The Government plans to introduce fees into the employment tribunal system.  This could spell the end of the vexatious claimant and certainly the lower end employment disputes cases of little value.   

The Government announced earlier this year its proposal to introduce a fee on submitting a claim to the employment tribunal.  The intention is to encourage employers and employees to resolve disputes internally but the principal driver is to save the taxpayer and employment tribunal system money.  The system has suffered from overcrowding although this has been more to do with the glut of equal pay claims than a general increase in claims across the board.

Further news has been published about the plans by the coalition government to step up employment reform.   

As well as increasing the potential award of costs from £10,000 to £20,000 the government also intends to allow tribunals to impose financial penalties on employers found to have breached employment rights.  This is a troubling development for both employees and employers alike. 

The furore over the Coalition's plans to shake up employment legislation continues.  Like fashion, employment laws come and go with successive seasons (or governments) and quite often changes hailed as groundbreaking are rarely new. 

Take the increase in the qualifying period for unfair dismissal which is set to rise to two years from next year.  This is not a new initiative and takes us back to the late 90's.

From 2012 groundbreaking new rules are set to impose enhanced pension duties on employers.  This will apply to all employers who engage at least one worker. 

A 'worker' is anyone who works under a contract of employment or works under a contract to perform services personally (i.e. they cannot send a substitute or sub-contract the work) and is not undertaking work as part of their own business.

In a revelatory report leaked from Westminster, Government ministers propose a drastic change to the employment law landscape.

This gist of the report, written by influential venture capitalist Adrian Beecroft, is that businesses must be left to manage their own affairs in a way that allows them to be efficient in a more competitive domestic and global market.

Terminating someone's employment with immediate effect without cause, brings the employment contract to an end - right?  Wrong.  You could be excused for thinking that handing an employee a letter expressing that his employment was being terminated with "immediate effect" was a terminal event.  It certainly would give rise to a claim of unfair dismissal but what about the contractual position and more importantly when would it be sensible for the employee to keep the contract alive? 

The Court of Appeal has grappled with this issue in the long-running case of Geys v Societe Generale.  Mr Geys was the unlucky recipient of such a letter.  If his employment was terminated summarily on the date purported by his employer he lost out on a tidy bonus payment that would have become payable had he remained employed for a further period.

George Osborne has announced a shake-up of employment legislation with the intention being of saving British industry money and reducing the numbers of employment tribunal claims.

The first of the major reforms is the proposed increase in the qualifying period to claim unfair dismissl from one year to two years.  This is likely to take effect in April 2012. 

Well it is if you’re a security guard at any rate. In the case of Hughes v The Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd the firm’s David Gray-Jones appeared in the Court of Appeal. He represented the claimant and requested the court to consider the minimum permissible rest requirements between periods of work and the requirement for breaks during the course of working hours.

Unlike most workers Mr Hughes was not able to take uninterrupted rest breaks. His job duties required him to be continuously available to supervise and monitor access to the employer’s site. He had a rest area but had to remain on call during rest periods. His breaks could be interrupted by visitors to the site but if this occurred he was permitted to start the rest break again. He would also have a complete uninterrupted break at night although he could never be sure in advance that that would be the position.

Can an employee ‘dismiss’ himself, if he fails to respond to a letter stating that he will be regarded as having resigned unless he contacts his employer? The short answer is usually ‘no’ but then it is not always clear cut. This is something that we are sometimes asked to advise upon by employers and it is better to exercise a cautious approach than make assumptions about the employee’s status.

In the case of Zulhayir v JJ Food Services Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that a failure to respond to a letter did not constitute self-dismissal by the employee.

In the current economic climate compromise agreements are a familiar feature of the employment landscape.

ThomasMansfield Employment Law Solicitors regularly advise both employers and employees as to the terms and effect of compromise agreements but what are they?

In a week that has seen public disorder across the country, many employers will be reeling as the after-effects take hold.  Many employers (particularly in the retail sector) will face repairing damaged premises and employees will have faced disruption to public transport services.  Some employers may even have have to understand how to deal with employees who have been involved in the riots themselves.

