hris, if you cannot read this email you can view it at: http://cecollect.com/ve/ZZ83i9772F3174t90Zp7
Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP ALLIANCE

Employment Update





26 January 2007

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

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

Online gambling in the workplace


Online gambling in the workplace is costing businesses over £300m in productivity each year, according to research commissioned by the business and technology consultancy Morse. Of the workers surveyed, almost a third (30%) confessed to placing a bet online during office hours or knowing a colleague who has. The gambling culprits were most likely to be men (38%) and almost half (46%) were aged 25-34. 7% of the workers who gamble online admitted that they bet once a day and 15% confessed to gambling three times a week.

Morse notes that online gambling is stunting efficiency, with the average worker who does gamble online spending over a day and a half of their working life each year doing so. Although this is on a par with pulling a 'sickie', most businesses do not have the same disciplinary policy in place for online gambling as they do for taking unnecessary time off.

This research has major implications for employers. Significantly, almost a third (28%) of the workers surveyed did not know what their organisation's Internet usage policy was, and 74% of male workers admitted they still gambled online at work despite knowing their organisation's regulations. It is important for employers to revisit their Internet policies, establish what will and will not be deemed to be acceptable use in the workplace, and ensure that any failure to comply may trigger disciplinary action.

Click here to access Morse's press release.


New penalties for illegal mobile phone use

The Transport Secretary, Douglas Alexander, announced this week that motorists will face tough new penalties for breaking the law by using a hand-held mobile phone while driving. From 27 February, the Road Safety Act 2006 will introduce a fixed penalty of three penalty points as well as a fine of £60.

The Government introduced new laws to prevent motorists from driving while using a hand-held mobile in December 2003. However, according to the figures produced by Douglas Alexander, whilst 92% of people agree with the law, 21% of drivers admit to breaking it.

Whilst these new penalties clearly have implications for individuals, they will also have an impact on employers. As the numbers of employees using mobile phones for work purposes steadily increases, employers need to ensure they have policies in place to address employees' use of mobile phones and establish what constitutes appropriate usage.

Scope of claims for deductions from wages

The Court of Appeal has recently outlined the scope of the law governing claims for unauthorised deductions from wages, clarifying in what circumstances they should instead be claims for breach of contract and be brought in the county court.

In Coors Brewers Ltd v Adcock and ors, the claim arose from a dispute about whether bonus amounts were payable under a share bonus scheme. The Court of Appeal confirmed that as the disputed bonus figures could not be identified or quantified, the claim in reality fell outside the law governing claims for unauthorised deductions from wages, which was designed for straightforward claims where employees can point to a quantified loss. Where a claim is for a disputed sum, which cannot be quantified, it should therefore be brought as a breach of contract claim in the county court (or, where the individual is no longer employed, in the tribunal).

This is a useful decision for employers and clarifies an often complex area of law. It is possible to foresee many circumstances where disputed sums, which are commonly the subject of deductions claims (such as bonuses), may not be readily identifiable. Forcing an employee to use the county court, rather than the tribunal, with its greater costs implications, will often be an unappealing prospect.

Jealousy dismissals

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has recently decided that a dismissal prompted by jealousy does not constitute sex discrimination.

In B v A, a solicitor had been having an intimate relationship with his personal assistant and, unknown to the solicitor, the personal assistant had started a relationship with another man. When the solicitor saw them together, he reacted by dismissing his personal assistant the same day.

Whilst the tribunal found that the personal assistant had suffered sex discrimination, the EAT overturned its decision. The EAT noted that the key question which the tribunal should have asked was whether the solicitor acted on the grounds of the personal assistant's sex or for some other reason. It was clear that the reason for the dismissal in this case was jealousy and this was not sufficient to establish a case of sex discrimination.

Agency workers and parallel contracts

In the recent case of Cairns v Visteon Limited, the EAT examined the increasingly common triangular relationship between worker, employment agency and client (or "end user").

The agency worker in this case was employed by an employment agency under a contract of employment but chose to bring her claim of unfair dismissal against the end user, on the basis that the claim would have greater prospects of success. However, as the agency worker already had an express contract with the employment agency, the EAT could not establish either a good policy reason or any business necessity for implying another, parallel, contract between her and the end user.

Whilst this decision does not rule out the possibility of parallel contracts between a worker and both an employment agency and end user, it acknowledges that this could be problematic, and would depart from the key principle that a servant cannot have two masters in respect of the same job.

This case is undoubtedly a significant one. It narrows the scope of previous decisions in this area, which indicated that there may be circumstances which could justify a contract of employment being inferred between an agency worker and an end user. By restricting the impact of these previous decisions, and examining policy reasons and business necessity, the EAT has provided welcome clarification for the many employers who deal with employment agencies on a regular basis.

Updated ACAS guide

ACAS has updated its advisory booklet on tackling discrimination and promoting equality. Click here to access the booklet.


City bonuses - call for change in practice

The Chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission, Jenny Watson, has called for greater pay transparency in the City. The EOC would ideally want full disclosure of both pay and bonus details, with firms being required to set out in advance the criteria used for setting bonuses.

Click here to access the article from The Times (18 January 2007).


Working outside the box

52% of men and 48% of women say they want to work more flexibly, according to a new research from the EOC.

'Working outside the box' is an interim report of the EOC's investigation into transforming the workplace. The EOC notes that 6.5 million people in Britain today could be using their skills more fully if greater flexible working opportunities were available. Significantly, the new findings indicate that the lack of flexibility affects almost as many men as women, and more non-parents than parents.

The report also demonstrates that many employers are responding by making changes to the traditional work culture. Flexitime and home working are becoming increasingly popular and new technology is encouraging a more innovative approach to how work is organised. In return, employers are reportedly benefiting from better staff engagement and loyalty and raising productivity.

Click here to access 'Working outside the box'.


Flexible future?

The CBI and the TUC have both signed an agreement to promote flexible working in the UK. The agreement, written by Work Wise UK, a not-for-profit initiative, aims to significantly increase smarter working practices in the UK and has been signed by a number of businesses and organisations.

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 unsubscribe, tick the box and click the submit button.

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.