Schofield & Sweeney CIPD Presentation

540 views
449 views

Published on

Slides from the Presentation delivered by Schofield Sweeney on 2nd November 2011.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
540
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
8
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Schofield & Sweeney CIPD Presentation

  1. 1. EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE 2011 Presented by ALEX CLEMENTS and JAMES AUSTIN
  2. 2. Headache 1: Issue <ul><li>How should the Widget Company manage Richard? </li></ul>
  3. 3. Headache 1: Relevant Law <ul><li>Default Retirement Age of 65 introduced in 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Heyday’ challenge by Age Concern </li></ul><ul><li>Reviewed in 2010 to ‘reflect the change in economic circumstances’ </li></ul><ul><li>Repealed on 6 April 2011 </li></ul><ul><li>Transitional Provisions end 30 September 2011 </li></ul>
  4. 4. Headache 1: Relevant Law <ul><li>The last date where the Default Retirement Age can operate is 5 October 2012 </li></ul><ul><li>Notice given on 5 April 2011 specifying intended retirement date of 5 April 2012 </li></ul><ul><li>Maximum six month extension agreed with new retirement date of 5 October 2012 </li></ul><ul><li>No longer a ‘potentially fair’ dismissal </li></ul>
  5. 5. Headache 1: Relevant Law? <ul><li>End of compulsory retirement? </li></ul><ul><li>“ These changes do not mean that individuals can no longer retire at 65 – simply that the timing of retirement becomes a matter of choice rather than compulsion” </li></ul>
  6. 6. Headache 1: Relevant Law <ul><li>Workforce Planning </li></ul><ul><li>Concerns that even discussions about retirement are discriminatory </li></ul><ul><li>Without prejudice conversations? </li></ul><ul><li>Consequences of not addressing performance & capability issues with older workers </li></ul><ul><li>Disgruntled younger employees </li></ul>
  7. 7. Headache 1: Relevant Law <ul><li>ACAS Guidance </li></ul><ul><li>Working without the default retirement age </li></ul><ul><li>Hold workplace discussions regularly - build into appraisal system </li></ul><ul><li>Ask open questions about employees plans for short, medium and long term future </li></ul>
  8. 8. Headache 1: Relevant Law <ul><li>Employer Justified Retirement Age </li></ul><ul><li>Employers cannot retire employees at a set age unless the age can be objectively justified – SOSR Dismissal </li></ul><ul><li>“ Proportional means of achieving a legitimate aim” </li></ul><ul><li>Old regime justification included exceptional levels of mental or physical fitness </li></ul><ul><li>Only employees </li></ul><ul><li>What is a legitimate aim? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Prigge v Lufthansa </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Headache 1: Relevant Law <ul><li>Legitimate Aims: </li></ul><ul><li>Workforce planning </li></ul><ul><li>Protecting dignity of older employees – avoiding performance management and fitness to work issues </li></ul><ul><li>Protecting against incompetence </li></ul><ul><li>Having an age balanced workforce - promoting the exchange of experience and innovation between ages </li></ul>
  10. 10. Headache 1: Relevant Law <ul><li>Capability is a potentially fair reason for dismissal </li></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ relates to the capability or qualifications of the employee for performing the work of the kind he was employed to do.’ </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Headache 1: Conclusion <ul><li>No default retirement age </li></ul><ul><li>Unlikely to be a legitimate aim for imposing retirement </li></ul><ul><li>Hold early and regular discussions </li></ul><ul><li>Don’t make assumptions </li></ul><ul><li>Use capability procedure </li></ul>
  12. 12. Headache 2: Issue <ul><li>Can Coalition impose the salary reduction on Ken? </li></ul>
  13. 13. Headache 2: Relevant Law <ul><li>Employer’s can amend terms and conditions through agreement </li></ul><ul><li>If there is no agreement employer’s can dismiss employees and offer new contracts of employment </li></ul><ul><li>Dismissal could be for “some other substantial reason” </li></ul><ul><li>S.98 (4) Employment Rights Act 1996: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Taking into account the size and administrative resources of the employer did it act reasonably in treating it as sufficient reason for dismsisal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Headache 2: Relevant Law <ul><li>Garside and Laycock v Booth </li></ul><ul><ul><li>B had been employed by G for 7 years </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In 2009 due to a drop in sales and profits G asked employees to take a 5% pay cut </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>G consulted staff then issued a voting paper </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2 employees refused change </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>G terminated contracts and issued new ones </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>B appealed unsuccessfully </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Headache 2: Relevant Law <ul><li>Garside and Laycock v Booth </li></ul><ul><ul><li>B claimed unfair dismissal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tribunal found dismissal unfair: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>G hadn’t been in a desperate financial position and business reasons were not “cogent” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>B’s refusal of change was reasonable </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>G made poor attempt at consultation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>G appealed </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Headache 2: Relevant Law <ul><li>Garside and Laycock v Booth </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EAT overturned decision </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Change doesn’t need to be crucial to save business </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Question of reasonableness of employer’s decision </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Did pay cut apply to all, including management? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Where overwhelming majority of workforce accept change dismissal is likely to be fair </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. Headache 2: Issue <ul><li>Can Coalition impose the new contract on Vince? If so, does it still have to pay the £1,000? </li></ul>
  18. 18. Headache 2: Relevant Law <ul><li>Slade v TNT </li></ul><ul><ul><li>TNT’s operating profits fell from £68.5m to £11.9m </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>TNT offered to buy out bonus </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>TNT warned if offer declined contracts would be terminated and offers of re-engagement made </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>S claimed that offer of re-engagement must include buy out in order for TNT to have acted reasonably </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tribunal found SOSR </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EAT upheld decision – no duty to offer buy out </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. Headache 2: Conclusion <ul><li>Provided it follows the correct procedure Coalition should be able to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>impose salary reduction on Ken </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>remove bonus from Vince and his colleagues </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Coalition won’t have to pay Vince or the others £1,000 </li></ul>
  20. 20. Headache 3: Issue <ul><li>What should Fortuna Fashions do for Rachel? </li></ul>
  21. 21. Headache 3: Relevant Law <ul><li>Obligation to make reasonable adjustments remains under the Equality Act </li></ul><ul><li>Cost a factor in reasonableness </li></ul><ul><li>How certain do you need to be the adjustment will help? </li></ul>
  22. 22. Headache 3: Relevant Law <ul><li>Cordell v FCO </li></ul><ul><ul><li>C profoundly deaf and requires lip speakers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Posting withdrawn as support would cost in excess of £300k pa </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>C pointed to costs of private education </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>C unsuccessful at tribunal & EAT </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Schooling costs relevant not determinative </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Look in context of overall budget </li></ul></ul>
  23. 23. Headache 3: Relevant Law <ul><li>Foster v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust </li></ul><ul><ul><li>F had to be moved from security department because of stress </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Would be reasonable adjustment to put him on redeployment register </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Does not need to be a good prospect, merely some prospect at the date of the decision </li></ul></ul>
  24. 24. Headache 3: Relevant Law <ul><li>Mylott v Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>M dismissed on grounds of ill health </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Claimed should have been able to apply for ill health retirement </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Adjustments are to help employees remain in work, not to compensate them for losing a job. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  25. 25. Headache 3: Conclusion <ul><li>Consider the cost of reasonable adjustments – but remember it is not the only factor </li></ul><ul><li>Give consideration to any adjustment even if it is not certain to help </li></ul><ul><li>Remember adjustments are to help people back to work </li></ul>
  26. 26. Headache 4: Issue <ul><li>Can England Plc carry out a competitive interview process? </li></ul>
  27. 27. Headache 4: Relevant Law <ul><li>Morgan v The Welsh Rugby Union </li></ul><ul><ul><li>National Elite Coach Development Manager and Coach Education Manager roles made redundant </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New role of National Coach Development Manager </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Person spec included list of skills and attributes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interview - Presentation then questions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Standard questions prepared and a scoring system set out </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Committee did not adhere to format for the interview </li></ul></ul>
  28. 28. Headache 4: Relevant Law <ul><li>Morgan v The Welsh Rugby Union </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Committee gave overall scores and appointed other candidate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>M claimed that if objective criteria followed he would have got the job </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tribunal found the appointment fair </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>No obvious bias </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EAT upheld decision </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>New role requires assessment of ability to carry out that role </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Employer’s judgment </li></ul></ul></ul>
