@deliver_els, Author at Employment Law Services (ELS) LTD

Understanding Employment Status, The Risks of Getting it Wrong and What You Can Do To Avoid Them

Posted on 22 June 201812 June 2023 by @deliver_els

UK employment laws are extremely complex and with the government introducing regular changes, many UK employers often struggle to keep up to date and keep their business compliant.

The thought of complying with these complex UK employment laws often leaves business owners concerned and unsure about employing staff directly and so many choose instead to use self employed workers, thinking this means they won’t need to worry about typical employment related matters… but it’s not that simple!

An increase of atypical contracts has effectively blurred the lines between self-employed and employed status and so employers should be very careful when entering into any sort of working relationships. A basic explanaiton of each status/category is as follows:

Employee: Under section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) an employee is defined as “an individual who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract of employment”. Under section 230(2) of ERA 1996, a contract of employment means “a contract of service or apprenticeship, whether express or implied, and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing”.

Worker: A worker is defined under section 230(3) of ERA 1996 as an individual who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract of employment; or any other contract, whether express or implied and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing, whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of the contract that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual.

Self-Employed: A person is self-employed if they run their business for themselves and take responsibility for its success or failure and they aren’t paid through PAYE.

Significance of the distinction

The distinction between the three categories is significant for a number of different reasons, including the following:

1) Employers and employees have obligations that are implied into the contract between them (for example, the mutual duty of trust and confidence). Some core legal protections only apply to employees, most particularly the rights on termination of employment granted under ERA 1996 (the right not to be unfairly dismissed and the right to receive a statutory redundancy payment). As mentioned above (see Worker status), workers enjoy limited protection under employment law.

2) Only employees are covered by the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures

3) Only employees will be automatically transferred to any purchaser of their employer’s business under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246).

4) The tax and social security treatment of a person providing services depends on their status.

5) An employer is vicariously liable for acts done by an employee in the course of their employment. This vicarious liability is unlikely to extend to independent contractors or self-employed individuals.

6) An employer is required to take out employer’s liability insurance to cover the risk of employees injuring themselves at work. Self-employed individuals or independent contractors may not, in every case, be covered by this insurance and may want to consider entering into appropriate insurance for their own benefit.

7) Employers owe employees statutory duties relating to health and safety. Independent contractors may not be covered under these duties although they will be covered under the employer’s common law duty of care in respect of occupier’s liability.

Increasingly, disputes over the definition of working relationships between individuals and Employers are being referred to Employment Tribunals where preliminary hearings are being used to determine the legal definition and, in many cases, businesses who thought they were contracting self-employed individuals have found they are actually employing them and so immediately find themselves subject to the full range of UK employment law.

Employee who accepted £200 to become labour-only subcontractor was a worker entitled to holiday pay

In a recent case at the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the EAT upheld an employment judge’s decision that a general labourer, who was employed for four years before accepting £200 in exchange for becoming a labour-only subcontractor for the same company, was a worker for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Working Time Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1833). The tribunal therefore had jurisdiction to hear his claims for unlawful deductions in respect of unpaid holiday pay.

The employment judge had been entitled to find that the necessary mutuality of obligation existed during each assignment or period of work undertaken. There had been no express provision about substitutes being permitted and, on the evidence, the employment judge had found that this did not occur. Accordingly the requirement for the personal performance of work had been met. The labourer did not actively market his services to the world in general and had been recruited by his former employer to work as a member of its workforce under a supervisor at particular sites or to transfer goods between sites. The requirements of integration and control had therefore also been met. (Plastering Contractors Stanmore Ltd v Holden UKEAT/0074/14.)

Lack of mutuality of obligation between assignments irrelevant to whether court interpreters were “in employment” for discrimination purposes

In another recent case heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the EAT overturned a tribunal’s decision that two interpreters, who performed regular assignments for HM Courts and Tribunals service (HMCTS), were not “in employment” under the Equality Act 2010 and were therefore unable to pursue race discrimination claims. The tribunal had misdirected itself in taking into account an irrelevant factor; the absence of mutuality of obligation between the interpreters and HMCTS between assignments. The key question for discrimination purposes was whether the interpreters, when engaged, were employed “under a contract personally to do work”.

