Zero Hours Contracts and Worker Status Reforms Stuck in the Mire

There appears to have been very little movement on zero hours contracts and worker status reforms despite various consultations, published reviews, policy papers and the mention of a new Employment Bill in the 2019 Queen’s Speech.

Reform Delays

The Good Work Plan

On 17 December 2018, the government published its policy paper, the Good Work Plan. This set out what the government described as “the biggest package of workplace reforms for over 20 years”. It built on the response given by the government to the Taylor Review in February 2018 and the government’s strategy was set out in three main themes:

  • fair and decent work;
  • clarity for employers and workers; and
  • fairer enforcement.

To help UK Employers prepare, we summarised the key aspects of The Good Work Plan that came into effect from 6 April 2020 – What UK Employers Need to Know About the Good Work Plan

Zero Hours Contracts Reform

Also included in The Good Work Plan were several commitments specifically relating to zero hours contracts including a right for those on zero-hours or other flexible contracts to request a more stable and predictable contract and making it easier for casual staff to establish continuity of employment.

In its Spring 2022 Labour Market Outlook survey of employers, the CIPD added several questions to the survey, specifically relating to the use of zero hours contracts, and on 11 August 2022 it published a new report titled Zero-hours contracts: Evolution and current status.  The report, which suggests that the number of workers engaged on zero hours contracts is small, accounting for about 3% of total employment, and has changed little since 2015, reflects on how zero hours contracts are used and considers their benefits and drawbacks for employers and workers.

The report concludes by making four recommendations:

  • Introduce a right for variable hours workers to request a more stable contract or working arrangement after they have been employed for six months.
  • Create a statutory code of practice on the responsible management of zero hours workers, including a requirement to pay compensation if workers’ shifts are cancelled at short notice.
  • Improve labour market enforcement, including through the creation of a single enforcement body and a stronger focus on supporting employer compliance.
  • Abolish worker status to help clarify and enhance employment rights for zero hours workers and more widely.

Employment Status Reform

Employment status was the subject of a standalone consultation in February 2018 and was also one of the key areas looked at in the Taylor Review.  The Taylor Review proposed that the definition of “worker” needed to be clearer and more consistent, and that workers who were not employees should be renamed in the legislation as “dependent contractors”. It also proposed that there should be less emphasis on personal service, and more emphasis on control, in defining the relationship between an employer and a dependent contractor. This is because of concern that employers are putting a right of substitution into contracts in order to defeat arguments over worker status.

A commitment to refine employment status tests and for an online status tool to be developed were included in the government’s policy paper, The Good Work Plan, and the government suggested that it would “legislate to improve the clarity of the employment status tests, reflecting the reality of modern working relationships”.

However, the government response to the standalone consultation was not published until July 2022, and when it finally appeared it had very little to say about how it intended to produce the clarity of the employment status tests and it suggested that the benefits of creating a new system would be outweighed by the risks associated with legislative reform.

In July 2022, the government confirmed that it would not be reforming legislation in this area or aligning the employment law and tax status tests (there is no third category of “worker” for tax purposes). It instead published new guidance designed to improve clarity around employment status, which comprises three parts:

Employment status and employment rights: guidance for HR professionals, legal professionals and other groups (Detailed status guidance).

Employment status and rights: support for individuals (Guidance for individuals).

Employment status and rights: checklist for employers and other engagers (Guidance for employers).

The guidance is non-statutory and does not change the legal position. The introduction to the detailed status guidance emphasises that only a court or tribunal can make a final decision on employment status for employment rights purposes.

The Employment Bill

The recommendations in the CIPD report mirror those that were previously set out in previous reviews and the Good Work Plan in 2018, and it was expected that the much-awaited Employment Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech in December 2019 would see many of the recommendations implemented.

On 23 March 2021 the government confirmed that the Employment Bill would not be introduced in that parliamentary session and that it would be introduced when parliamentary time allows.  There was no mention of the Employment Bill in the two subsequent Queen’s Speeches (May 2021 and May 2022) and no timeframe for when the Bill may be introduced has been provided.

On 14 June 2022, Lord Callanan, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), reconfirmed that the Employment Bill will be delivered “when parliamentary time allows”, and suggested that the government is considering alternative options for delivering its manifesto commitments outside of the anticipated Employment Bill.

Whether the government finds time to move forward with its Employment Bill remains to be seen but, in the meantime, the unresolved issues surrounding zero hours contracts and employment status will continue to present challenges for employers and workers alike and resolving disputes in these areas may ultimately be up to the courts and tribunals.

Do You Need Assistance?

The specialist employment law team at Employment Law Services (ELS) LTD have extensive experience in advising UK Employers to ensure compliance with a broad range of employment law issues.  If you have any queries about your legal obligations you can call us on 0800 612 4772, Contact Us via our website or Book a Free Consultation online.

Agencies Allowed to Supply Temporary Workers to Cover Striking Workers

New UK regulations allow Agencies and Employment Businesses to supply temporary workers to cover workers taking industrial action.

