness is used as a weighting criteria during a redundancy programme despite employers being obliged to ignore pregnancy-related sickness in the redundancy selection process

• They are treated less favourably for a reason related to her pregnancy, e.g. absence or maternity leave

• They are selected for redundancy without good reason because they are working part-time or flexibly

To dismiss, make redundant or otherwise treat a female employee in this situation less favourably in relation to a pay rise, promotion or training, is classed as discrimination and the consequence for an employer of failure to comply is a discrimination claim for unlimited employment tribunal compensation, either for injury to feelings or for future loss of earnings and benefits.

If you believe that you have been unfairly dismissed or treated unfairly because of your pregnancy and you’re thinking of making a claim for unfair dismissal compensation or pregnancy discrimination, get in touch with our team of employment solicitors today for specialist employment law advice.

 

What is classed as Unfair Redundancy?

Posted on by Tim Bishop

Redundancy is always classed as unfair if the employer failed to follow proper redundancy procedure, the reasons behind which vary enormously but include:

• If others in the organisation do the same job as you but are not made redundant (collective redundancies are more typical than individual so an employee should check that there are fair reasons for this)

• If a person is made redundant rather than their position, as is correct; in genuine redundancies the employer no longer requires the relevant job functions to be performed

• If an employee asserts their statutory rights, e.g. requesting a written statement of responsibilities from their employer

• If more than 20 people are made redundant simultaneously but the employer has failed to engage in collective consultation

• If somebody else is recruited to fill your position after you have been terminated from it

• Less favourable treatment of part-time workers and fixed-term employees

• Personal dislike or prejudice based on sex, race, religious or age discrimination

• Pregnancy discrimination

• Unhappiness with job performance without following the correct procedures prior to dismissal, such as warnings about performance

• Where the criteria for redundancy are not objectively-based or clearly explained, i.e. if the employer still requires a particular job to be done but not to the same extent as previously, resulting in the need for some of those carrying out the job to be made redundant

If you believe that you have been the victim of unfair redundancy and you’re thinking of making an employment tribunal claim  for redundancy compensation call our team of specialist employment solicitors today for expert advice.

 

An Employer’s responsibilities regarding Workplace Discrimination

Posted on by Tim Bishop

Potentially lawful and fair grounds for the dismissal of an employee include conduct, capability and redundancy. However, an employee cannot be dismissed on lawful grounds alone and disciplinary procedures and stages exist to ensure that fair and reasonable decisions are made in the circumstances.

Qualifying criteria, such as the length of an employee’s service and the right not to be unfairly dismissed, must be factored in when considering dismissal. Some categories of worker other than employees are also entitled to other rights, such as paid leave and regulations preventing the less favourable treatment of part-time workers and fixed-term employees also exist.

Unlawful grounds for the dismissal of an employee are age, disability, race, sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, and religion or belief, defined as protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010 Employee dismissal via any of these means is classed as discrimination.

Although workplace discrimination and employment discrimination are not always intentional, motive is irrelevant in all employment discrimination at work cases. For example, a manager will be deemed as discriminating an employee for counting time off due to pregnancy-related illness as absenteeism and, as a result the employee could file a complaint of sex or pregnancy discrimination.

Employees are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect and any employer deemed to be acting unreasonably, i.e. to act in such a way that destroys the mutual bond of trust and confidence with their employee, risks being subject to a bullying and harassment claim and complaints of constructive dismissal.

Even if an employer has policies to tackle workplace discrimination, harassment, victimisation and bullying, if they are not implemented it is impossible to prove that they have taken all reasonable steps to avoid employment discrimination. Therefore all employers should ensure that applicable parties should be fully trained in the complexities of workplace discrimination laws. An up-to-date Equal Opportunities and Diversity Policy should be produced so that an employer does not make themselves vulnerable to a claim made to an Employment Tribunal and it is recommended that they consult the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Code of Practice when writing this Policy.

An employer can protect goodwill and staff, their two most valuable assets, by agreeing restrictive covenants, however the Courts scrutinise these closely so the employer should apply due care and attention when drafting any covenants to ensure that they are reasonable.

Whether or not you are an employee who thinks that they might have grounds for an employment tribunal claim, or if you are an employer defending a claim for employment tribunal compensation [or wanting legal advice or assistance on employment law matters in general], one of contact our specialist employment solicitors – initial phone advice is absolutely free – and we also run appropriate cases on no win no fee employment tribunal agreements.