The EAT remitted the case to the same tribunal to consider afresh whether the interpreters provided their services to HMCTS “in a position of subordination”. If they did, their discrimination claims could proceed. On the other hand, if they were truly independent providers of services to the world at large and HMCTS was merely one of their professional clients, they would not be protected. (Windle v Arada and another UKEAT/0339/13.)

So how can employers work out whether the working relationships they have with individuals are that of employer/employee or employer/self-employed?

Over the years, various different tests have been used to determine the nature of working relationships between individuals and Employers including the ‘Control Test’, the ‘Integration Test’ and the ‘Economic Reality Test’ but these days, preliminary hearings held by Employment Tribunals use the ‘Multiple Factor Test’.

The ‘Multiple Factor Test’ looks at a number of different factors opposed to just one or two. The factors normally taken into consideration include but are not limited to the following:

1) Does the worker receive a regular wage or a one off payment or fee?

2) Can the employer dictate the place of work and the way it is to be carried out, in other words what is the employer’s degree of control in the relationship?

3) Does the employer have the right of exclusive service?

4) Does the employer have the right discipline and the power to dismiss the worker?

5) Who owns the tools or other means of production?

6) To what extent is the employer obliged to provide work for the worker to perform and to what extent is the worker obliged to accept such offers of work? Commonly known as ‘mutual obligations’.

Recent case law suggests that the minimum criteria to establish a contract of employment is mutuality of obligations and control but this is no guarantee that the presence of these two criteria means there is definitely an employer/employee relationship. However, if either of these is missing then there won’t be an employee/employer relationship.

The Importance of Having a Contract

It is critical that employers correctly determine the nature of the working relationship they have with their workers and then review their contracts to ensure they are compliant with current legislation and are what they actually were intended to be.

The concept of a contract of service is one explored extensively in case law, where it is distinguished from a contract under which a person gives service as an independent contractor under a contract for services.

The terms “contract of service” and “contract for services” carry no statutory definition and the category into which a particular contract falls is determined according to case law. In very simple terms, under a contract of service a person agrees to serve another, whereas under a contract for services they agree to provide certain services to the other. However, that simple formulation is the start, not the conclusion, of the legal analysis.

Key Points Employers Should Consider

1) The nature of the duties that can, and cannot, be delegated – both in terms of the proportion of those duties to the rest of the duties and whether they are the “dominant purpose” of the agreement. If the duties that can be delegated are the dominant purpose of the agreement, it is unlikely to be a contract of service.

2) When the right to delegate will arise, whenever the individual chooses or just when they are unable to do the work.

3) Who organises and pays the substitute.

4) Whether the right to delegate is subject to any limitations, in particular as to who can be used as a substitute.

5) Whether the individual would be able to profit from delegating the duties (that is, whether they could pay any substitute less than they receive themselves).

6) The absence of mutual obligations (that is, to provide work and to do it) is also likely to be fatal to a finding of a contract of employment. While this would appear to rule out any contract of employment existing between parties who have not contracted with each other at all, where the individual is supplied to work for an organisation by an intermediary such as an employment business, which sits in the middle of the contractual chain, the possibility of an implied contract between an individual and the organisation to which they actually give their services is now a possibility and will be considered by employment tribunals.

7) Where a person works under a series of short-term contracts, it is possible that each of those could be a contract of service, even if it is short and temporary. Similarly, it may be necessary to assess the overall nature of the relationship to determine whether an over-arching employment contract exists due to sufficient mutuality of obligation in the period between periods of work.

8) The degree of control exercised by the organisation over the worker will always be a relevant factor. However, control is unlikely to be the only relevant factor. The tribunals or courts are likely to create a picture from which it is necessary to step back in order to form an overall view.

How Can You Avoid Getting Caught Out?

Contact Us – we will undertake full review of your current arrangements and provide you with our findings and recommendations
Ensure you have approproraie contracts should be drafted and issued to ensure the nature of the working relationship is clearly determined.
Give us a call on 0800 612 4772 and we’ll help you to prevent problems and protect your business.