Striking Workers

Revocation of Regulation 7 of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003

On 21 July 2022, the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022/852) (the Regulations) and the Liability of Trade Unions in Proceedings in Tort (Increase of Limits on Damages) Order 2022 (SI 2022/699) (the Order) and came into force in Great Britain.

The 2022 Regulations revoke regulation 7 of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/3319) which previously prevented an agency or employment business from supplying temporary workers to perform duties normally performed by a worker who is on strike or taking official industrial action, or the duties normally performed by any other worker who has been assigned to cover a striking worker.

The Liability of Trade Unions in Proceedings in Tort (Increase of Limits on Damages) Order 2022

The 2022 Order amends section 22(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to increase the limits on the maximum damages award which may be made against a trade union where industrial action is found to be unlawful. With effect from 21 July 2022, the limits are increased as follows:

  • Less than 5,000 members: £40,000 (previously £10,000).
  • 5,000 to 24,999 members: £200,000 (previously £50,000).
  • 25,000 to 99,999 members: £500,000 (previously £125,000).
  • 100,000 members or more: £1,000,000 (previously £250,000).

The new limits do not apply to any tort proceedings which relate to an act that began or occurred before 21 July 2022. The explanatory note states that the increases take into account RPI changes since the limits were set in the Employment Act 1982.

The trade union Unison has indicated that it will seek judicial review of the Regulations.

Do You Need Assistance?

The specialist employment law team at Employment Law Services (ELS) LTD have extensive experience in advising UK Employers to ensure compliance with a broad range of employment law issues.  If you have any queries about your legal obligations you can call us on 0800 612 4772, Contact Us via our website or Book a Free Consultation online.

Women and Equalities Committee Calls for Menopause to be a Protected Characteristic

Despite the calls from various charities and a recently published report from the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee (WEC), legislative reform looks unlikely.

Menopause Support

A recent survey undertaken by the Fawcett Society, a charity campaigning for gender equality and women’s rights, which was commissioned by Channel 4 for use in its documentary ‘Sex, Myths and the Menopause’, found that a majority of women (77%) find at least one menopause symptom ‘very difficult’, while 44% of women experience three or more symptoms that are severe.

The House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) Report

On 28 July 2022, the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) published a report, Menopause and the workplace that emphasises there is much that employers should do to help employees, noting the risk of discrimination claims and reputational damage. Solutions include practical adjustments, additional flexibility, and fostering greater respect and understanding of the menopause.

The WEC report calls on the UK government to appoint a Menopause Ambassador to champion good practice, produce model menopause policies and trial specific menopause leave with a large public sector employer. The model policies should include as a minimum: how to request reasonable adjustments and other support, advice on flexible working, sick leave for menopause symptoms, and provisions for education, training and building a supportive culture.

While not supportive of mandatory menopause policies, the WEC report expresses disappointment that the Employment Bill has still not materialised and urges the government to bring forward legislation before the end of the current Parliament to make the right to request flexible working a day-one right. It also calls on the Health and Safety Executive and the Equality and Human Rights Commission to provide guidance on menopause within the next six months.

Noting that the current law does not specifically protect menopausal women, the report considers it unsatisfactory that they must frequently present themselves as suffering from a disability to make an effective claim. It calls on the government to “immediately” commence section 14 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) which would allow dual discrimination claims, and to consult within six months on making menopause a protected characteristic, including a duty to provide reasonable adjustments for menopausal employees.

The UK Government Response

The UK government has published its response to the independent report, Menopause and the workplace: how to enable fulfilling working lives on 18 July 2022 and the First Women’s Health Strategy for England on 20 July 2022, and in doing so has confirmed that it does not intend to make any changes to the EqA 2010, but it has appointed a Women’s Health Ambassador for England who will sit on the newly established UK Menopause Taskforce.

Menopause and UK Discrimination Laws

Given the UK government’s response, it seems unlikely that the WEC’s calls for legislative reform will be taken forward but considering that the findings of the Channel 4 commissioned survey found that 44% of menopausal women in employment say their ability to work has been affected by their symptoms and 8 in 10 menopausal women say their workplace has no basic support in place for them, it seems clear that many employers will need to revisit their existing procedures for supporting staff affected by the menopause to avoid potentially costly discrimination claims.

In some cases, the menopause could be considered a disability under existing UK discrimination law and if someone is disabled, their employer must make reasonable adjustments to reduce or remove any disadvantages they might experience because of it.

Although the menopause is not currently a specific protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, an employee or worker who is put at a disadvantage and treated less favourably because of their menopause symptoms could potentially have grounds for a discrimination claim if the less favourable treatment is related to a protected characteristic, such as age, disability, or sex.

Do You Need Assistance?

The specialist employment law team at Employment Law Services (ELS) LTD have extensive experience in advising UK Employers to ensure compliance with a broad range of employment law issues.  If you have any queries about your legal obligations you can call us on 0800 612 4772, Contact Us via our website or Book a Free Consultation online.