  29. 29. Headache 4: Issue <ul><li>Can England Plc refuse to make an enhanced payment if the redundant employee refuses to sign a compromise agreement? </li></ul>
  30. 30. Headache 4: Relevant Law <ul><li>Garratt v Mirror Group Newspapers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>G was a photographer </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Past practice of enhanced redundancy payments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collective agreement stated enhanced redundancy payment – 2 weeks’ basic pay per annum </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>G offered £80,000 subject to a compromise agreement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>G refused to sign – told he would receive £48,000 </li></ul></ul>
  31. 31. Headache 4: Relevant Law <ul><li>Garratt v Mirror Group Newspapers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No other employee had refused to sign </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tribunal found requirement to sign implied into contract </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EAT upheld decision </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Employees had always been required to sign </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Employees knew of requirement </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Employees had always received legal advice </li></ul></ul></ul>
  32. 32. Headache 4: Conclusion <ul><li>England Plc can carry out a competitive interview process where the successful applicant is chosen on basis of interview </li></ul><ul><ul><li>It is preferable to have defined criteria which applicants are assessed against </li></ul></ul><ul><li>England Plc can refuse to make an enhanced payment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requirement to sign a compromise agreement can be implied </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Preferable to state such a requirement clearly </li></ul></ul>
  33. 33. Headache 5: Issue <ul><li>How much protection should Dr Green have to defend his career? </li></ul>
  34. 34. Headache 5: Relevant Law <ul><li>Apply normal disciplinary rules to the case </li></ul><ul><li>Is the sanction within the band of reasonable responses? </li></ul><ul><li>What damage has been caused to colleagues and organisation? </li></ul><ul><li>Would another sanction be appropriate? </li></ul>
  35. 35. Headache 5: Relevant Law <ul><li>Legal representation at hearing </li></ul><ul><li>Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Art 6 of ECHR – right to have civil rights determined before an impartial tribunal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Right to practice a profession a civil right </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Right to a particular employment is not a civil right </li></ul></ul>
  36. 36. Headache 5: Conclusion <ul><li>Don’t treat social media offences any differently to other forms of misconduct </li></ul><ul><li>Consider who can be a representative at hearings </li></ul><ul><li>Is the offence likely to finish a career rather than just a job? </li></ul>
  37. 37. Headache 6: Issue <ul><li>Can Cerebral Juice dismiss Holly? </li></ul>
  38. 38. Headache 6: Relevant Law <ul><li>Bowater v N W London Hospitals </li></ul><ul><ul><li>B was a staff nurse </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>At end of shift helped colleagues restrain a patient having an epileptic fit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>B climbed on to ankles to restrain patient </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Patient’s trousers and underwear removed to administer diazepam </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Patient kicked B between legs causing her to land on his genitals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>B remarked &quot;It's been a few months since I have been in this position with a man underneath me&quot; </li></ul></ul>
  39. 39. Headache 6: Relevant Law <ul><li>Bowater v N W London Hospitals </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Patient unaware of incident </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>B dismissed for gross misconduct for failing to: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Restrain the patient appropriately </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Promote dignity of patients </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Uphold reputation of profession </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ET found dismissal unfair but 25% contribution </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Most people would have found remark humorous </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EAT overturned decision </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CA restored ET decision </li></ul></ul>
  40. 40. Headache 6: Issue <ul><li>Is Holly under a duty to accept a role from Botox Selecta? </li></ul>
  41. 41. Headache 6: Relevant Law <ul><li>Debique v Ministry of Defence </li></ul><ul><ul><li>D struggled to combine motherhood with being a soldier </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>D successfully claimed unlawful indirect sex and race discrimination </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>D received £15,000 for injury to feelings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No loss of earnings awarded as D refused alternative role offered during notice period </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EAT upheld decision </li></ul></ul>