Top tips to help employers stay on the ball throughout the World Cup

Posted on 19 June 201812 June 2023 by @deliver_els

World Cup fever is well and truly underway, this blog focuses on how to manage your football fanatic employees and embrace the competition in the workplace.

From football crazy fans, to those that just enjoy the occasional game, times like these will see most employers having to deal with a larger number of annual leave requests, sick days and moans about not having time to watch some of the matches.

Acas’ full guidance for the World Cup 2018 include top tips such as:

Sporting and events policies

These can be used for all sporting events and not just the World Cup. This policy should be made up of provisions that cover HR and health and safety issues; outlining any exceptions you would be willing to make during a major event.

Time off

All annual leave requests should be considered fairly. As football is not everyone’s thing, a consistent approach should be applied throughout.

The right to refuse

Employers should note that they are well within their rights to refuse annual leave if they receive too many requests, or if it is clear that the business will suffer with too many employees off at the same time.

Absence levels

Employers should be aware of high levels of absence and late attendance throughout the World Cup. In this instance, monitoring absences in line with the companies’ absence policy is recommended.

Social media policy

It is likely that there will be an increase in the use of social media such as, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter etc throughout the World Cup. Employers should remind all employees of the company’s social media policy during working hours. This policy should be clear on what will be viewed as acceptable and unacceptable internet use.

Alcohol policy

Showing up to work under the influence may be viewed as a matter of disciplinary. Employers should have drug and alcohol policies in place to ensure that problems are dealt with effectively and consistently. All employees should be reminded of this policy.

Employee behaviour

Employees may get fairly competitive and carried away with rivalries during the World Cup. It is important that employees are aware that verbal abuse will not be tolerated in the work place. Verbal abuse includes threatening, shouting, swearing, insulting or mocking an individual.

Employers are responsible for preventing bullying and harassment and will be liable for any harassment suffered by their employees. Having an anti-bullying and harassment policy in place can help prevent these problems.

Most importantly, have fun!

Employers should treat the World Cup as an opportunity. Any international sporting event is a great way to bring your team together and create a fun working environment. Employers may wish to relax some of the rules (for example, allowing employees to wear football shirts or organise a sweepstake) gestures like these will not go unnoticed and can really boost employee morale in the workplace.

How can Employment Law Services (ELS) help?

If you are an employer who requires assistance with any of the issues raised in this blog contact us today for your free consultation 0370 218 5662.

Employers – Avoid an Own Goal During FIFA World Cup 2018

Posted on 15 June 20188 June 2023 by @deliver_els

Introduction

The 2018 FIFA World Cup started yesterday and will run until 15 July. Whilst this will no doubt excite football fans others will be less excited, including many Employers, not least due to the difficulties it could cause them.

The not so good news for UK Employers

With kick off times ranging from 1pm to 7pm staff could still phone in sick, or worse simply not turn up in order to watch matches and this could have serious implications for Employers.

To help Employers better understand the risks and equip them with tools to better manage the situation and create a positive outcome for both employer and employee, we’ve outlined below the keys points Employers should consider.

Potential Issues Employers Might Face

Unauthorised absence;
Staff being drunk / under the influence of alcohol at work;
Inappropriate conduct by employees – discrimination, racism, bullying or harassment;
Increases in holiday requests from both football and non-football fans alike.