UK Data Protection Reforms via the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

Since its introduction in May 2018, the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulations) have been a complex and burdensome piece of legislation that many UK employers have struggled with but with the freedoms afforded to the UK in a post-Brexit environment, the UK Government has seized the opportunity to update and simplify the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) with a view to reducing burdens on organisations, while still maintaining high data protection standards.

GDPR Regulations

The Data Protection and Digital Information Bill (Bill 143 2022-23)

On 18 July 2022, the much-anticipated Data Protection and Digital Information Bill (Bill 143 2022-23) was introduced into Parliament, following publication of the government’s response to its consultation, Data: a new direction.

The Bill aims to introduce more flexibility and makes provision for a variety of measures relating to personal data and other information, including digital information.

There are numerous proposed changes, which include:

  • Reforming the ICO.
  • Changes to PECR, relating to cookie rules, unsolicited direct marketing and communications security (for example, network traffic and location data).
  • Clarification of the rules on international transfers and cross-border flows of personal data.
  • Establishing a framework for the provision of digital verification services.
  • Changes to Part 3 (law enforcement) and Part 4 (processing by the intelligence services) of the Data Protection Act 2018.
  • Changes to police use of biometrics.

Explanatory notes (Bill 143 EN 2022 23) were also introduced into Parliament, although they do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by Parliament.

The second reading is scheduled to take place on 5 September and further stages will be announced on Parliament’s Stages webpage.

Do You Need Assistance?

The specialist employment law team at Employment Law Services (ELS) LTD have extensive experience in advising UK Employers on their legal obligations in respect data protection to ensure compliance.  If you have any queries about your legal obligations you can call us on 0800 612 4772, Contact Us via our website or Book a Free Consultation online.

Percentage Method for Calculating Holiday Pay Ruled Unlawful

The Supreme Court decision in Harpur Trust v Brazel has major implications for thousands of employers, changing the way holiday pay is calculated for staff who work irregular hours on permanent contracts.

Holiday Pay

On 20 July 2022, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Harpur Trust v Brazel, rejecting Harpur’s appeal and upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal ruling that the percentage method for calculating holiday pay was unlawful.

Background in the Harpur Trust v Brazel Holiday Pay Case

Mrs Brazel is a visiting music teacher who continues to work at a school run by the Harpur Trust (Harpur). She is employed by Harpur under a permanent contract on a zero-hour basis. Harpur is not obliged to provide a fixed minimum amount of work and she is paid only for the amount of work carried out and Mrs Brazel works mainly during school term-time.

The length of the school terms varies from year to year but is between 32 and 35 weeks. She is a part-time worker in two senses, firstly, that she does not work a full working week and, secondly, that for large parts of the year (during school holidays) she does not work for Harpur at all. It is only this second type of part-time working with which this case is concerned.

She is entitled to 5.6 weeks’ paid annual leave (both under her contract and statute), which she is required to take during school holidays. As the school holidays are far longer than this, no particular weeks are designated as statutory holiday, but by agreement Harpur makes three equal payments in respect of holiday at the end of each term of 12.07% of her usual pay; a method referred to as the ‘Percentage Method’.

Mrs Brazel submitted an employment tribunal claim, asserting that the 12.07% approach bears no relation to the calculation required by the WTR 1998.

The Employment Tribunal (ET) Decision

Initially, the Employment Tribunal dismissed Mrs Brazel’s claims. It found that there had been no unlawful deduction of wages as a result of the application of the 12.07% calculation. It held that a principle of pro rating should apply, and that the statutory scheme should be read down for part-time workers who worked fewer than 46.4 weeks per year so that payment was capped at 12.07% of annualised hours. The tribunal found that words could be read into regulation 16 of the WTR 1998 to that effect.

Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and Court of Appeal Decisions

Mrs Brazel appealed to the EAT in relation to the correct calculation of holiday pay only. The EAT upheld the appeal, finding that the tribunal had erred in capping her holiday pay at 12.07% of annual earnings. The EAT held that there was no requirement in the WTR to pro rate holiday pay for part-time employees to ensure that full-time employees were not treated less favourably. The tribunal had overlooked the principle that part-time workers were not to be treated less favourably than full-time workers and that there was, as yet no principle to the opposite effect.  It was emphasised that the wording in the Working Time Regulations 1998 was clear. This is that a worker on a permanent contract and engaged for a whole year has an entitlement to 5.6 weeks’ holiday.

Harpur appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal. They believed that they must reduce their teacher’s holiday entitlement so these workers wouldn’t be entitled to holiday pay that may exceed that of full-time staff. The Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal, and the case was taken to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal and dismissed the appeal unanimously.

