NASHKNOWLEDGE
January 2019
January Edition
Head of Employment
Whistle for your supper
Government Proposed Employment LawChanges
Age old pension problems
Meet Eleanor Barber
Is the gig up?
Highlights
Protected disclosure claims, or whistleblowingclaims as they are more commonly known, areclaims that a worker has been dismissed orsubjected to a detriment because they raisedconcerns, which they believed were in thepublic interest, regarding malpractice by theiremployer. Malpractice, of course, covers anentire range of matters in business from healthand safety, damage to the environment toaccounting rules.
Whistleblowing claims are a particularlyunpleasant claim to be subject to as, firstly, thelaw is complicated and, secondly, dealing withwhat are often nebulous allegations is oftenvery expensive. In addition, compensation isuncapped.
There has, however, always been one nicecertainty: the claim for a dismissal because of aprotected disclosure is one of automatic unfairdismissal and a claim for matters short ofdismissal is a claim for detriment; the act ofdismissal cannot itself be a detriment.
Unfortunately, following the case of Timis vOsipov [2018] the Court of Appeal has allowed arather neat way around this apparently clearpiece of law: the Court of Appeal hasdetermined that an employee can bring a claimof detriment against the individual who decidedto dismiss them and, as the employer isvicariously liable for the acts of its employees,the employer will then be jointly liable for theiremployee’s decision to dismiss.
Why does this matter, you ask (and quite rightlyso!). It matters because the test for whether anindividual has been dismissed because theymade a protected disclosure is that thedisclosure must be the only, or at leastprincipal, reason for dismissal, whereas tosucceed in a claim for detriment, an individualonly needs to show that their protecteddisclosure played a significant part in themotivation to subject them to a detriment.
< 2 >
Whistle for your supper
If you have less than two years’ service and have been dismissed, but can’t find a way of bringing a claimunder the Equality Act 2010, what do you do if you are of a litigious nature? You pop in a whistleblowingclaim of course!
< 3 >
Essentially, this decision lowers the bar forworkers to succeed in a claim.
In our view, whistleblowing claims are alreadyvery favourable to Claimants – the subjectmatter of which they complained does not evenhave to be well-founded; the Claimant simplymust reasonably believe that their complaint iswell-founded. This decision tips the balancefurther in favour of Claimants and we are likelyto see more individual managers being namedin proceedings to enable Claimants to benefitfrom the easier test to win their claim.
As an aside, Mr Osipov, the Claimant in thiscase, was awarded £1,744,575.56 for hisdismissal and the detriments he suffered, andhis co-workers were held jointly and severallyliable for that award, which we are pretty surespoiled their Christmas.
4 ways to help you and yourstaff stay healthy this winter….
1 Drink Plenty of WaterBeing immersed in work means losing track ofhow much water you’re drinking in a day.However, it's crucial that you drink enough tostay hydrated and active.
Dehydration can cause ill effects, such asdrowsiness and sluggishness. It is always agood idea for an adult to drink between six andeight glasses of water everyday.
2 Maintain Good PostureMost employees who use computers, stare intotheir screen for hours. This means they oftenstretch their neck forward, which puts pressureon the neck and the spine. This can be avoidedwith the help of certain desk exercises. Ensurethe monitor is at the correct height and try andkeep your back straight as much as possible.
3Take Frequent BreaksPeople often think that taking a break is a wasteof time and that they’ll be seen as lazy andunproductive. But taking a break has beenproven to be the exact opposite.
Just a couple of minutes break from work canimprove concentration, focus, creativity andproductivity. Try to get up and stretch and takea break for a couple of minutes every hour ifyou can.
4Think HygeineBeing hygienic goes a long way in keeping youand your coworkers healthy, particularly inhelping combat winter bugs and viruses. It’s agood idea to keep a bottle of hand sanitiser atyour desk, especially if you have a cough or ifyou’re sneezing. Try to use it regularly toprevent spreading any bugs around the officeand encourage coworkers to do the same.