  42. 42. Headache 6: Issue <ul><li>Would Holly be able to bring a claim for sex and age discrimination if her replacement was an older man? </li></ul>
  43. 43. Headache 6: Relevant Law <ul><li>Burden of proof: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Employee must prove facts from which a tribunal could conclude in the absence of an adequate explanation that the employer has unlawfully discriminated. This would include: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Evidence of a difference in sex/age </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Evidence of a difference in treatment </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Evidence of the reason for the difference in treatment </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Employer must then prove it did not discriminate </li></ul></ul>
  44. 44. Headache 6: Relevant Law <ul><li>Community Law Clinic Solicitors Ltd and ors v Methuen </li></ul><ul><ul><li>M was an Asian man aged 54 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dismissed after 5 months because failed to meet targets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Replaced by younger Afro-Caribbean woman who was paid much less </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>M claimed dismissed on the grounds of age, sex and race </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Respondent said department running at a loss and could not afford M </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ET at a PHR decided case had “little” prospect of success </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>M failed to point to fact from which discrimination could be inferred </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Not bound to fail </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Deposit order </li></ul></ul></ul>
  45. 45. Headache 6: Relevant Law <ul><li>Community Law Clinic Solicitors Ltd and ors v Methuen </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EAT disagreed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>M didn’t explain discrimination claim </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Can’t base claim solely on being replaced by someone with different protected characteristics </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EAT allowed age discrimination claim to proceed </li></ul></ul>
  46. 46. Headache 6: Conclusion <ul><li>Cerebral Juice shouldn’t dismiss Holly depending on the investigation </li></ul><ul><li>Holly is under a duty to consider an alternative job at Botox Selecta </li></ul><ul><li>Being replaced by an older man should not be enough for Holly to bring discrimination claims </li></ul>
  47. 47. Headache 7: Issue <ul><li>Has Ross got any claims? </li></ul>
  48. 48. Headache 7: Relevant Law <ul><li>Redundancy selection and discrimination </li></ul><ul><li>Eversheds v De Belin </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Claimant scored lower than colleague in redundancy exercise </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Colleague been on maternity leave so given a notional score </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Maternity protection is only what is “reasonably necessary” – i.e. proportionate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other options available such as when both employees at work </li></ul></ul>
  49. 49. Headache 7: Relevant Law <ul><li>Can a reference be lawful if it seems unfair? </li></ul><ul><li>Jackson v Liverpool CC </li></ul><ul><ul><li>J applied for new job </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reference from Liverpool caveated that there were record keeping issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Made clear these had never been investigated </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CA – reference true and accurate even though referred to matters which were untested </li></ul></ul>
  50. 50. Headache 7: Conclusion <ul><li>Take maternity leave into account but don’t over compensate </li></ul><ul><li>Take care with wording of references </li></ul><ul><li>If possible, try to agree a reference before termination </li></ul>
  51. 51. Headache 8: Issue <ul><li>Is Michelle entitled to be paid for the overnight stays? </li></ul>
  52. 52. Headache 8: Relevant Law <ul><li>Wray v J W Lees & Co </li></ul><ul><ul><li>W temporary pub manager required to stay on premises overnight </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>W claimed pay for overnight hours – NMW legislation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ET incorrectly looked at definition of working time in Working Time Regs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EAT held W not working so not entitled to pay </li></ul></ul>
  53. 53. Headache 8: Relevant Law <ul><li>Wray v J W Lees & Co </li></ul><ul><ul><li>W free to leave the premises at any time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>W’s position different to night watchman or night sleeper in a residential home who had responsibilities throughout the night ( South Manchester Abbeyfield v Hopkins ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NMW Regulation 16: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Not working time if employee entitled to spend it at home </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>If employee is provided with accommodation at or near work and is given time to sleep, such time is not working time unless the employee is required to work </li></ul></ul></ul>
  54. 54. Headache 8: Issue <ul><li>Has Tracy received the breaks she is entitled to under the Working Time Regulations? </li></ul>