Nowhere in EU or UK law did it state that holiday pay should be pro-rated for those who do not work every week of the year. It did not matter that this would give more holiday pay to these workers than those working all year.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that all workers are entitled to 5.6 weeks’ paid annual leave per year and that the correct method of calculating holiday pay for “part-year’ workers should be based on average pay, ignoring weeks where an individual does not earn anything. This is the case, even if this means individuals receive a greater proportion of holiday pay than full-time workers.  It was found that there is no legislative provision which means that part-timers cannot be better off than comparable full-time workers.

Implications for Employers

This case is important for the leave entitlement of every worker in the UK with no normal working hours.  In essence, the decision means that all zero-hours employees who do not work a full year must have their holiday calculated in this way and not by the application of the 12.07% formula.

Although this particular case concerned a worker who was permanently engaged to work only part of the year and was therefore limited only to part-year workers on permanent contracts, it is likely that other categories of worker may also try to rely on the decision and that similar claims from these types of workers will follow.

Considerations For Employers

Employers who currently use the 12.07% approach to pay holiday to their zero hours staff with permanent contracts should analyse their potential exposure and consider their options. It is clear that holiday pay should be calculated by assessing a week’s pay and multiplying that by 5.6.

How the 5.6 weeks’ holiday entitlement itself should be calculated for such workers (particularly those who do not work term-time only and who take enough leave to satisfy the WTR 1998 in any event), is still not clear. Employers will have to take a pragmatic approach and it is expected that many will continue to use the 12.07% approach to calculating the holiday entitlement until further case law provides more clarity.

Do You Need Assistance?

The specialist employment law team at Employment Law Services (ELS) LTD have extensive experience in advising UK Employers on their legal obligations in respect holiday entitlement and pay to ensure compliance.  If you have any queries about your legal obligations you can call us on 0800 612 4772, Contact Us via our website or Book a Free Consultation online.

Managing Staff Absence Effectively & Legally

We look at the issues arising from both short-term and long-term absences and the steps employers can take to manage staff absence effectively and legally.

Fit Note

In the UK, the total economic cost of sickness absence, lost productivity through worklessness, and health-related productivity losses, are estimated to be over £100bn annually.

Incapacity for work is generally understood to mean that a person is not fit, through illness or injury, to perform their duties. There is a statutory definition of incapacity, for the purposes of statutory sick pay (SSP).

The main issues an employer will need to consider when dealing with sick employees include:

  • Entitlement to SSP and/or contractual sick pay, including deciding whether qualifying conditions have been met.  Many employers will have sickness policies which set out relevant qualifying conditions.
  • The reason for absence, and whether it is genuine. This will entail ascertaining the true medical position and may involve seeking a medical report.
  • Whether the incapacity has been caused by workplace factors such as stress, bullying or an accident at work.
  • Whether the absence coincides with any periods of holiday.
  • Whether the absence is related to a disability and whether any reasonable adjustments may need to be made.
  • Considering whether the employee may be eligible for permanent health insurance or ill-health retirement.
  • Whether dismissal is appropriate and, if so, ensuring a fair process is followed.

Having an effective policy in place will help employers to deal with absences consistently and effectively as well as putting employees on notice as to the standards of attendance and reporting that the employer expects from them. This in turn will help reduce legal risk.

Sickness Absence Reporting Requirements

Employers should ensure that they set out the reporting requirements for staff who are unable to attend work due to illness or injury. Employers will have differing views on the time by which absence must be reported. In many workplaces it may not be practicable to notify anyone earlier than the normal opening time at that workplace. However, where staff work shifts, the workplace may be open long before the employee’s shift starts (or even open 24 hours a day) in which case the employer may require sickness to be notified at least an hour in advance of the start of a shift, so that cover can be arranged if necessary.

Evidence of Incapacity

For the purposes of company sick pay, an employer is free to choose what evidence of incapacity it requires. Many employers require self-certification for up to seven days’ absence, and a medical certificate thereafter, as this is in line with the statutory sick pay (SSP) requirements. For SSP purposes, an employer cannot require a doctor’s certificate for the first seven days of sickness absence. Whether they do so after that is largely up to the employer, but most do. Strictly speaking, employees need not self-certify absence of less than four days for SSP purposes, as SSP is not paid for the first three days of absence. However, an employer may still wish to ask for self-certification of shorter periods as part of its absence management strategy.

Employers can in theory require a doctor’s certificate for all absences as a pre-requisite of company sick pay, although this is rare. Many employers require self-certification. (See Practice note, Managing sickness absence: Evidence of incapacity.)

The “Statement of Fitness to Work” (or “fit note”, which replaced the old-style sick note in April 2010) enables GPs to certify that an employee is “not fit for work” or that they “may be fit for work” taking account of advice that the GP then sets out. This may include recommendations such as a phased return to work, altered hours or duties, or other adaptations. When presented with these statements, employers should generally hold a return-to-work interview to discuss any changes that may be needed.