Ways Employers Could Avoid Issues

1. Ensure You Have Clear Policies in place including:

Sickness & Absence Policy
Code of Conduct
Discipline & Grievance Policy
Bullying & Harassment Policy
Drugs & Alcohol Policy
Equality & Diversity Policy
2. Manage absenteeism in advance.
- Make it clear to employees that absences without authorisation will not be paid and may lead to action under the Disciplinary Policy.
- Utilise Return to Work Interviews to identify and address fake sickness absence or absent resulting from post-match hangovers
3. Reconsider Your Holiday Arrangements
- Relax caps on the number of employees that are allowed to be on holiday at one time
- Where staff have indicated they want to see certain matches, encourage them to take the time off as annual leave.
- Remember non football fans may make holidays requests during the same period and so you will need to ensure you treat all holidy requests fairly and equally. Granting a holiday request by a male employee but refusing a holiday request from a female employee could trigger a claim of sex discrimination!
4. Some Other Things to Consider
- Screening matches in a meeting room or communal area.
- Relaxing your Internet Policy and allow employees to stream matches on their PCs.
- You will need to ensure you have the appropriate licenses in place which allow screening or streaming of live TV within the workplace.
Events like this can create legal pitfalls for Employers, especially those who don’t have up to date HR policies in place. If you would like a free assessment or specific advice on this or any other employment related matter Contact Us today on 0800 612 4772 or alternatively request a Free Quote Now.

Employment Status: Supreme Court dismisses Pimlico Plumbers’ appeal

Posted on 14 June 20188 June 2023 by @deliver_els

Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down its eagerly sought verdict on the employment status of plumber, Gary Smith.

In the unanimous vote, the Supreme Court dismissed Pimlico Plumbers’ appeal and upheld earlier rulings that Mr Smith was in fact a worker and not a self-employed contractor.

In this case, the Supreme Court had to conclude:

Whether Mr Smith was obliged to personally carry out his work duties; and
Whether Pimlico Plumbers could be viewed as a client or customer of Mr Smith

The main feature of Mr Smith’s contract was that he had the obligation to carry out the work himself and did not have the right to pass the work on to someone else. However, he did have the right to pass on the work to another Pimlico Plumber, this was a qualified right which was not set out in the written contract.

Mr Smith was able to decline work and take some financial impact, but this did not outweigh the factors that pointed against Pimlico Plumbers being a client. Further, Pimlico Plumbers were in control of Mr Smith’s work uniform, his administrative duties and his wages. This relationship was a fundamental indictor when determining whether Pimlico Plumbers were a client of Mr Smith.

Taking all of the above into consideration, the Supreme Court held that the original tribunal had been right to conclude that Mr Smith was a worker and not self-employed.

What does this mean for employers?

The Supreme Court’s decision does not set any new legal grounds or redefine any of the legal tests that should be used when verifying an individual’s employment status.

However, it is important that employers are aware of what defines the employment relationship as it not only sets out their responsibilities, but individuals rights too. It also affects how they pay tax and national insurance and some entitlements.

A person will be classed as a worker if:

They have a contract or other arrangement to do work or services personally for a reward (your contract doesn’t have to be written)
Their reward is for money or a benefit in kind, for example the promise of a contract or future work
They only have a limited right to send someone else to do the work (subcontract)
They have to turn up for work even if they don’t want to
Their employer has to have work for them to do as long as the contract or arrangement lasts
They aren’t doing the work as part of their own limited company in an arrangement where the ‘employer’ is actually a customer or client

A person will be classed as an employee if:

They’re required to work regularly unless they’re on leave, for example holiday, sick leave or maternity leave
They’re required to do a minimum number of hours and expect to be paid for time worked
A manager or supervisor is responsible for their workload, saying when a piece of work should be finished and how it should be done
They can’t send someone else to do their work
The business deducts tax and National Insurance contributions from their wages
They get paid holiday
They’re entitled to contractual or statutory sick pay, and maternity or paternity pay
They can join the business’s pension scheme
The business’s disciplinary and grievance procedures apply to them
They work at the business’s premises or at an address specified by the business
Their contract sets out redundancy procedures
The business provides the materials, tools and equipment for their work
They only work for the business or if they do have another job, it’s completely different from their work for the business
Their contract, statement of terms and conditions or offer letter (which can be described as an ’employment contract’) uses terms like ‘employer’ and ‘employee’

A person will be classed as self-employed if:

They’re in business for themselves, are responsible for the success or failure of their business and can make a loss or a profit
They can decide what work they do and when, where or how to do it
They can hire someone else to do the work
They’re responsible for fixing any unsatisfactory work in their own time
Their employer agrees a fixed price for their work – it doesn’t depend on how long the job takes to finish
They use their own money to buy business assets, cover running costs, and provide tools and equipment for their work
They can work for more than one client

How can Employment Law Services (ELS) help?