< 4 >
The Government’s stated commitment is notonly to maintain workers’ rights as we leave theEU, but to enhance them. A summary of theproposals contained in the plan that runs tosome 62 pages is as follows:
1. Employees and workers who workvariable hours each week will, after 26weeks’ service, be able to requestgreater security in their working hours.It looks like it will be a right to request,that the employer will have to consider(like a flexible working request) but nota right to have fixed hours. Zero hourscontracts will, it seems, not beabolished. Our view: this may be asensible compromise.
2. Continuity of service which is importantto be able to claim unfair dismissal, orbe entitled to a redundancy payment iscurrently broken by 1 week’s gap inservice. This is to be extended to 4weeks. Our view: this will help preventabuse of the current system by somebad employers which is good.
3. Agency workers can agree to give uptheir rights to be paid equally topermanent staff after 12 weeks’ servicein return for being paid betweenassignments. This is known as theSwedish derogation. Not surprisinglythis is being abused to the detriment ofmany workers. The Swedish derogationwill be abolished on 6 April 2020. Ourview: a good move.
4. Gratuities and tips, some employers arestill making deductions from gratuitiesand tips intended for their staff. This willbe banned. Our view: about time.
5. The Information and ConsultationRegulations 2004 give employees inorganisations that employ between 15and 2500 employees the right to make arequest to be informed or consulted ifat least 10% of the employees supportthe request. The threshold will bereduced to 2% although the 15employee minimum will remain inplace. Our view: probably won’t makemuch difference in practice.
Government Proposed Employment Law Changes
In December, the Government published the Good Work Plan announcing their plans to reformemployment laws following the Matthew Taylor report.
< 6 >
6. Employment status is a conundrum inthat we currently have employees,workers and self-employed. Thedemarcation between each is often lessthan certain. It is, for example, currentlypossible for someone who is a workerfor employment law purposes to beeither employed or self-employed fortax purposes. The Government willproduce detailed proposals to makesure that the tax and employmentrights tests are the same. Our view:good luck with that!
The Government also accepts thatMatthew Taylor’s conclusion that‘control’ by employers as to whatworkers do, should be more importantthan the right to appoint a substitute,when it comes to deciding whethersomeone is a worker or self employed.The Government will legislate toprevent the abuse of the right ofsubstitution. Our view: a good idea intheory but how will it work in practice?
7. A written statement of terms ofemployment have to be given to anemployee who has worked for 1 monthwithin 2 months of the start date. TheGovernment will make it law to giveemployees and workers a writtenstatement no later than the first day oftheir employment/work. Theinformation required of a writtenstatement will also be expanded. Thischange will take effect on 6 April 2020.Our view: this is an excellent and longoverdue change to give more clarity toemployment relationships; however, itmay create more of an administrativeburden for businesses.
8. Holiday pay, the reference period forcalculating holiday pay will increasefrom 12 weeks to 52 weeks. This changewill take effect on 6 April 2020. Ourview: a good idea as it should give amore accurate figure.
< 5 >
Our view
The devil of course is always in the detail and thelegislation required to implement the changesoutlined above has yet to be drafted. However, inour view the Good Work Plan is good work, indeed.NASH BUSINESS
Our second edition of Nash Business is due out on the 14th
February. Have you registered to receive it yet? If not, you can doso by visiting:
https://www.nash.co.uk/nash-business-newsletter/
Nash Business is a quarterly publication, featuring helpful adviceto assist you with running and growing your business the rightway.
< 6 >
Meet Nick
Meet Eleanor Barber, Head of the Family Team
Eleanor joined the Nash Family Law Team inDecember 2015 and has been the team leadersince January 2017. She has over 15 years familylaw experience, including prenuptial andcohabitation agreements, relationshipbreakdowns, cohabitation disputes, financialsettlements and all matters relating to children.
Eleanor has been a full member of the LawSociety’s Children Panel since 2010 and is also aResolution Accredited Specialist for ComplexFinancial Matters and for Domestic Abuse. As aResolution Specialist and Panel member, Eleanorhas demonstrated her knowledge and abilities inthe selected areas through a rigorous assessmentprocess.