Return to Work Interviews

Return-to-work interviews give an employer the opportunity to welcome a member of staff back to work. In addition:

  • They provide the opportunity to confirm the details of the absence for record-keeping purposes.
  • The provide an opportunity to discuss any changes that might be needed to facilitate a return to work.
  • In the case of someone who has had several short, intermittent absences (and who is unlikely to be on a phased return-to-work programme), they provide the opportunity to establish whether there may be any underlying health or other (for example, disciplinary) issues that the employer should investigate further.

An effective sickness absence policy can fulfil several purposes. First, it sets out the employer’s sick pay arrangements including the rates of pay and the requirements for notifying and providing evidence of incapacity. It is a legal requirement that terms and conditions relating to incapacity for work due to sickness or injury, including any provision for sick pay, are given to the employee in writing. This can be done either in the “principal statement” of employment terms given under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), or in a reasonably accessible document such as a staff handbook, referred to in the statement. (Section 1(4)(d)(ii), ERA 1996.).

Second, the policy provides a procedure for managing longer-term incapacity including obtaining medical evidence, considering alternatives for rehabilitating the employee into work (including any reasonable adjustments for disability under the Equality Act 2010), and ultimately providing a fair procedure for dismissal where this is the appropriate course of action.

Managing Long-term or Persistent Absence

The purpose of a sickness absence meetings procedure is for employers to address issues caused by illness, as well as staff being away from and not contributing to its business. Issues are likely to arise when it is believed that illness is not genuine or where repeated periods of absence or long-term absence are impacting on colleagues, departments, and the employer’s business.

The procedure needs sufficient flexibility to deal with each individual case. Employers should consider adjourning any meeting in the procedure to consider any new matters if they arise. As soon as a case is identified as a conduct rather than an ill-health issue, it should be transferred and dealt with under the employer’s disciplinary procedure.

While it would seem probable that the right to be accompanied does not extend to meetings which are not disciplinary in nature, including those relating to ill-health, providing the right to be accompanied and adding the discretion for the employer to exercise flexibility would be prudent. Whether, and to what extent, discretion is exercised can only be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Medical Examinations

Medical advice can:

  • Establish the reason for absence and whether any illness is genuine.
  • Indicate the likely length of continued absence.
  • Assess the effect of an illness on an employee’s ability to do their job, what they are capable of and what, if any, adjustments can be made to help them to return to work.
  • Assist in arranging a phased return to work from long-term sickness absence.
  • Establish whether an employee is likely to qualify for any employment benefits, such as permanent health insurance (PHI) or early ill-health retirement.

Highlighting the potential to ask for medical advice may put off employees who are minded to “fake” illness to take time off work. It also draws attention to the need to co-operate with the employer’s attempts to understand ill health absence.

The steps an employer must take when requesting a medical report (whether from a general practitioner, a specialist consultant, a company doctor, or an occupational health specialist), must take the impact of the Access to Medical Reports Act 1988 and data protection legislation into consideration.

Stage One:  Initial Sickness Absence Meeting

The purposes of the first meeting will depend on the type of sickness absence being investigated and whether any potential conduct issues have arisen in the individual case.

Prior to convening the initial sickness absence meeting, full details of the absence record along with reasons should be made available to all participants. The employee should be made aware of the date and location of the formal meeting and the reasons for it. In addition, they should be informed of the right to be accompanied by a work colleague or trade union representative at the meeting.

In cases of long-term sickness absence, the central issues will be the nature of the employee’s illness, how much longer they are likely to be away and whether they are going to be able to return to their job. It may be too early to predict a return date and it may be decided to obtain medical advice (either from the employee’s and/or the employer’s medical advisers) on both this and the employee’s ability to resume their job/adjustments at this stage.

In cases of intermittent absences, the issue may be the cause of the employee’s absences and the likelihood of recurrence. An employer may need to explain the impact that the absences are having on the employee’s colleagues and on the employer’s business. It may be decided to obtain medical evidence on the nature of the employee’s illness, the likelihood of recurrence and any steps that can be taken to reduce recurrence.

A meeting can end with a summary of matters discussed and action that it has been agreed will be taken. This can then be confirmed in writing as detailed under the procedure.

Stage Two: Second Sickness Absence Meeting

After the first stage of the sickness absence procedure, the second stage provides for further meetings with a view to resolving difficulties caused by short-term intermittent absences and the return to work of an employee on long-term sickness absence.

The second stage of the procedure should be designed to be flexible, accommodating the individual characteristics of each case. The suggested purposes of the further meetings in the procedure can act as a checklist for employers, to ensure that they are considering those matters relevant to a fair and non-discriminatory dismissal (should it ultimately terminate the employee’s employment).

Stage Three:  Final Sickness Absence Meeting

The third stage of the procedure is reached when meetings under the second stage have not achieved their intended aim (overseeing a long-term absentee’s return to work or the eradication of sporadic absences).

This meeting should provide the employer with an opportunity to review the action it has taken to achieve its aim, why they have not worked and whether there is any reasonable prospect that waiting any further will be productive.  The meeting also provides the employee with the opportunity to put forward anything that they consider the employer should have done.