If you require employment law advice on any of the issues raised in this article, or any other employment issue give us a call today on 0370 218 5662. You can also find out more about our fixed fee HR packages here and fixed fee employment law packages here, or get in touch.

Does ‘misconduct’ need to be ‘gross’ to make a dismissal (without prior warnings) fair?

Posted on 6 June 20188 June 2023 by @deliver_els

Does dismissal need to be ‘gross’ to make a dismissal fair?

No, held the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Quintiles Commercial v Barongo.

In this case, the Claimant worked in pharmaceutical sales and found themselves dismissed on the grounds of misconduct after failing to complete compliance training and not attending a compulsory training course.

On appeal, the employer re-classed the dismissal as serious, yet, upheld the dismissal. The Employment Tribunal (ET) argued that the dismissal was unfair, maintaining that for serious misconduct dismissals prior warning should be applied.

The EAT upheld the employers appeal on the grounds that s90 (4) of the Employment Rights Act does not specify that dismissing an employee without prior warning for conduct that falls short of gross misconduct must be unfair. Although in most cases, such dismissals are outside the band of reasonable responses.

The ET approached this case with the firm view that where conduct fell short of gross misconduct, dismissal could only be viewed as appropriate is prior warnings were in place. The ET should have taken into consideration the entire circumstances of this case, including the ACAS Code of Practice and the employer’s disciplinary procedure. This case has been referred to a new ET for reconsideration.

When considering the fairness of a dismissal, tribunals have to determine whether the employer has acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating the reason given by the employer as an adequate reason to dismiss.

If an employee has committed an act of gross misconduct, then clearly there will be a sufficient reason to dismiss. But what exactly is viewed as gross misconduct?

Gross Misconduct

Gross misconduct occurs when an employee has acted so badly that the employer/employee relationship is destroyed. In this event the employer merits the right of instant dismissal without notice or pay of notice.

It is recommended that employers give equip their employees with a clear indication of what type of behaviour will be considered as gross misconduct. Such provisions should be set out in the contract of employment or within the staff handbook. This then allows employers and employees to easily identify such behaviour in advance and will help determines later that you regard it as significant.

Examples of gross misconduct include, intoxication, theft, bullying or harassment, serious breaches of health and safety rules and fighting or physical abuse.

Depending on the nature of the organisation, employers may wish to detail other offences. Such as, accepting or offering bribes, misuse of confidential information or setting up a competing business.

Employment Law Support for Employers

Terminating the employment relationship should always be a last resort and it is crucial that employers seek legal advice before taking drastic action.

If you are an employer and require employment law advice on workplace policies or any other employment issue give us a call today on 0370 218 5662. You can also find out more about our fixed fee HR packages here and fixed fee employment law packages here, or get in touch.

Government Equalities Office has published new guidance on dress codes & sex discrimination

Posted on 25 May 20188 June 2023 by @deliver_els

Setting a workplace dress code – your responsibilities as an employer

Dress codes are seen as a legitimate part of an employer’s terms and conditions. There are many different reasons why employees may be asked to wear a uniform. For example, an employee may be asked to wear a uniform to communicate a corporate image and ensure that its customers/clients can easily recognise them. However, it is important that this dress code does not discriminate, for example, allowing both men and women to wear trousers in the workplace.

Government guidelines state employers should avoid gender prescriptive requirements. For example, any requirement to wear make-up, have manicured nails, wear hair in certain styles or to wear specific types of hosiery and skirts will be viewed as unlawful, assuming there is no equivalent requirement for men. These guidelines state further: “A dress code that requires all employees to dress smartly would be lawful, provided the definition of smart is reasonable.”

Health & Safety

When setting a dress code, employers should consider any health and safety implications. For example, if your employees are required to wear particular shoes (as part of a dress code rather than for PPE purposes).