As I sat in the office on Tuesday evening I could hear the disruption on Market Street Manchester as it happened whilst a police helicopter circled overhead.  On leaving the office, it was notable that the entire public transport network (buses and trams) had evacuated the city centre leaving many people to walk home or get taxis.  This continued into Wednesday and Thursday this week with services limited but thankfully this is now back to normal.

The second half of 2011 looks likely to be the calm before the storm in terms of employment law legislation; the government will focus on reviewing and consulting on which areas require change, rather than bringing new legislation into force.  However, the much anticipated Agency Worker Regulations 2010 come into force on 1 October 2011. These provide a significant improvement in the employment rights of agency workers.

The regulations cover agency workers supplied by a temporary worker agency to a hirer.  This includes most agency workers and those traditionally referred to as 'temps'.  To establish rights in these regulations the agency worker needs to be able to establish a comparator.

The Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (the Regulations) are due to come into force on 1 October 2011. The time between publication of the final Regulations and their entry into force is intended to give agencies and hirers sufficient time to adjust to significant changes to their regulatory framework, especially in view of the current economic situation. Certain aspects of the Regulations are supported by guidance.

The Regulations come into force on 1 October 2011 and apply to agency workers who are assigned to do temporary work (for hirers) through temporary work agencies.

After a flurry of public and bank holidays and the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, the government has announced that Tuesday 5 June 2012 will be a bank holiday, to commemorate the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. The late May bank holiday will be moved to Monday 4 June, to allow for a four-day weekend of celebrations.

As an employer, remember that despite the increase, there is still no statutory right to time off (paid or otherwise) on any public holiday.  Whether a worker can be required to work on a public holiday is a matter for the contract or, in some cases, simply the employer's managerial prerogative.  In many industries or occupations (such as retail, travel or emergency services) working on public holidays is a commercial or operational necessity.

If newspaper reports are to be believed George Osborne is promising a shake-up of UK employment legislation.  This comes as no surprise given that since the Conservative led coalition came into power, it has announced a plethora of proposed changes including increasing the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from one to two years. 

The Independent reports of the erosion of long-held employment rights with the intention of affording businesses greater flexibility.  The government has culled thousands of public sector jobs and is looking to the private sector to soak up the excess.

Will you be celebrating the royal wedding from your desk, in front of a computer screen or in the garden with a glass of Pimms? This is the question on many employees’ lips as the second four day break approaches.

With the exception that it is a one off, the holiday granted to the nation to celebrate the forthcoming royal wedding is no different to any other public holiday. Additional days to the usual bank and public holidays such as the May bank holiday and Boxing Day may be proclaimed as bank holidays. The next one is likely to be the Queen's Diamond Jubilee next year.

Well now may be your chance to do something about it.  The Department for Transport (DfT) is asking businesses to provide their views on alternatives to travelling to work, to inform its development of long-term alternatives to travel strategy. The calls for evidence seeks views on alternative methods of working, including home and remote working, flexible working and staggered hours, telephone and videoconferencing, and any other methods of reducing work-related travel. Responses are invited from a range of organisations including those not currently using such alternative methods of working who have until 31 May 2011 to answer the questionnaire. 

The ability to request flexible working is already on the statute books.  Regulations that would have extended the right to work flexibly for parents of children under the age of 18 have been scrapped by the Coalition government in a bid to cut red tape.  The right to request flexible working remains for parents of children under the age of 17 (or under 18 if the child is disabled) although the government has stated that it is committed to extending the right to all employees, with a consultation to be launched later in the spring. 

The following changes come into force today

Additional paternity leave and pay

In the case of Moore v President of the Methodist Conference the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that a Methodist minister was an employee and so could bring an unfair dismissal claim.  It may surprise you to learn that in previous cases the courts have considered the spiritual nature of a minister's role and found that a minister could not be an employee.  Rather he accepts the call and his activities and duties are defined by conscience and not by contract.  Or to put it another way, God is the employer.  So said the aptly named Lord Templeman in the earlier case of Davis v Presbyterian Church of Wales.  He went on to assert that as a minister is a servant of God an employment tribunal cannot determine whether a reasonable church would sever the link between minister and congregation.  