Otherwise, the final meeting is likely to result in the termination of the employee’s employment. The employer should check that all prior warnings that it is relying on in making the decision to dismiss are valid. Failure to do so may result in a dismissal being unfair.

Appeals

If the decision is taken to dismiss the employee, they must be informed of their right to appeal against this decision.

Do You Need Assistance to Manage Sickness Absence Effectively and Legally?

The specialist employment law team at Employment Law Services (ELS) LTD have extensive experience in advising UK Employers on their legal obligations to ensure compliance.  If you have any queries about your legal obligations you can call us on 0800 612 4772, Contact Us via our website or Book a Free Consultation online.

Getting Hybrid Working Right – A Guide for Employers

Hybrid working is on the rise across the UK following the Covid-19 pandemic but are employers ready to address the range of legal and practical issues it creates?

What is Hybrid Working?

Typical hybrid work arrangements allow employees the flexibility to alternate between working in the office or remotely giving them the independence to choose how they can work best on any given day.  Hybrid workers may work exclusively at home (on a full-time or part-time basis), divide their working time between home and their employers’ premises, or may work at home on an occasional basis.  They may be mobile workers who use their home as an administrative base, or they might work away from the employers’ premises in purpose-designed centres or local hubs.

The Covid-19 pandemic certainly acted as a catalyst for hybrid working, forcing many employers to pivot to an alternative working model to continue trading through the lockdown but the trend towards flexible working continues despite the removal of lockdown restrictions.

In October 2021, we confirmed that the UK Government had published its proposals to reform the existing flexible working legislation to make the right to request flexible working a day one right and the government’s flexible working taskforce has since recommended that flexible working should be the default position for all workers post-pandemic, so it seems clear that hybrid working is here to stay.

Undoubtedly, there has been a steady increase in the number of hybrid workers who spend part of their time working from their workplace and part of their time working from a remote location, such as their home, and the results of a recent Acas survey on hybrid working show that 60% of employers surveyed have seen hybrid working increase following the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, 52% have seen an increase in staff working from home full-time.

Hybrid Working: Considerations for Employers

The term “homeworker” is not defined in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) but as the move towards more flexible working continues and the demand for homeworking or hybrid working increases, many employers will need to address a broad range of practical and legal issues.  Key considerations for employers include:

The contractual and policy provisions, such as:

  • Content of section 1 and section 4 statements
  • Changing terms and conditions of employment
  • Hours of work
  • Salary and benefits
  • Expenses
  • Confidentiality
  • Equipment, data security and monitoring
  • Right to enter
  • Trial periods and a right to revert

The legal and practical considerations, including:

  • Reporting and appraisals
  • Data protection
  • Health & safety
  • Computers and display screen equipment
  • Insurance
  • Tax

Hybrid Working:  Issues Employers Should Address

Employers introducing hybrid working arrangements or entering homeworking arrangements will need to address a variety of legal and practical issues, including:

  • Considering the need to tailor standard employment contract clauses to encompass homeworking or hybrid working.
  • Introducing new policies and reviewing existing policies to set out the arrangements and conditions for homeworking or hybrid working.
  • Taking appropriate measures to protect confidential information and personal data.
  • Reviewing the health and safety implications of the arrangements, including carrying out a risk assessment.
  • Deciding whether any special equipment should be provided.
  • Considering whether any special planning or insurance arrangements are required.
  • Deciding what arrangements should be made for the management and supervision of certain types of homeworkers and hybrid workers.
  • Identifying the tax consequences of homeworking and hybrid working.

Do You Need Assistance to Introduce Hybrid and/or Homeworking?

The specialist employment law team at Employment Law Services (ELS) LTD have extensive experience in advising UK Employers on their legal obligations to ensure compliance.  If you have any queries about your legal obligations you can call us on 0800 612 4772, Contact Us via our website or Book a Free Consultation online.

Long Covid IS a Disability Says the Employment Tribunal

An employment tribunal has determined that an employee with long COVID symptoms was disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010).

Long Covid Symptoms

At the beginning of June and with a suspected 1.8 mission people in the UK estimated to be experiencing Long Covid Symptoms, we considered whether Long Covid is a disability under the Equality Act.  At that time the likely answer to this question was both unclear and untested but following a recent ruling at the Employment Tribunal, the answer in this case at least appears to be a clear YES.

Background of the Long Covid Case

From April 2001, Mr Burke was employed as a caretaker by Turning Point Scotland, a charity providing a range of services for individuals facing learning disabilities, alcohol and other drug use, mental health, autism, early onset dementia and Huntington’s disease.

In November 2020, he tested positive for COVID-19 initially with only mild, flu like symptoms but after isolating, he developed severe headaches and fatigue. Because of these symptoms, Mr Burke had to lie down to recover after waking, showering and dressing and he struggled standing for long periods. He could not undertake household activities, like cooking, ironing and shopping and experienced joint pain, a loss of appetite, a reduced ability to concentrate and difficulties sleeping. He also felt unable to socialise.

