Field Fisher Waterhouse
pens_concep.jpg

Employment Update

17 July 2009

In this update: Equal pay claims | Default retirement age to be reviewed in 2010 | Tribunals pass on details of whistleblowing claims to regulators | A quarter of British workers too scared to take holiday | Motherhood "devastates" women's pay and prospects

 


 

Equal pay claims – time limits following TUPE transfer


The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the time limit for equal pay claims which relate to a period prior to a transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) starts to run from the date of the transfer.


The Equal Pay Act 1970 provides for equal pay between men and women by implying an equality clause into all contracts of employment. An equal pay claim should be brought on or before "the qualifying date", which is usually six months after the last day on which the woman was "employed in the employment".

 

In Gutridge and others v Sodexo Ltd and another, the female claimants were all employed by North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust (the Trust) and worked at Hartlepool General Hospital. On 1 July 2001, they were all transferred under TUPE to Sodexo Limited (Sodexo). In December 2006, the claimants brought equal pay claims to recover six years arrears of pay and sought to compare themselves with male employees who, before and after 1 July 2001, still worked at Hartlepool General Hospital.


The women argued that the equality clause in their contracts meant that their contracts were modified so as to entitle them to the higher rate of pay received by their male comparators. The Trust was in breach by continuing to pay the women at a lower rate. When the women's contracts transferred to Sodexo under TUPE, Sodexo then became liable to pay the women at a higher rate and were also liable for the Trust's pre-transfer breach, which transferred under TUPE. The women also contended that the effect of TUPE was to deem their employment continuous and as they were still in "the employment", time for bringing the claim had not yet begun. Sodexo argued that the claims were time-barred. It argued that time should have run from 1 July 2001, when the women ceased to be employed by the Trust, so the time for bringing a claim had expired.


After examining previous case law relating to this point, the majority of the Court of Appeal confirmed that equal pay claims relating to the pre-transfer period must be brought against the transferee within six months of the date of the transfer. The time limit for equal pay claims relating to the continuing liability of the transferee post-transfer is six months after the end of employment with the transferee.


Back to the top

 

Default retirement age to be reviewed in 2010


The Government has published a strategy document, "Building a society for all ages", announcing that its review of the default retirement age of 65, which had originally been planned for 2011, will be brought forward to 2010.


The default retirement age of 65 is contained in the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, which provide that an employer may fairly dismiss employees who are over the age of 65 by reason of retirement. The default retirement age is currently subject to challenge by the National Council for Ageing (the "Heyday" challenge).


Back to the top

 

 

 

 

Tribunals pass on details of whistleblowing claims to regulators


The Government has launched a consultation on proposals to enable employment tribunals to pass on details about whistleblowing cases to industry regulators. The aim is to allow the underlying allegations (e.g. fraud or health and safety issues) to be investigated, where appropriate, by the relevant regulator.


The process is intended to enable employment tribunals to send copies of the claim form, or extracts from it, directly to the relevant regulator. The regulator would then assess the information and investigate it if appropriate, as part of their normal regulatory duties, procedures and processes. There would be a box on the claim form for the claimant to indicate their express consent to the tribunal passing a copy of the form to the regulator. The process would not involve any unsubstantiated allegations against companies being made public by the employment tribunal, with information only being shared with the relevant regulator.


The proposed new powers are intended to apply to cases brought on or after 6 April 2010. Consultation closes on 2 October 2009. 


Back to the top

 

 

 

A quarter of British workers too scared to take holiday


Almost 1 in 4 British workers are too scared to take their full holiday allowance this year, because of concerns about job security.


A study commissioned by www.HireScores.com reveals that almost 25% of British workers will not take their full holiday entitlement this year, most of whom will sacrifice their vacation to find favour with their bosses and keep their job.


In a study of over 1,000 employees in Britain, it was also revealed that of the people who do always take their full holiday allowance, more than a third check work related e-mails or call the office whilst they are on a break. The most common reason for workers keeping in touch with the office whilst on their holidays was to prove to their bosses that they were passionate about their job, as they hoped this would give them better job security.


Back to the top

 

 

Motherhood "devastates" women's pay and prospects


Motherhood can have a devastating impact on a woman's earnings, according to a report released by The Fawcett Society. The report, entitled 'Not having it all: How motherhood reduces women's pay and employment prospects' is a new survey of existing research, drawing together the most recent data from academic and government sources.


The report finds that:

  • before becoming parents, men and women are equally likely to be employed but childbirth marks the start of a great divide which continues even after children have left home. Just over half (57%) of mothers with children under 5 are in paid work compared to nine tenths of fathers.


  • even those women working full time experience a pay penalty. Partnered women without dependent children earn 9% less than men on average but for mothers with two children working full time the pay gap is 21.6%.

The Fawcett Society has called for new policy responses to reduce the impact of motherhood on a woman's earnings. Four areas are identified as priorities:

  1. Provide mothers with the support they need to return to jobs at their previous skills levels

  2. Enforce and extend the law to protect pregnant women and women on maternity leave

  3. Create substantially more part-time work in higher paid occupations

  4. Tackle the low pay that exists in sectors primarily employing women


Back to the top

 

 

Subscribe


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

 

The Employment and Pensions Group also provides a range of other value added services, in addition to the fortnightly employment update.

 

If you would like to receive any of our other services, simply click here, to indicate which service(s) you would like to receive and to confirm your contact details.

 

Printer friendly version

 

17 July 2009

Welcome to our fortnightly round-up of what's happening in employment law.
Where to find us
Employment and Pensions Group
Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP
35 Vine Street
London
EC3N 2AA
Tel: (0)20 7861 4000
Fax: (0)20 7488 0084
www.ffw.com




To unsubscribe visit: http://info.ffw.com/vtu/ZZx30hp61HLElu6583

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 2009. All rights reserved.