However in a subsequent case of Percy v Board of National Mission of the Church of Scotland a majority of the House of Lords held that a minister of the Church of Scotland was in 'employment' and so was afforded protection for the purposes of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.   In a further case of New Testament Church of God v Stewart the Court of Appeal held that a pastor was an employee of his church.

Now that would be a thought.  This is not quite what Vince Cable the Business Secretary has proposed but what he has suggested is a three year moratorium on all new domestic regulation for businesses with fewer than 10 staff.

Mr. Cable is proposing to abolish the promised extension of flexible working rights affecting thousands of parents and families from April and will chair the “Reducing Regulation Committee” which will look at other ways to do away with badly designed legislation.

The expectation of privacy in the workplace is often misunderstood. Generally speaking employees should have no such expectation when using work computers. In the case of Gosden v Lifeline Project Limited published this week however, the Employment Appeal Tribunal went a step further in establishing that dismissal of an employee for sending an offensive e-mail from a home computer to a colleague’s home computer, was fair.  No privacy attached to the e-mail since it was a chain e-mail asking recipients to pass it on.  This is apposite given the prevalence of social media such as Facebook in today’s climate.  Too often, employees are prepared to criticize their employers, thinking that it is fair game because it is done after hours, within the confines of their own home or on their own equipment.  What they don’t always appreciate is the fact that this could amount to slander and seriously damage the employer’s reputation or bring its name into disrepute.

The line between work and play is often blurred and the employment tribunal will consider whether activity was carried out in the course of employment.  It also will consider whether conduct outside work has a bearing upon a person’s ability to do their job.

Despite advances in equality and diversity over the last 30 years, women are still under-represented at board level, a new report by Lord Davies suggests. In its report, the government has revealed the disparity between male and female decision makers and explores the reasons why such inequality should exist at the highest level. The report is based upon hard statistics as draws upon case studies from around the world.  It also seeks to bolster female equality by emphasising the benefits that women can bring to the boardroom debate.

Lord Davies began his independent review into gender equality in August 2010 and the report was published yesterday.

A right for employees to request time off work to undertake study or training has applied to employers with 250 or more employees since 6 April 2010.

This right was due to be extended to all employees, regardless of the size of their employers from 6 April 2011. However, following consultation, the government has decided to delay the extension of the right so that it can scrutinise the potential impact on smaller employers.

In what some might call a cruel twist of fate, an employer found he was on the wrong end of an award of compensation of £5,000 plus £8,000 costs when his employee took him to court for psychological injury, despite the fact that the employee admitted to stealing £845 from him.

In an incident redolent of the medieval stocks on the village green, the employer Mr C marched Mr G through the streets of Witham, Essex, whilst forcing him to wear a cardboard sign that read: “Thief. I stole £845. I’m on my way to the police station.”

Draft regulations on the abolition of the default retirement age of 65 have been published this week. The current provisions, which make it not discriminatory to force someone to retire at 65, will be abolished from 6 April 2011 as will the provisions which make a dismissal for retirement fair, provided a certain procedure is followed. At the moment, in order to retire someone, an employer must serve notice on the employee informing them of their intention to retire them within a strict time-frame. The last date for issuing such a notice of retirement under the current rules will be 5 April 2011.

This is a major change to the law which currently allows employers to dismiss on the grounds of age without penalty. As from 6 April 2011 any dismissal because of age will constitute direct age discrimination unless it can be objectively justified. The concept of being able to justify discrimination may sound odd but it certainly is not new and appears in many strands of discrimination law, although where the age regulations differ, is the extent to which an employer can justify direct discrimination.

In the case of Fulcrum Pharma (Europe) Ltd v Bonassera the employment appeals tribunal (EAT) held that an employment tribunal was correct to find that an employee had been unfairly dismissed for redundancy when her employer had identified her as the only employee at risk. It had failed to consult properly with her over whether a more junior employee should have been included in the pool for selection.