From January 2022, his health began to improve. However, the symptoms were unpredictable, and he would experience improvement only to suffer from fatigue, exhaustion and sleep disruption that continued to affect his day-to-day activities.

Mr Burke remained off work from November 2020 and fit notes provided by his GP referred to the effects of long COVID and post-viral fatigue syndrome. Two occupational health reports were obtained by Turning Point Scotland, one in April 2021 and the other in June 2021. Both reports concluded that it was “unlikely” that the disability provisions of the Equality Act 2010 would apply to Burke and that he was fit enough to return to work.  Despite this, relapses of his symptoms (in particular, fatigue) meant that he did not return to work and having exhausted his entitlement to sick pay at some time in June 2021, he was eventually dismissed in August 2021 because of ill health.

Mr Burke subsequently brought disability discrimination claims, among other claims. Turning Point Scotland sought to have the disability claim struck out on the basis that his condition did not constitute a disability under the Equality Act and a preliminary hearing was held to determine this point.

The Employment Tribunal Judgement

At the preliminary hearing, the tribunal had to determine whether Mr Burke was disabled during the relevant period. It concluded that he was.

It considered that he was not exaggerating his symptoms and had a physical impairment (post-viral fatigue syndrome caused by COVID-19), noting that there was no incentive for him to remain off work when he had exhausted sick pay. The physical impairment had an adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities and this effect was more than minor or trivial and long term because it “could well” be that it would last for a period of 12 months when viewed from the dismissal date (the last alleged discriminatory act).

The tribunal noted that the employer’s own view was that there was no date when a return to work seemed likely.

Case: Burke v Turning Point Scotland [2022] 5 WLUK 490 (27 May 2022) (Employment Judge Young).

What Can Employers Do to Manage Absence in Suspected Cases of Long COVID?

In consideration of both the EHRC statement and the established definition of a disability under the EqA 2010, Employers should adopt a cautious approach when managing cases of suspected Long COVID that may be considered a disability under the EqA 2010.

Key steps Employers should take include:

  • Investigate the cause and likely length of absence: Employers should establish the reason for absence and consider whether an individual is likely to return to work in the foreseeable future.
  • Obtain medical evidence: Depending on the illness in question, employers should consider requesting that the employee attends an examination with an independent specialist doctor or occupational health expert. The employer will normally bear the cost of an examination where it has been undertaken at their request. Information from an independent specialist who has not previously been responsible for the employee may be seen as more reliable than information from an employee’s GP.
  • Meet and consulting with the employee regarding medical evidence. If the employer has obtained a medical report, it should meet the employee to discuss the report and consult with the employee before taking any action on the basis of its recommendations. Consultation involves an ongoing exchange of information and views concerning the employee’s illness between the parties and full evaluation of any available medical evidence. This is especially important where there is any conflict between the evidence put forward by the employee and that obtained by the employer.
  • Consider reasonable adjustments or alternative employment. In consultation with the individual, the employer should consider whether there are any reasonable adjustments open to the employer to enable the individual to return to work in some capacity in the foreseeable future.  Employers should also consider if there is another job within the business that might be more suitable for the employee.  Any discussion of redeployment should be approached sensitively, as an employee may see it as a criticism of their abilities, or a demotion. If the job is in another office the employer will need to consider any relocation arrangements.  Reasonable adjustments may also need to be made to the procedure itself. For example, meetings could take place at the employee’s home or other convenient location, the employee might require more notice of meetings than provided for by the employer’s policy or more time to read material and prepare for meetings.
  • Dismissal and its alternatives. Where it looks as if the employee will not be able to return to work, or the prognosis is such that it cannot be said when (if at all) the employee might be fit, the employer will need to consider the situation carefully. There may be options to explore other than the obvious route of dismissal on capability grounds. It is important to consider these options both from the point of view of unfair dismissal law and because there may be contractual entitlements which arise and failure to explore them may give rise to claims for breach of contract.

Do You Need Assistance with a Long-Term Absence Issue?

The specialist employment law team at Employment Law Services (ELS) LTD have extensive experience in advising UK Employers on their legal obligations to ensure compliance.  If you have any queries about your legal obligations you can call us on 0800 612 4772, Contact Us via our website or Book a Free Consultation online.

Is Long COVID a Disability Under the Equality Act?

1.8 million people in the UK are estimated to be experiencing long COVID symptoms by the latest Office of National Statistics (ONS) COVID-19 Infection Survey, but how many are likely to be considered to be disabled under the Equality Act 2010?

Long COVID Symptoms

According to the latest Office of National Statistics (ONS) COVID-19 Infection Survey, based on self-reported long COVID symptoms, it is estimated that 1.8 million people in the UK are experiencing long COVID symptoms.

What is Long Covid?

