In R (Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the High Court upheld a claim brought by the IWGB union that the UK had failed to properly implement Articles 8(4) and (5) of the EU Health and Safety Framework Directive (89/391/EC) by limiting protection from detriment on health and safety grounds under section 44 of the Employment Rights Act (ERA) to employees. A copy of our update on that case can be found here
In brief In a recent article for Compliance & Risk Journal, we explore the issues involved with investigating criminal conduct by employees. We also suggest ways of addressing those concerns, recognising that the employer is often involved in a delicate balancing act involving juggling different types of related risk. Key…
The government has announced that due to the continuing impact of the pandemic, the gender pay gap reporting deadline for the 2020/21 reporting period will be extended by six months to 5 October 2021 for qualifying employers in the private sector. Employers are, however, encouraged to report their figures before the deadline.
The Supreme Court has upheld previous judgments that Uber drivers are workers, not self-employed. In doing so, it has held that the terms of a written contract should not be treated as the starting point in determining worker status. Courts and tribunals should instead look at all the circumstances of the case, and reach their own conclusion on whether an individual is a worker.
In a case in which it was held that an employee was unfairly dismissed for setting up a camera to monitor anyone who entered his private office, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has also provided useful guidance on the approach employers should take to investigating and hearing connected disciplinary hearings against more than one employee.
The EAT has held that an employer could not rely on the defence under the Equality Act that it had taken all reasonable steps to prevent harassment, as its diversity training had become “stale”. The EAT confirmed that when looking at whether the step relied on by the employer, here diversity training, was reasonable, “it is not sufficient merely to ask whether there had been training, consideration has to be given to the nature of the training and the extent to which it was likely to be effective.”
The EAT has given some further guidance on when a disclosure can reasonably be viewed as made in the public interest for the purposes of qualifying for whistleblower protection. In this case, an allegation that a solicitors firm had overcharged a single client was capable of being in the public interest.
In a sexual harassment claim against Harvey Weinstein and other respondents, the Court of Appeal has held that an employment judge was entitled to order all parties (including one living in California who had not at any material time been in Great Britain) to provide disclosure of relevant documents and that the relevant tribunal rule of procedure had no geographical limitation.
The EAT has ruled on a number of aspects of agency worker rights and held that the right to be informed about vacancies in the host organization is solely a right to information; it does not create a right to be allowed to apply, or be considered, for a vacancy.
An employee who created a new email distribution list containing the email addresses of all staff in his department and refused to delete it when asked by management to do so was taking part in the activities of an independent trade union (of which he was both a member and a representative). The formal warning he received was an unlawful detriment.