Reasonable adjustments for disabled employees

Where an individual meets the definition of a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010, employers will be required to make reasonable adjustments to any elements of the job which may place a disabled employee at a disadvantage in comparison to a non-disabled person.

Transgender employees

Transgender people are those who have gender identity or gender expression that differs from their assigned sex. Many of whom will undergo the process of aligning their life and physical identity to match their gender identity – this is called transitioning.

Government guidelines state: “Transgender employees should be allowed to follow the organisations dress code in a way which they feel matches their gender identity. If there is a staff uniform, they should be supplied with an option which suits them.”

Dress codes and religion

An employer’s uniform requirements must not be discriminatory in respect of the protected characteristics governed under the Equality Act 2010 – religion being one of these characteristics.

Guidelines provide that employers should be flexible and not set dress codes which prohibit religious symbols that do not interfere with an employee’s work.

Frequently asked questions by employers

“Is it lawful for an employer to set dress codes for men and women?”

Employers can regulate what their employees wear to work to a certain extent. However, men and women should be treated equally. For example, if you require male employees to wear a shirt and tie, then it would not be unlawful to ask female employees to dress in smart office attire.

“Is it lawful to ask a female employee to wear high heels to work?”

It is likely to be viewed as unlawful asking a female to wear heels to work, due to the discomfort and health complications that come with high heels, there is also no male equivalent.

Mental Health Awareness Week 2018

Posted on 14 May 20189 June 2023 by @deliver_els

Mental health awareness week (14^th-20^th May 2018) focuses on stress and how we cope with it.

This blog will look at helping employers and employees create a mentally healthy working environment where everyone feels valued and supported.

What is mental health?

Mental health includes a person’s emotional, physiological and social well-being. It affects how we think, feel and act. It also determines how we handle stress, related to others and make choices.

Why is recognising and addressing mental health so important?

Employees who feel good about themselves tend to work more productively, interact better with others and bring value to the workplace.

A survey, commissioned by the Mental Health Foundation and Mental Health First Aid England found that a quarter of millennials said they put their health at risk to do their job, compared with 18% of baby boomers – those aged between 53 and 71.

A study conducted by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) highlights the impact mental health has on the workplace. The main findings of this study were:

57% find it harder to juggle multiple tasks
80% find it difficult to concentrate
62% take longer to do tasks
50% are potentially less patient with customers/clients

Here are a few simple steps you can take to ensure your workplace is mentally healthier:

(1) Recognise that all employees have mental health

It is important that employers are aware that all employees have mental health, in the same way an individual has their physical health. Both can deteriorate from good to bad, depending on circumstances that may be going on in and out of the working environment.

(2) Keep in contact with employees who are off with a mental health issue

You should find the right balance when keeping in touch with an employee who is off sick, employers should be aware that the longer an employee is off with a mental health issue, the less likely they are to return to work. This is because they will begin to lose confidence and feel kept in the dark from the business. Therefore, whilst an employee is off on long-term sick leave, employers and managers should:

Be clear the business will support the employee during this period and their job will still be there when they return
Keep employees in the loop about important developments at work
Have an open door policy so the employee can approach you at any time with concerns they may have

(3) Culture

Employers should develop a mental health policy, by doing this employee’s will be reassured that the business cares for their wellbeing. Having these policies in place will create an overall awareness in the workplace and encourage individuals to talk about mental health.

(4) Communication

Employers should use staff newsletters, posters and other internal communications to promote mental health awareness. As well as this, introducing discussions into staff meetings can be used as an opportunity to check in with how employees are feeling.

(5) Ensure all managers are properly trained

By training up managers, employees will be reassured that their management team is educated in mental health matters, meaning they will feel more inclined to come forward and discuss any problems they may be having in and out of the working environment.

(6) Zero tolerance to bullying policies

All employers should ensure there is a zero-tolerance approach taken to bullying in the workplace. It should be communicated in these policies that those found guilty of such conduct will be subject to disciplinary action.

Employment Law Support for Employers

The Supreme Court hands down its long-awaited decision in the appeal of Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS v Haywood

Posted on 1 May 201812 June 2023 by @deliver_els

This complaint was brought by Haywood who was dismissed after being made redundant by her employers, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. In this case the claimant had worked for the NHS for over 30 years as an associate director of business development.