Where COVID symptoms persist for more than 4 weeks, someone will be diagnosed with ongoing symptomatic COVID but where symptoms persist for more than 12 weeks and cannot be explained by any other conditions, they will be diagnosed with Post-COVID Syndrome or “Long COVID”.  Developing Long COVID doesn’t appear to be linked with how ill someone is when they first get COVID-19 and people who had mild symptoms at first can still have long-term problems.

The most common symptoms of Long COVID include:

  • extreme tiredness (fatigue)
  • shortness of breath
  • chest pain or tightness
  • problems with memory and concentration (“brain fog”)
  • difficulty sleeping (insomnia)
  • heart palpitations
  • dizziness
  • pins and needles
  • joint pain
  • depression and anxiety
  • tinnitus, earaches
  • feeling sick, diarrhoea, stomach aches, loss of appetite
  • a high temperature, cough, headaches, sore throat, changes to sense of smell or taste
  • rashes

Is Long COVID a Disability?

The short answer is:  Maybe.

This answer will provide very little comfort for employers managing absences related to suspected cases of Long COVID and the absence of a test capable of diagnosing Long COVID and varying recovery times complicates matters even further.

In a tweet posted on 7 May, the EHRC stated that “without case law or scientific consensus, the EHRC does not recommend that “Long COVID” be treated as a disability”. Unsurprisingly, COVID support groups and unions expressed concern at this approach and, the following day, the EHRC published a clarificatory statement, in which it said that, although long COVID is not currently a condition which automatically constitutes a disability under the Equality Act 2010 (a deemed disability), if a person’s symptoms have a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, long COVID might amount to a disability, which would be determined by an employment tribunal or court in the usual way.

The Equality Act 2010 Definition of a Disability

In cases that do not involve deemed disabilities or excluded conditions, the question of whether an individual is disabled will be answered with reference to the all-important statutory definition in section 6(1), EqA 2010, which says:

“A person (P) has a disability if P has a physical or mental impairment, and the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities”.

Claims a Sick Employee Might Bring

The EqA 2010 prohibits direct disability discrimination indirect disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, disability harassment and victimisation in the workplace. It also puts employers under a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees and job applicants who are placed at a substantial disadvantage because of their disabilities.

There are a number of different claims that might arise out of an employee’s sickness, depending on whether the employee is disabled under the Equality Act 2010 and whether the employer ultimately decides to dismiss the employee by reason of their incapacity.

What Can Employers Do to Manage Absence in Suspected Cases of Long COVID?

In consideration of both the EHRC statement and the established definition of a disability under the EqA 2010, Employers should adopt a cautious approach when managing cases of suspected Long COVID that may be considered a disability under the EqA 2010.

Key steps Employers should take include:

  • Investigate the cause and likely length of absence: Employers should establish the reason for absence and consider whether an individual is likely to return to work in the foreseeable future.
  • Obtain medical evidence: Depending on the illness in question, employers should consider requesting that the employee attends an examination with an independent specialist doctor or occupational health expert. The employer will normally bear the cost of an examination where it has been undertaken at their request. Information from an independent specialist who has not previously been responsible for the employee may be seen as more reliable than information from an employee’s GP.
  • Meet and consulting with the employee regarding medical evidence. If the employer has obtained a medical report, it should meet the employee to discuss the report and consult with the employee before taking any action on the basis of its recommendations. Consultation involves an ongoing exchange of information and views concerning the employee’s illness between the parties and full evaluation of any available medical evidence. This is especially important where there is any conflict between the evidence put forward by the employee and that obtained by the employer.
  • Consider reasonable adjustments or alternative employment. In consultation with the individual, the employer should consider whether there are any reasonable adjustments open to the employer to enable the individual to return to work in some capacity in the foreseeable future.  Employers should also consider if there is another job within the business that might be more suitable for the employee.  Any discussion of redeployment should be approached sensitively, as an employee may see it as a criticism of their abilities, or a demotion. If the job is in another office the employer will need to consider any relocation arrangements.  Reasonable adjustments may also need to be made to the procedure itself. For example, meetings could take place at the employee’s home or other convenient location, the employee might require more notice of meetings than provided for by the employer’s policy or more time to read material and prepare for meetings.
  • Dismissal and its alternatives. Where it looks as if the employee will not be able to return to work, or the prognosis is such that it cannot be said when (if at all) the employee might be fit, the employer will need to consider the situation carefully. There may be options to explore other than the obvious route of dismissal on capability grounds. It is important to consider these options both from the point of view of unfair dismissal law and because there may be contractual entitlements which arise and failure to explore them may give rise to claims for breach of contract.

Do You Need Assistance with a Long-Term Absence Issue?

The specialist employment law team at Employment Law Services (ELS) LTD have extensive experience in advising UK Employers on their legal obligations to ensure compliance.  If you have any queries about your legal obligations you can call us on 0800 612 4772, Contact Us via our website or Book a Free Consultation online.