On Friday 7th July, the Employment Tribunal issued its judgement in the case of Allan & Others v Fife Council in which the Tribunal found that the Fife Council Job Evaluation Scheme did not meet the requirements of the Equality Act 2010, rendering the scheme unreliable.
Under the Working Time Regulations 1998 reg 15(1) a worker has the right to elect when he/she wants holidays by giving employer notice (unless the employment contract says otherwise, the notice given must be twice as long before the planned leave, as the length of planned annual leave itself).
Coronavirus (COVID-19) has significantly impacted businesses in the UK, with whole industries - such as hospitality and travel - almost grounding to a halt, leaving many employers facing tough decisions when it comes to staff retention.
A recent People Management and CIPD survey revealed that a quarter of UK employers expect to make permanent redundancies in response to the coronavirus crisis. At the same time, more than half are predicted to furlough staff members.
With the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK, you might find yourself having to take time off work. During this time, it is important to know your rights to sick pay if you cannot work due to COVID-19.
With the UK in lockdown, there’s no denying the impact this will have on businesses in the coming weeks and months. From sick pay to homeworking, for employees and employers, knowing your rights and obligations during this time is crucial.
Flowers v East of England Ambulance Trust is a recent English Court of Appeal case, concerning voluntary overtime and holiday pay and how this affects ambulance crews.
There has been much litigation in recent years regarding what pay is properly payable by employers to their workers when on holiday. The current position is:-
Hundreds of schools are closed and travel has been disrupted after wintry conditions have brought heavy snow and ice across the UK.
Another important legal battle in the UK has been lost by Uber, after a London tribunal rejected its appeal against the verdict that it must treat all its drivers as ‘workers’. To do so would mean that all of Uber’s drivers in the UK would be entitled to minimum wage in addition to holiday pay, something which Uber, and the ‘gig economy’ as a whole is looking to avoid.
The introduction of Employment Tribunal fees in July 2013 was a highly controversial decision at the time. The Government and those in favour of the fees argued that the fees would help fund the system and would discourage vexatious and frivolous claims. Those against the fees argued that it would deter those with legitimate claims from pursuing them and so would prevent access to justice. They also argued that the fees were disproportionate.
April has been a busy month in the employment world with a few material changes emerging from it, one being, employers of larger work forces (250 or more) being obliged to provide the Government with information regarding gender pay gap.
A Renton bus driver has won nearly £7000 in an unfair dismissal case brought against bus firm McColl’s travel, based in Dumbarton. As it has transpired, Steven Glover now faces a financial headache after the case has uncovered a tax black hole which has come around after years of incorrect salary deductions.
The much anticipated and highly controversial Trade Union Act 2016 came fully into force on 1st March 2017. Some of the provisions of the Act were already in place. During passage through Parliament, the initial Trade Union Bill was revised following intense criticism by opposing MPs, Peers and especially the Trade Union movement. The Government made a number of concessions such as abandoning its initial plan to have a ban on check-off in the public sector. The role of the Certification Officer (a type of Regulator for Trade Unions) was also revised.
There has been a 70% reduction in the number of employment cases which are brought to Tribunal. This percentage is the same for multiple claims as for individual claims. This trend is as a result of the requirement for fees to be paid in order for an individual to have their claim heard before an Employment Tribunal.
Once again, employment law is in the news following the resignation of Mark Warburton from Rangers. There was initially some confusion regarding events, with Warburton and his team adamant they had not resigned from their position.
Employment status is a subject that has been in the news recently following the much publicised decision in the case of Mr Yaseen Aslam and Mr James Farrar v UBER. In the UBER case, it was held that the individuals were workers and therefore were entitled to certain benefits. The Employment Judge was less than complimentary about the practices of UBER. That being said, UBER have announced that the decision is subject of appeal with a hearing likely to be fixed in the next few months.
Whether or not an individual is an “employee” is generally determined by reference to the contract under which he or she works. The Employment Rights Act 1996 Section 230(1) defines an employee as:-
Employers use disciplinary procedures to inform employees that their performance isn’t to the standard expected and to monitor and encourage improvement. However, when not used or conducted appropriately, if dismissed an employee may have an arguable claim for unfair dismissal (if they have two years continued service), regardless of how blatant their misconduct.
Following on from the previous blog UBER Driver Case – Tribunal finds that they are “workers” on 28th October, UBER have announced that they will appeal against the decision of the Employment Tribunal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The Employment Tribunal found in favour of the Claimants that they were workers and so entitled to certain employment rights in contrast to UBER’s position that the drivers were self-employed.