Eleanor is a trained Collaborative Lawyer, allowingher to assist clients in resolving matterscollaboratively and without the need for contestedCourt proceedings. This can offer a cost and timeefficient solution for families where both partiesare committed to a resolution that minimisesconflict and focuses upon the welfare of bothparties and any children.
With Accreditations covering complex childrenlaw, complex financial matters and domesticabuse, Eleanor has demonstrated her expertiseacross all areas of family law.
Other members of the very experienced teaminclude Anne Shears and Gemma Stevens, both ofwhom joined Nash in 2018. Both Anne andGemma have over 10 years’ experience in familylaw. Gemma is a Resolution Accredited Specialistfor domestic abuse and children matters andAnne is working towards accreditation forComplex Finances.
Eleanor, Anne and Gemma are supported by atrainee Legal Executive, a paralegal and asecretarial team. All Nash family lawyers aremembers of Resolution, an organisation for familylawyers which encourages cases to be pursuedand resolved in a non-antagonistic manner.
As the only family team in Plymouth to achieve aranking in both the Chambers Legal Directory2019 and the Legal 500 2019, the Nash familyteam are proud to be able to call themselves thebest in the area!
E: [email protected]: 01752 827026
< 7 >
In short, Uber appealed against theEmployment Appeal Tribunal’s finding that itsdrivers were workers for the purposes ofnational minimum wage and holiday pay and, inaddition, that the drivers’ working time startedas soon as they were: (1) within their territory(usually London); (2) had the Uber App switchedon; and, (3) were ready and willing to accepttrips. The substance of Uber’s appeal was thatthe Tribunal had erred in law and that thedrivers were, indeed, in business on their ownaccount.
Uber, like Addison Lee (who we reported on inDecember’s issue), is a taxi firm; however, thereare some differences in its operations. Firstly,Uber is a lot bigger (with around 40,000 driversoperating in the UK and 2 million registeredpassengers). Secondly, unlike Addison Lee,where drivers’ cars are hired from anassociated company, Uber drivers provide their
own vehicles (subject to certain caveats such asmake/model). Like Addison Lee, there aresanctions for drivers for declining or cancellingtrips; however, Uber have also gone one stepfurther and introduced a rating system for itsdrivers. In a similar fashion to one of myfavourite episodes of Black Mirror, if a drivers’rating is deemed too low, the driver can beremoved from the platform and their accountdeactivated. The resounding similarity betweenthe two companies: there is no question of anydriver being replaced by a substitute.
Like Addison Lee’s appeal, this case centredaround whether Uber’s paperwork, declaringthe drivers to be acting on a self-employedbasis for passengers, with Uber acting merelyas an agent, reflected the reality of therelationship between Uber, the drivers andpassengers. The Court of Appeal, by a majority,found that it did not and therefore dismissed
Is the gig up?
Last month, the Court of Appeal delivered their judgement in the Uber case.
Uber’s appeal. However, interestingly, oneJudge, Lord Justice Underhill, disagreed.
In his reasoning as to why, Lord JusticeUnderhill spoke in detail about how it was awell-recognised means of operating a privatehire business for the operator to act as abooking agent for a group of self-employeddrivers who contract with the passengers asprincipals (think your typical taxi company). InLord Justice Underhill’s view, this was how Uberwas operating, finding no inconsistencesbetween the paperwork and the situation onthe ground, and therefore he concluded thatthere was no worker relationship between Uberand its drivers (he also found that even if therewere, that working time did not begin until theyaccepted a trip on the Uber App and were givendetails of the pick-up).
Lord Justice Underhill’s closing remarks werewhether he felt common law (i.e. the decision ofthe courts) was the best way to deal with thedevelopment of the gig economy or whetherparliament needed to look at amending thelegislation: and it appears that the governmentagrees as this is something that the TaylorReview will be looking at in more detail (seepage 5 of this issue).