  55. 55. Headache 8: Relevant Law <ul><li>Hughes v The Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reg. 12 of the WTR states employees entitled to 20 minute break after working more than 6 hours </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reg. 21 sets out exclusions where employer requires permanent presence e.g.: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Security guards </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Doctors </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Dockers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Airports </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reg. 24 states that where reg. 21 applies employer: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Must try to provide “equivalent period” of compensatory rest; or </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Take other measures to safeguard health and safety </li></ul></ul></ul>
  56. 56. Headache 8: Relevant Law <ul><li>Hughes v The Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd </li></ul><ul><ul><li>H was a security guard </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>H could decide when to take breaks but could be interrupted </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>H claimed he wasn’t receiving correct breaks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ET held: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>H wasn’t entitled to breaks but might be to compensatory rest </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>No practical way CCM could provide uninterrupted 20 minute compensatory rest </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CCM provided H with adequate health and safety protection </li></ul></ul></ul>
  57. 57. Headache 8: Relevant Law <ul><li>Hughes v The Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EAT found the arrangements amounted to providing a period of compensatory rest </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CA upheld EAT’s decision: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Compensatory rest didn’t have to be uninterrupted 20 minutes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CA also held CCM provided adequate health and safety protection </li></ul></ul>
  58. 58. Headache 8: Conclusion <ul><li>Michelle is not entitled to be paid for staying overnight </li></ul><ul><li>Tracy may not be receiving the correct breaks. The position may be different if Tracy carried out a different type of work </li></ul>
  59. 59. Headache 9: Issue <ul><li>The rights of agency workers </li></ul>
  60. 60. Headache 9: Relevant Law <ul><li>The Agency Workers Regulations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In force 1 October 2011 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not retrospective </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Applies to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Temporary agency workers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Those who supply temporary agency workers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hirers </li></ul></ul>
  61. 61. Headache 9: Relevant Law <ul><li>Day One rights </li></ul><ul><li>Access to collective facilities and amenities of hirer </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Canteen or other similar facilities </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Child-care facilities </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Provision of transport services </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Access to employment vacancies </li></ul><ul><li>Liability for above on the hirer </li></ul>
  62. 62. Headache 9: Relevant Law <ul><li>Continuity </li></ul><ul><li>Entitled to the same “basic working and employment conditions” as if directly recruited by the hirer after 12 weeks </li></ul><ul><li>Continuity broken and starts again when: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>AW starts new assignment with new hirer </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>AW stays with same hirer but substantially different role </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Break of at least 6 weeks </li></ul></ul>
  63. 63. Headache 9: Relevant Law <ul><li>Continuity not broken but weeks will not count where: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Break of less than 6 weeks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Break of up to 28 weeks where AW ill </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Break where AW taking annual leave </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Break caused by planned shutdown </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Break caused by strike </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Continuity continues where break due to maternity, adoption or paternity leave </li></ul>
  64. 64. Headache 9: Relevant Law <ul><li>12 week rights </li></ul><ul><li>“ Relevant terms and conditions ordinarily included” relating to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pay </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Duration of working time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rest periods </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rest breaks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Annual leave </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Liability can rest with agency or hirer </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Agency has defence if it took “reasonable steps” to obtain relevant information </li></ul></ul>
