A worker who suffers a deduction from wages may bring a claim in the employment tribunal to recover the shortfall if it was not made in accordance with a written agreement with the employer or provided for in writing within the contract of employment itself. In Agarwal v Cardiff University and another, the EAT held that a claim for unlawful deduction of wages cannot be made where the employment tribunal would have to engage in an exercise of interpreting the terms of the contract in order to decide whether or not there has been a deduction.
The Government’s gender pay reporting regulations came into force in April this year and require companies with 250 or more employees to publish details on what they pay male and female staff. The Government has heralded the regulations as an important step forward in its campaign to promote gender diversity in the workplace. However, a new survey by Chartered Management Institute (CMI) has revealed that employers must also urgently address organisational culture as part of their efforts to close the gender pay gap. Chief among this is addressing what it refers to as ‘casual’ acts of gender discrimination: CMI’s survey reveals that four in five (81%) managers have witnessed gender discrimination or bias in their workplace in the last year alone. As many as 86% of survey respondents said they supported the idea of a more gender balanced workplace, but CMI’s research suggests this is not translating into meaningful action to prevent or challenge negative behaviours. Just 42% o
The key requirement for a service provision change to be covered by TUPE is that there is – immediately before the transfer – an organised grouping of employees whose principal purpose is carrying out the activity that is being transferred. That is not simply a matter of adding up what percentage of an employee’s time is spent on a particular activity – it is the employees’ principal purpose that matters. Key to that is the way in which the employees have been organised. In Tess Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust v Harland and others however, the EAT accepted that it might be necessary to look beyond how the group is organised and consider the work that they were actually doing by the time of the transfer. The case involved the specialist care provided for a patient with severe learning disabilities. The South Tees Care Commission Group (CCG) contracted with Tess Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) to provide for this patient’s care by a dedicated
New research has revealed that the Bank of Mum and Dad is now on a par with the 9th largest mortgage lender in the UK and will be involved in 26% of all property transactions that take place in the UK market this year. Read More
Whatever you might have read elsewhere, the Court of Justice for the European Union has categorically not ruled that employers are allowed to ban the wearing of Islamic headscarves in the workplace. But what the Court does say in the case of Achbita v G4S Secure Solutions NV is controversial enough. The employer was a contracting company operating in Belgium and Ms Achbita was employed as a receptionist working for its clients. She is a Muslim, but for three years complied with an unwritten rule that employees should not wear visible signs of their religious, philosophical or political beliefs in the workplace. Back in 2006, however, she informed her employer that she would be coming into work wearing a headscarf. The employer adopted the formerly unwritten rule into its workplace regulations and dismissed her.
An otherwise redundant employee who unreasonably refuses an offer of suitable alternative employment will not be entitled to a redundancy payment. In Dunne v Colin and Avril Ltd, Mrs Dunne worked for her previous employer for more than 12 years as a book-keeper. She was then transferred to a new employer which took over when her old employer became insolvent. She was employed on the basis of a 24-hour week but the new employer felt that it could only offer her 16 hours. This was not acceptable to her and the new employer offered her a further 8 hours a week working in the warehouse. When she refused, this offer she was dismissed and the employer refused to give her a redundancy payment.
It looks like the key employment law issue for 2017 will be employment status. In recent months, there have been cases affecting a range of workers operating in the ‘gig economy’ where employment tribunals have held that they are entitled to paid holiday under the Working Time Regulations and to be paid at the rate of the National Minimum Wage. Some of the press coverage has struggled with the idea that individuals who are classed as ‘self-employed’ are actually entitled to a range of employment rights, but there is nothing unusual or surprising about this. The fact that someone is self-employed for tax purposes simply means that they are not an employee employed under a contract of employment. They can still be entitled to rights afforded to ‘workers’ – those who have a contract to perform work, but who are not running a business independent of the ‘employer’. They therefore qualify for working time and minimum wage rights (an important consideration given that the