In terms of the future for Uber, this remains tobe seen: no doubt heavily influenced by LordJustice Underhill’s comments, Uber has alreadybeen granted permission to appeal to theSupreme Court and it seems likely that they willdo so.
BUSINESS CYCLE NETWORKAre you a keen cyclist looking for a new style of networking? Then why not give our BusinessCycle Network a go? Meeting monthly, we go for a 90 minute cycle as a group, leaving andreturning from the Nuffield Health Devonshire, and on the group’s return, we’ll spend sometime chatting and forging new business relationships over bacon sandwiches and tea/coffee.You’re then free to use the club’s facilities before going back to work.
Interested? Visit us at www.nash.co.uk/cycling to find out more information about the rides,read the guidelines and register to take part.
< 9 >
Mr Williams was employed by SwanseaUniversity from 12 June 2000 until he retired forill health reasons on 30 June 2013. Mr Williamssuffered from Tourette’s syndrome and otherconditions and was a disabled person for thepurposes of the Equality Act 2010. Mr Williamshad been enrolled in the university’s pensionscheme since the start of his employment andhad over 13 years of pensionable service at thedate of his retirement.
Mr Williams had originally begun working forthe university on a full-time basis (35 hours perweek); however, after ten years’ service, hisworking hours were anything between 17.5 and26 hours per week. By June 2013, Mr Williamsagreed working hours were half that of hisoriginal full-time hours and he was working 17.5hours per week.
Following specialist brain surgery in 2012 and aphased return to work in April 2013, MrWilliams applied for ill-health early retirementin May 2013 under his pension scheme and wassuccessful. Mr Williams was entitled to receive:
A lump sum and annuity based on hisaccrued benefits. The sums receivedwere based on Mr Williams actual salaryat the relevant times, whether full or parttime; and,
An enhancement to the lump sum andannuity based on Mr Williams actual sal-ary at the date of retirement.
As Mr Williams was, at the date of hisretirement, working 17.5 hours per week andnot his original 35 hours, the enhancement to
Age old pension problems
December 2018 saw the Supreme Court pass judgment in the case of Williams v Trustees of SwanseaUniversity Pension and Assurance Scheme and another. The Appellant, Mr Williams, was appealing thedecision of the Court of Appeal that a reduction to his pension calculated on the basis of his part timework, rather than his full-time salary, was discriminatory because the fact he had worked part time arosefrom his inability to work full-time due to a disability.
< 10 >
his pension was reduced in line with thepension schemes rules. Mr Williams contendedthat this reduced enhancement wasunfavourable treatment because of somethingarising in consequence of his disabilities.Specifically, that the enhancement element wasreduced as a consequence of his inability towork full-time at the date of his retirementwhich was itself a consequence of his disability:a breach of section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.
The Supreme Court dismissed Mr Williams’appeal and confirmed that section 15 of theEquality Act, requires two questions to beanswered: firstly, what was the treatmentcomplained of and, secondly, was thattreatment unfavourable?
In Mr Williams’ case, the treatment complainedof was the award of an ill health pension andthere was nothing unfavourable about that: theonly reason Mr Williams was entitled to anyaward at the time he was was because of hisdisabilities; had Mr Williams been able to workfull time, the consequence would not have beenan enhanced pension entitlement, rather itwould have been no immediate right to apension at all.
Our viewIn our view this is a very sensible decision: howcan an ill health benefit be unfavourabletreatment when, had the individual not been ill,they would not have received it in the firstplace? It is often the case that employees couldbe treated more generously when they areunwell, but that does not amount tounfavourable treatment.
This decision affirms the view thatadvantageous treatment is unlikely to ever beunfavourable, even if the treatment could havebeen more advantageous.
6 Employment Law Tips
Some tips and reminders for you…
1. You must check that all employees have thelegal right to work in the UK before they startwork and keep copies of the documentsprovided.
2. You can only change the terms of anemployment contract if you have reserved theright to do so or have your employee'sagreement or consent. Any changes must beagreed by both parties and confirmed in writingwithin one month of the change taking effect.