  65. 65. Headache 9: Relevant Law <ul><li>Pay includes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Basic pay </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Overtime pay </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Shift allowances </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bonuses/commission </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Where directly attributable to the TA </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vouchers or stamps with monetary value </li></ul></ul>
  66. 66. Headache 9: Relevant Law <ul><li>Pay excludes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Occupational sick pay </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Occupational pensions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Redundancy pay </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Notice pay </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bonuses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Not linked to contribution of individual </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Discretionary bonus payments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Majority of benefits in kind </li></ul></ul>
  67. 67. Headache 9: Relevant Law <ul><li>Liability for breach: </li></ul><ul><li>AW compensated for any loss </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Minimum award of 2 week’s loss </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Potential fine of up to £5,000 if deliberately trying to avoid the Regulations </li></ul>
  68. 68. Headache 9: Relevant Law <ul><li>Employment status of Agency Workers </li></ul><ul><li>BIS v Studders </li></ul><ul><li>No employment contract where: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No evidence of intent to create an employment relationship </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No obligation to accept assignment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No obligation to offer work </li></ul></ul>
  69. 69. Headache 9: Conclusion <ul><li>Supply information to an agency in good time </li></ul><ul><li>Be careful when moving agency staff from one role to another </li></ul><ul><li>Keep an eye on the length of assignments </li></ul><ul><li>Clarify which benefits fall within the Regulations and which don’t </li></ul><ul><li>Check the terms of engagement with the agency </li></ul>
  70. 70. Headache 10: Issue <ul><li>Can Wealthy City dismiss Carlo? </li></ul>
  71. 71. Headache 10: Relevant Law <ul><li>Orr v Milton Keynes Council </li></ul><ul><ul><li>O was a part time youth worker </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>O discussed a sexual assault with kids at a community centre despite manager Mr Madden </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3 days later during discussion about working hours O was rude towards M </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>O was dismissed after disciplinary hearing conducted by group manager </li></ul></ul>
  72. 72. Headache 10: Relevant Law <ul><li>Orr v Milton Keynes Council </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ET found </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>O’s behaviour towards M sparked by M trying to reduce O's working hours without agreement </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>When O began to use Jamaican patois M had committed direct race discrimination </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Dismissal fair and non-discriminatory because </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reasonable investigation </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reasonable response to what was known to the dismissing officer at the time </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  73. 73. Headache 10: Relevant Law <ul><li>Orr v Milton Keynes Council </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EAT upheld decision </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ET’s should consider usual unfair dismissal test </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Not enough for O to show but for discrimination would not have been dismissed </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CA agreed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Only knowledge or state of mind of decision maker is imported to employer </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>MK had carried out reasonable investigation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>O was dismissed for 2 counts of gross misconduct </li></ul></ul></ul>
  74. 74. Headache 10: Conclusion <ul><li>Dismissal might not fall within band of reasonable responses depending on investigation </li></ul><ul><li>If Wealthy don’t discover Mankini’s abuse dismissal may be fair </li></ul>
  75. 75. On the horizon New Developments
  76. 76. National Minimum Wage <ul><li>From 1 October: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Workers aged 21+: £6.08 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Workers aged 18-20: £4.98 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Workers aged 16-17: £3.68 </li></ul></ul>
  77. 77. Reform <ul><li>2 year qualifying period to claim unfair dismissal </li></ul><ul><li>Having a cap on discrimination claims </li></ul><ul><li>Introduce fees to commence proceedings </li></ul><ul><li>Abolition of unfair dismissal? </li></ul>
  78. 79. www.schofieldsweeney.co.uk <ul><li>Simon Shepherd </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>0113 220 6274 </li></ul><ul><li>Alex Clements </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>0113 220 6280 </li></ul><ul><li>James Austin </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>0113 220 6275 </li></ul><ul><li>Polly O’Malley </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>0113 220 6341 </li></ul>

×