Georgina, if you cannot read this email you can view it at: http://cecollect.com/ve/ZZSsRB9191Q91kVTU9
Field Fisher Waterhouse

Employment Update




16 11 07.jpg


16 November 2007

Welcome to our fortnightly round-up of what's happening in employment law.

Future Events

We provide an annual comprehensive training prospectus, comprising seminars on key legal issues and a workshop programme.

Invitations will be sent out 4 weeks before each presentation. Alternatively, you may book your place by clicking
here, specifying which seminar or workshop you would like to attend, or asking to be added to our mailing list.

Workshops

Tuesday 20 November 2007
Dealing with redundancy and restructuring
9.00am - 11.30am
Click here to reserve your place

Tuesday 19 February 2008
Handling misconduct and poor performance
9.00am - 11.30am
Click here to reserve your place

Tuesday 18 March 2008
Tackling TUPE
9.00am - 11.30am
Click here to reserve your place

Annual HR Planner
Tuesday 15 January 2008
Half-day Seminar
Click here to reserve your place


Downloads
Employment-training-prospectus.pdf - 61.27 kb
10August2007.htm - 52.87 kb

Where to find us
Employment Team
Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP
35 Vine Street
London
EC3N 2AA
Tel: (0)20 7861 4000
Fax: (0)20 7488 0084
www.ffw.com



Comments



....................................................................................... .....

Printer friendly version

Employer can exercise mobility clause in a redundancy situation

 

In Home Office v Evans, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that, in the particular circumstances of this case, there was nothing to prevent the Home Office from invoking a mobility clause in a redundancy situation.


The tribunal had been wrong to treat an earlier case, Securicor v Curling, as authority for the proposition that an employer is not legally entitled to invoke a mobility clause in a contract when a redundancy situation might arise or has arisen on the closure of part of a business. The Court therefore distinguished Curling. The employer in this case was not entitled to rely on the mobility obligations as a defence at the tribunal hearing as it had already implemented the redundancy procedure, in which the employees had participated, and had not sought to rely on the contractual mobility obligations until the hearing - by which time it was considered too late to raise a new point.

 

In the present case, however, the Court stated there was no question of the Home Office "dodging" from one contractual procedure to another, having left it too late to invoke the mobility obligations and having waived its right to do so. From the time it made the announcement to staff to close the relevant workplace, the Home Office had made it clear to the employees that it was invoking the mobility obligations and would be following that procedure, rather than the redundancy procedure, which it consistently did.

 

 

Drunkenness at work through alcoholism was contributory conduct


In Sinclair v Wandsworth Council, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) recently upheld a tribunal's finding that a dismissal of an employee, who was an alcoholic and turned up to work drunk on two occasions, was unfair. The employer had failed to provide the employee with a copy of its alcohol policy and had failed to make it clear to the employee what steps he needed to take to avoid dismissal.


The EAT did, however, confirm that the tribunal's approach was mistaken when it assessed the reduction for contributory fault at 25%. The tribunal had taken the view that, since alcoholism was an illness, the employee's drunkenness at work could not properly be characterised as contributory conduct. The EAT confirmed this assessment was wrong, stating that it cannot be said that totally unacceptable conduct in an employment context (or in a criminal context) can be excused by reference to a background or underlying illness. It noted that, in certain circumstances, the protection of disability discrimination legislation is available where there is a link between the disability and the conduct in question, but the present case was not determined on a disability basis.

 

 

EAT overturns tribunal's refusal to stay age claim pending Heyday decision


According to recent reports, the EAT has confirmed that, in Johns v Solent SD Ltd, the tribunal was wrong to strike out an age discrimination claim by an employee who had been retired against his will. It should have instead stayed the claim pending the outcome of the campaign group Heyday's challenge to the default retirement age of 65 under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, which has been referred in the European Court of Justice (ECJ). 


Whilst the tribunal had refused the application to stay the claim on the basis that the arguments in Heyday had little prospect of success, it is understood that, following the EAT's decision, this age discrimination claim will now be stayed until the outcome of the Heyday reference to the ECJ. A written transcript of the judgment is awaited.

 

 

Government's intention to extend flexible working


The Government has announced further measures to extend flexible working rights to help working parents achieve a better work life balance, following publication of the latest "Work-Life Balance Employer Survey".


The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) has commissioned an independent review to determine how the current right to request flexible working can be extended to parents of older children.


The Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, John Hutton, said "The right to request flexible working not only helps millions of parents juggle work and family life, but can also benefit business by improving staff retention and productivity.


"We want to do more to support families while ensuring British businesses can compete in the global economy, so now is the right time to consider how we can extend the right to request to parents of older children."

 

 

Response to consultation on workplace representatives


Last year, the Government launched a review of the facilities and facility time provided to workplace representatives. Following consultation on these issues, the Government has now published a summary of the responses to the consultation and outlined its proposals.


The summary indicates that workplace representatives have very varied workloads and roles. Whilst some perform few tasks and require little time off or resource to undertake them, others perform their representative duties on a more or less full-time basis. The summary states that most workplace representatives fall somewhere in between, some of whom face problems in balancing their normal work duties with their representative functions.


The Government has proposed the following:

  • Non-regulatory recommendations - these include revising and updating the Acas Code of Practice on Time off for Trade Union Duties and Activities; devising new training tools to assist and encourage employers to help line managers work constructively with workplace representatives and issuing a joint declaration with trade unions and employer organisations describing the role of modern representatives.

  • Regulatory recommendations - these include not making any changes to the regulatory regime governing time off for representatives to perform their duties and undertake training; retaining the legal status of the Acas Code of Practice and revising the Acas Code of Practice to provide greater guidance on facilities, especially in relation to the security of communications by representatives.

 

Call for representative actions to plug pay gap


The recent survey of hours and earnings published by the Office for National Statistics notes that the gender pay gap now stands at 17.2% for full-time workers. Although the gap has narrowed, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has, in response to the survey, requested power to take 'representative actions' to support individuals in the courts. 

 

Acas adds millions to UK economy


According to research published by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, for every pound spent by Acas, over £16 is returned. This has generated benefits worth almost £800 million a year across UK businesses, employees and the economy.


The report, which analysed the six principal service areas provided by Acas, found that its work in resolving individual and collective disputes at work produced immediate savings to the economy of £313 million, while the advice and guidance provided to employers and employees contributed a further £475 million.

 

 

Subscribe now

If you have received this update from a colleague and wish to receive it yourself on a fortnightly basis, just click here to subscribe.


To opt-out from future communications please visit: http://info.ffw.com/vtu/ZZSsRB9191Q91kVTU9

This e-mail/publication is provided for information purposes only and is not a substitute for detailed advice on specific transactions and should not be taken as providing legal advice on any of the topics discussed, nor should it be taken as creating a solicitor-client relationship between the reader and Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP.

Please note that where this email/publication contains links to pages/items on third party websites, while such information may be available to be viewed and downloaded, this is subject always to the terms and conditions applicable to the particular website(s). Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP is not responsible for the content or operation of third party websites.

Copyright Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP 2007. All rights reserved.