3. An employment contract exists once apotential employee accepts an unconditionaloffer of employment, which may be beforetheir employment commences.
4. You can make a job offer subject tosuccessful completion of a probationary period.Three to six months is typical; the period needsto be long enough to allow you to judgewhether the employee is able to do the job.
5. Employees are entitled to 5.6 weeks’ paidholiday per year (at least 28 days a year for afull-time employee). Part-time workers areentitled to the same holiday on a pro rata basis.Entitlement to holiday starts to accrue from thefirst day of employment and continues toaccrue even during periods of absence such asmaternity or sick leave.
6. All employers must 'auto-enrol' eligibleemployees into, and contribute towards, aworkplace pension. Unless your employeesspecifically opt out, you will have to providethem with access to a contributory pension andmake contributions towards their pensionfunds.
< 11 >
So, imagine how helpful it would be if youremployer put aside some of your earnings eachpay day and returned it to you whenever youasked without penalty at the times you need itmost, like just before Christmas. Well, that’sexactly what Iceland, the frozen food retailer,does (or if HM Revenue and Customs haveanything to say about it ‘did’).
The Christmas saving scheme, known as the‘Christmas Club’, is run by Iceland Foods andallows its employees to set aside money fromtheir wages which can be claimed back at alater date. The scheme is voluntary and isoverseen by an independent trustee meaningthat Iceland receive no financial benefit from it.
HMRC don’t, however, seem to see the positivesof this scheme though: they say that deductingmoney from the workers’ wages means thatsome staff are technically falling below theNational Minimum Wage (‘NMW’).
Consequently, Iceland have this month receiveda demand for £21 million from HMRC – not thestart to the New Year that they were hoping forI’m sure.
NMW is assessed by reference to a worker’shourly rate which is calculated by dividing aworker’s total remuneration in a relevant payreference period by the total number of hoursworked during the pay reference period. A payreference period is one month or, if an
The rules are there to control the fun
We all know that Christmas is an expensive time: the turkey that you will still be eating by the time theNew Year rolls in and the various gifts that you buy distant relatives despite only seeing them once a yeardon’t come cheap, and that’s not even taking into account the bar bill from the office party that youpromised yourself you would only have one drink at before going home. In fact, the Independent reckonsthat the total cost of Christmas could be anywhere between £750 and £1,500 per adult.
< 12 >
employee is paid more regularly than onemonth, that period. For example, if an Icelandemployee was paid monthly, worked 140 hoursand earned £1,000 their hourly rate would be£7.14/hour (above the NMW for workers aged20 and under; however, below NMW foremployees over the age of 21).
If, however, a hypothetical 20-year-oldemployee elected to save £150 a month fromtheir wages as part of a Christmas Club theywould, using the same calculation for the samepay reference period above, actually be paid£6.07/hour, which is less than the NMW fortheir age.
Iceland’s alleged underpayment is estimated tobe approximately £3.5 million a year over a 6-year period. Although HMRC ‘does notcomment on individual cases’, Iceland’s ChiefExecutive does and has described the disputeas ‘just madness’ and has vowed to fight theclaim.
Iceland’s trouble with HMRC doesn’t just endwith the Christmas Club though: HMRC havealso warned Iceland that their dress code policyon footwear breaches NMW as it imposes a costfor workers to perform their work. Specifically,HMRC say that staff in the stores (not thewarehouses) should be compensated for theshoes they wear to work as Iceland has givenguidance that ‘sensible shoes’ should be worn.
Our ViewIn our view, whilst HMRC’s application of theirown guidance is impeccable, this is a classicexample of HMRC lacking common sense. TheChristmas Club is a voluntary scheme thatIceland is running to benefit its workers.Workers are not ‘losing money’ or being paidany less annually, in fact they are beingencouraged to save money. Furthermore, inrelation to HMRC’s gripe with Iceland’s dresspolicy, of course an employer would want itsstaff to wear ‘sensible shoes’: shoes that surelyevery person has as a matter of course in theirwardrobe and very unlikely to have beenpurchased for the purposes of working atIceland.