The provisions of her employment contract ensured that she was entitled to a minimum 12-week notice period but was silent on how the notice should be communicated.

On the 13^th April, Haywood received the news that her role was at risk of redundancy following the merger of the two NHS bodies. She accepted this, however, requested that the final decision should not be made in her absence – informing her employers she was on annual leave from the 19^th April 2011 – these holidays had already been approved by her employers.

On the 20^th April, the Trust sent a letter to Haywood that provided her with a written notice of termination – with the knowledge that she was away on holiday at the time.

However, they mistakenly said that they had given her written notice that was dated the 21^st April, which appeared to be misdated; the letter was sent on the 20^th April to her home address by recorded delivery and by normal post. A copy of this letter was also sent to her husband’s email address.

This meant that should the claimants employment be terminated before her 50^th birthday, she would receive a reduced pension.

Because Haywood had told her employers she would be on holiday and would not be back until 26^th April, there was no one at home when the recorded delivery letter arrived.

It wasn’t until the 26^th April that her father in-law went and collected the letter from the local sorting office. Haywood then returned home from her holiday on the 27^th April, it was this date that the letter was read.

Her employers claimed that the notice was communicated effectively on the 20^th April, which meant her 12-week notice period lapsed before her 50^th birthday, which fell on the 20^th July.

The claimant argued that the notice of termination was not communicated until she actually read the letter on the 27^th April. Thus, her termination date would be after her 50^th birthday.

Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal upheld this case, agreeing that the claimants notice period commenced on the 27^th April, with the Court of Appeal expressing that the effective date is when the individual reads the termination letter.

A statement from the Supreme Court read: “On the unusual facts of this case, the date on which the 12-week notice period started to run was highly material. If it commenced on the 27^th April, it expired on the 20^th July 2011 – the date of Mrs Haywood’s 50^th birthday – and Mrs Haywood would be entitled to claim a non- actuarially reduced early retirement pension.”

Due to the absence of an expressed contractual provision, the courts had to determine the implied contractual term to work out when the notice to effect. Haywood’s employers argued that a common law rule, that originated from landlord and tenant cases, maintained that notice was given when the letter was delivered to the claimant’s address.

Haywood was then dependent on the approach taken by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in previous employment cases; that notice takes effect when it has been received and read by the employee. The Supreme Court majority supported this approach and agreed that the EAT was correct.

Employer considerations

The decision made in this case is important for both employers and employees, as the date in which the employment relationship is terminated can play a crucial factor when determining an employee’s entitlement to a bonus or contractual payment, insurance, employee benefits, the right to claim unfair dismissal, redundancy pay and pension rights.

How can Employment Law Services (ELS) help?

For employers that already have contracts of employment in place, we can review all existing documents and update them as required; for employers that have nothing in place, we can produce effective contracts of employment for all employees from scratch.

Therefore, If you require employment law advice on any of the issues raised in this article, or any other employment issue give us a call today on 0370 218 5662. You can also find out more about our fixed fee HR packages here and fixed fee employment law packages here, or get in touch.

Supporting employees during Ramadan 2018

Posted on 26 April 201812 June 2023 by @deliver_els

This year Ramadan begins on the 16^th May and will last for 30 days, until the 14^th June. Ramadan is the 9^thmonth of the Islamic calendar and is observed by Muslims worldwide as a month of fasting to commemorate the first revelation of the Quran.

Throughout this period, Muslims will fast and engage in extra prayers and worship. Therefore, it is extremely important employers are aware of their obligations towards their Muslim employees.

What does the law say?

In the Equality Act 2010, religion or belief can mean any religion. For example, an organised religion like Christianity, Judaism, Islam or Buddhism, or, a smaller religion like Rastafarianism or Paganism. Legislation also covers those with no beliefs or lack of beliefs.

Therefore, it will be viewed as unlawful should you treat an employee less favourably because of their religion or beliefs.

