Employment Update
7 November 2008
In a controversial move, a majority of the members of the European Parliament have voted to remove the opt-out clause from the 48-hour limit on the working week.
The Employment and Social Affairs Committee voted for the opt-out to lapse within three years. This vote comes despite the position adopted by the European Council earlier this year, which sought to maintain the opt-out clause, subject to conditions, rather than remove it. The matter will now be debated further by the European Parliament, before going to a full vote in December 2008.
The vote to eliminate the opt-out has been met with criticism from a variety of organisations. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) opposes the decision as it believes that it is up to employers and employees to work towards a better work-life balance. The CBI also commented that eliminating the opt-out would replace freedom with frustration. The TUC, however, said that the vote was a welcome step towards ending the UK’s long hours culture.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed that an employee’s effective date of termination was the date on which she read the letter terminating her employment, rather than the date it was received in the post.
In Gisda CYF v Barratt, Ms Barratt attended a disciplinary hearing and was told that a letter would be sent to her the following day. The letter sent by her employer stated that she had been summarily dismissed. However, when it arrived at Ms Barratt’s home, she was not there, having gone to London to be with her sister.
The EAT confirmed that the effective date of termination, for the purposes of deciding whether Ms Barratt’s unfair dismissal claim was in time, was when the letter was read by her, not when it arrived in the post. Her claim was therefore in time.
If Ms Barratt had
deliberately not opened the letter or she had gone away to avoid
reading the letter, she might have been prevented from saying that
the notice of dismissal had not been given to her. However,
this was not considered to be the case here. The EAT also confirmed
that the principle of constructive or presumed knowledge was not
appropriate in relation to the
The EAT has confirmed that an employer did not discriminate against an employee on the grounds of age when it introduced a requirement that, to progress to the top grade and receive a higher salary, the employee had to possess a law degree.
In (1) Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2) West Yorkshire Police Authority and others v Homer, the employee argued that because he was 61 and could not obtain a degree before his retirement, this requirement amounted to indirect age discrimination.
Although the tribunal agreed with the employee, the EAT did not. It held that there was no basis for concluding that there was any particular disadvantage which affected persons falling within the employee’s age bracket of 60 to 65. The requirement for a degree imposed a barrier but it was a barrier which applied to everyone. Irrespective of age, everyone would have to acquire the degree before being eligible for the higher salary. The EAT also held that the financial disadvantage that resulted from being unable to complete a degree before retirement was the “inevitable consequence of age”; not a consequence of age discrimination.
26% of employers have contingency plans for new or further redundancies in the next 12 months, according to a recent survey carried out by the CIPD and KPMG.
The survey, of 721 UK employers, reveals that of the 26% of organisations who have such contingency plans, 59% of them are planning to make redundancies in the next 3 months. The survey also revealed that the average cost of making an employee redundant across all sectors is over £10,000 and that managers, professionals and skilled non-manual workers are most at risk of redundancy.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has announced that it will be holding an online consultation to look at ways in which it can develop its three-year strategic plan and equality scheme.
The consultation period runs from 5 November 2008 to 7 December 2008 and during this period the EHRC will hold about 30 “consultation and involvement” events across England, Scotland and Wales. Click here for further information.
Business groups, unions and the government joined forces this week for the first meeting of the Fair Employment Enforcement Board.
The Board intends to protect vulnerable workers from unscrupulous employers who exploit their staff and undercut their competitors. The Board's first activities will be to oversee the launch of a single enforcement helpline to report cases of mistreatment and oversee a significant campaign to raise workers' awareness of their basic employment rights.
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.
|
The Employment and Pensions Group also provides a range of other value added services, in addition to the fortnightly employment update.
If you would like to receive any of our other services, simply click here, to indicate which service(s) you would like to receive and to confirm your contact details. |
7 November 2008
Future Events
Invitations will be sent out 4 weeks before each presentation. Alternatively, you may book your place by clicking here, specifying which seminar or workshop you would like to attend, or asking to be added to our mailing list.
Workshops
Wednesday 26
November 2008
21st century workplace - is technology a
help or hindrance?
09.00 - 11.30
Click here
to reserve your place
Wednesday 25
March 2009
Conducting investigations, disciplinaries and
grievances
09.00 - 11.30
Click here
to reserve your place
Seminars
Wednesday 21 January
2009
Annual HR Planner
Half day
Click here
to reserve your place
Wednesday 25
February 2009
Protecting intellectual property - how far
can you go?
Half day
Click here
to reserve your place
Where to find us
Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP
35 Vine Street
London
EC3N 2AA
Tel: (0)20 7861 4000
Fax: (0)20 7488 0084
www.ffw.com