HMRC’s approach to the National MinimumWage has, in our view, for too long ignored thepurpose of the National Minimum Wagelegislation, that is to protect low paid workersfrom exploitation, and, instead, focused ontechnical breaches of their own guidance, to theextent that the poorest workers in society areunable to even benefit from salary sacrificeschemes.
The Government has launched a consultationon the application of National Minimum Wageto salary sacrifice schemes so, hopefully, thisinjustice will be resolved in the future. We canonly hope that HMRC’s remaining overzealousenforcement of its own guidance will betempered in the future.
Employment Team
Tel: 01752 827081Web: www.nash.co.uk/business/employment
BackgroundOver the course of the past two years it wouldhave been difficult not to have noticed that theUK notified the European Council of itsintention to withdraw from the EU on 29 March2017. This notification triggered a two-yearnegotiation period between the UK and EU inthe hope of creating a satisfactory ‘withdrawalagreement’ which has since monopolised everynews cycle.
The general consensus was that, once Article 50had been invoked, we were on a one way streetout of the EU unless the remaining 27 were kindenough to let us stay; however, in December2018, members of the Scottish, UK andEuropean Parliaments sought clarification fromthe European Court of Justice (ECJ) on whetherthe UKs notification of intention to withdrawfrom the EU could be revoked unilaterally – ineffect, they sought to clarify whether the UKcould change its mind and reverse Brexit.
ECJ: Wightman and Others v Secretary ofState for Exiting the European UnionThe ECJ held that Article 50 of the Treaty onEuropean Union (the provision that prescribesthe procedure for a Member State to withdrawfrom the EU) does allow for Member States tounilaterally revoke their intention to withdrawfrom the EU.
Specifically, the ECJ held that notification ofintention to withdraw is not itself definitive orirrevocable and, if the Member State decides inaccordance with its own constitutionalrequirements to remain in the EU, it may do soup until the time of withdrawal (in the UK’s case,23:00 on 29 March 2019).
Additionally, the ECJ rejected the argumentmade by the European Council and EuropeanCommission that all other Member Stateswould have to agree to the UK’s decision torevoke their notification. This point was raisedas the European Council and European
< 13 >
Should we choose politics or pragmatism?
The Court of Justice has held that the UK can unilaterally revoke its intention to leave the European Union(EU) whilst negotiations with EU Member States remain under way.
The EU Settlement Scheme will open fully by 30 March2019. The deadline for applying will be 30 June 2021.
The fee to apply will be: - £65 if 16 years old or over - £32.50 if under 16 years old
It’ll be free for EU workers & their families, if: - they have ILR and wish to change this to Settled - they have a valid ‘UK permanent residence document’ - they’re applying from April 2019 to move from pre- settled status to settled status - they’re a child in local authority care
the UK can remain in the EU on its existing, andsome would say preferential, terms.
However, the Secretary of State for Exiting theEuropean Union, Stephen Barclay, in astatement to the House of Commons hashighlighted that ‘this judgment clarifies the law.The judgement does not in any way change [theGovernment’s] policy [and] does not change thefact that such an approach is hypothetical, andthe Government has no intention of doing it’.The Prime Minister also confirmed this whenshe said that she has no plans to revoke Article50 and called it a ‘short-term fix’.
Ultimately, however, given the complete jumblethat Brexit appears to be, it appears that theGovernment is fully inspecting a gift horse: ashort term fix might be just what is needed.Interesting times indeed.
Commission were concerned that MemberStates would abuse Article 50 by revoking theirintention of leaving shortly before the end ofthe negotiating period and then trigger a newperiod to extend the time for negotiation or touse as leverage in the negotiations. The ECJ heldthat if all Member States were to unanimouslyagree to a Member State revoking Article 50,and they did not, this could lead to a forcedwithdrawal of the EU which would beinconsistent with the democratic values of theEU.