Where there is a genuine redundancy situation, a dismissal may still be unfair if the employer acts unreasonably in the redundancy process.

In a speech at the Policy Exchange, the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Trevor Phillips said that the EHRC will change its approach to tackling discrimination.  Mr Phillips said that the EHRC had previously intervened in cases retrospectively, a process which he described as "slow, overly legalistic and wholly inadequate".  Instead, the EHRC will take a "more systemic and preventative course" as well as examining discrimination from a scientific, rather than a political perspective.  Mr Phillips said that the EHRC will conserve its legal expenses to focus only on "the Really Bad Guys, like the BNP".  Mr Phillips also said that the EHRC will attempt to improve employers' attitudes towards the Equality Act 2010 and to increase their confidence that taking on women, older, minority and disabled staff would not cost them more.  Equality he said, should not be seen as a burden on society or a claim for special treatment.  Rather, it is about "doing the right thing" and should have a positive and not a negative effect on competitive advantage read why equality is essential to economic recovery

This week has seen two cases (one reported and another ongoing) that would not seem out of place in a "Carry On" film.  The first concerns Mr K an employee of a well respected department store who claims he was slapped on the bottom by a female colleague.  He claimed that when he asked her to stop it she replied: "I do it to all the boys". 

This raises two interesting issues.  The first is that of the over-sensitive claimant.  The second is the idea of the male victim.  Dealing with the first issue, the definition of harassment does anticipate that there may be cases of the "hypersensitive" complainant.  For conduct to amount to harassment it must firstly be unwanted.  Mr K says that is was.  It also must have the "purpose or effect" of violating the dignity of the complainant.  It is the "effect" with which we are primarily concerned here.  In determining whether the conduct has the required effect, the tribunal will consider the matter as the complainant may have perceived it, so as to imply a subjective text into what is principally an objective one. 

Abolition of the Default Retirement Age: your business needs to take urgent action before 31 March 2011

By popular demand we are offering a free lunchtime seminar on 9 March 2011. Our expert speaker will consider the implications for businesses faced with the abolition of the default retirement age on 1 October 2011.

David Cameron and Vince Cable the business secretary announced fundamental reforms to employment law and the employment tribunal system yesterday.

The avowed intention behind the proposed changes is to lift the burden of red tape on businesses as the private sector is asked to reverse the economic decline.  It is also the government’s intention to reduce regulation, provide the right environment to enable companies to grow and to kick-start job growth.

The maximum limit on employment tribunal awards will increase on 1 February 2011.  The headline changes are those to the compensatory award for unfair dismissal and the increase in a week's pay, which is used to calculate statutory redundancy.  The limit on unfair dismissal compensation will rise from £65,300 to £68,400 and the maximum amount of a week's pay will increase from £380 to £400.  In cases involving dismissal, the new figures will apply where the termination date is on or after 1 February 2011.  

The increase in unfair dismissal compensation does not mean that an employee who is dismissed unfairly is automatically entitled to the maximum.  Whilst compensation for unfair dismissal is usually the largest element of compensation awarded in cases of unfair dismissal, more often than not, an employee will not reach the maximum award.  

Speaking at the Demos think tank on Monday the deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg outlined the government's plans for more flexible working arrangements for parents.  Clegg who described the current paternity leave provisions as "Edwardian" went on to say that they place too great a burden on mothers.  Fathers have the benefit of only two weeks' paternity leave at the moment but this is set to change. 

In particular fathers will be allowed to share leave with their partners and more importantly the law will allow distinct time off for fathers which will not be transferrable to the mother, in so called "use it or lose it" chunks of time. 

Employees can only bring a claim for unfair dismissal if they have the necessary period of continuous employment at the date of termination. In most cases of unfair dismissal, the necessary period of service is one year.  click here for more information

The date of termination is either the date on which notice expires (even if the employee is on garden leave) or, if the employment terminates immediately, then the date on which that termination takes effect is the date on which the statutory minimum notice that should have been given would have expired.

Further news has been published

Read the government consultation