Have workplace policies on religious observance

Employers should have workplace policies regarding religious observance during working hours. This will ensure the workplace is consistent and managers are aware of what they can do to support employees. Lack of policies or failing to support your employees will expose the business to complaints of religious discrimination.

Employers and managers should be considerate and understanding

Throughout Ramadan, managers should be mindful of Muslim colleagues and offer support to help manage their workload. Employers may find that the productivity levels of employees who are fasting are affected, thus, employees should not be unduly penalised or criticised in the even that they lose productivity during fasting hours.

Flexible working

Where possible, employers may wish to consider implementing flexible working arrangements during Ramadan, all of which should be clearly set out in the workplace religious observance policy. In this instance, employees may prefer to start working earlier and work right through lunch in order to finish early. Employers will find that productivity is less likely to be affected when employees are granted the right to work flexibly during Ramadan.

Be corporative with holiday requests

With Ramadan ending in the middle of June this year, Muslim employees may wish to take annual leave to allow them to celebrate Eid with friends and family. There is no automatic legal requirement to time off, however, employers and managers should try their best to accommodate any requests during this time period.

Should an employer decide to refuse an employee time off following Ramadan, there should be a clear and fair reason provided as to why their annual leave request cannot be accommodated at that time.

How can Employment Law Services (ELS) Help?

EAT says father who was refused enhanced shared parental pay was not discriminated against!

Posted on 16 April 20188 June 2023 by @deliver_els

The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) has ruled it is not discriminatory to refuse a new father enhanced pay whilst on shared parental leave.

In Ali v Capita Customer Management the judge held that the Employment Tribunal (ET) had failed to take into consideration the purpose of paid maternity leave when it reached its decision and ruled that it was not a matter of discrimination refusing the father the same rights as the new mother following the birth of their child.

In 2017, the ET held it was direct sex discrimination to allow Mr Ali only 2 weeks leave on full pay, when female employees were allowed 14 weeks maternity leave with full pay.

In this case, Mr Ali’s wife had been advised by her GP to return to work early to help with her post-natal depression. Mr Ali’s employers granted him 2 weeks fully paid paternity pay and a number of weeks paid annual leave following the birth of his child.

However, Mr Ali’s employers had only offered statutory minimum pay thereafter, this meant that once he had taken his 2 weeks paternity leave, everything after would be a substantial loss in earnings.

Mr Ali lodged a complaint to the ET claiming that his employers refusing to pay him the same rate as his partner was direct sex discrimination. His employers appealed this, arguing that Mr Ali could not compare his situation to the new mother on maternity leave as he was not the one who had given birth.

The ET responded agreeing with Mr Ali, arguing that he had not compared himself to the mother who had given birth. Suggesting further, that after the initial two – week recovery period that is specific to a baby’s mother, a female employee on maternity leave was an appropriate comparator; it was irrelevant that Mr Ali had not given birth.

Last week, Capita Customer Management won its appeal against the ET decision.

The EAT held that the ET had poorly interpreted Mr Ali’s circumstances. Arguing that the purpose of maternity pay and leave is to recognise the “health and wellbeing of a woman in pregnancy, confinement and after recent child birth.”

Working Families’, Chief Executive, Sarah Jackson said: “We intervened in this case because the particular workplace disadvantage women face having experienced pregnancy and child birth must continue to be recognised in law. Only women can experience child birth and maternity leave is to protect a women’s health and wellbeing – it cannot simply be equated with ‘child care’.”

However, she does highlight the importance of providing men with greater childcare rights. “We have long called for greater rights and pay for working fathers – including a properly – paid, standalone period of extended paternity leave for fathers – but these should complement, not undermine, the rights of working mothers.”

Employers will be happy to hear they do not have to take any drastic measures to amend workplace policies immediately. However, they should be aware of any potential risks and challenges that may be made by male employees and be fully prepared to proceed with complaints should they arise.

How Employment Law Services (ELS) Can Help Employers?

Employers concerned about any of the issues raised in this article can take advantage of Employment Law Services (ELS) free consultation service – call us today to arrange your free consultation – 0800 612 4772.