What are the implications of this decision?This decision could have significantconsequences for Brexit. Importantly, it hasprovided Members of Parliament, who will voteon the Brexit deal, a third option to play with.They now know that the three possibleoutcomes of a vote could be either a no-dealBrexit, a confirmed withdrawal agreement, or
< 14 >
Post-Brexit immigration rule changes
The UK government has introduced a schemeallowing those EU workers and their familiesalready living in the UK to apply for “settledstatus”, enabling them to continue living in the UKafter 30 June 2021.
Those whose application is successful will geteither settled or pre-settled status.
Some may be able to stay in the UK withoutapplying for settled status. For example Irishcitizens and those who already have indefiniteleave to remain (ILR).
< 15 >
Interesting cases and legislation on the horizondue to be heard by Supreme Court in January 2019
Did a failure to expressly carve out a minor shareholding in a competing business make a post-termination restriction too wide andthus unenforceable?
due to be heard by Court of Appeal in February 2019Whether an employer’s breach of the implied sex equality clause giving rise to successful equal pay and constructive dismissalclaims could also found a separate claim of sex discrimination?
due to be heard by the Court of Appeal on 29 January 2019Whether the High Court was correct to hold that suspension was not a neutral act and in this case a suspension of a teacheramounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence as a knee-jerk default response to an allegation of unreasonableforce against a disruptive child.
due to be heard at the Court of Appeal in February 2019Is the Equality Act worded wide enough to encompass perceived disability discrimination?
due to be heard at the Court of Appeal in April 2019Is a term-by-term approach required or is a package approach permissible when comparing agency worker basic workingconditions?
due to be heard by Court of Appeal in May 2019When calculating holiday pay for part-time term-time workers should you use the average number of hours worked in the preceding12 weeks under the Working Time Regulations 1996?
due to be heard by Supreme Court in June 2019Is a dismissal automatically unfair if the dismissing officer was unaware of the protected disclosure because he was misled by theclaimant’s line manager (to whom the protected disclosure was made)?
due to be heard by Court of Appeal by June 2019Whether the High Court erred in finding that the Trust’s refusal to adjourn its disciplinary processes, pending a decision by the CPSwhether to press criminal charges, has breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence in the Claimant’s contract ofemployment and the Trust was not entitled to stop paying the Claimant’s salary in circumstances where it, and the General MedicalCouncil, had suspended him.
due to be heard by Court ofAppeal in October 2019.Is offering enhanced contractual maternity pay, but only statutory shared parental pay indirectly discriminatory?
due to be heard by the Court of Appeal in October 2019Whether the EAT was correct to hold that voluntary overtime which extends over a sufficient period of time on a regular and/orrecurring basis should be construed as ‘normal’ pay and included when calculating statutory holiday pay under the WTD and cannotbe distinguished as not being contractually ‘required’.
< 16 >
Important legislation changes ahead
Itemised pay statements will be required to contain information regarding the number of hours worked by anemployee for which they are being paid where the employee’s pay varies as a consequence of the time worked.
Employer National Insurance Contributions will be payable on termination payments above £30,000.00.
According to proposals, in April 2019: (1) the rates for Statutory Maternity Pay, Statutory Paternity Pay, StatutoryAdoption Pay and Statutory Shared Parental Pay will all increase from £145.18 to £148.68 per week; (2) the rate forMaternity Allowance will increase from £145.18 to £148.68 per week; and, (3) the rate for Statutory Sick Pay willincrease from £92.05 to £94.25 per week.
If passed, will entitle those on work experience of more than 4 weeks to receive the minimum wage for their age.
New legislation is to be drafted to ensure that all tips left to workers for example in bars and restaurants will be paidto the workers in full.
The Government is consulting on whether salary sacrifice arrangements should reduce wages for the purposes ofNational Minimum Wage legislation and the outcome of this should be sometime this year.
Parental Bereavement Leave and Pay The Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill would give qualifying bereavedparents of children the right to two weeks’ paid leave (see our article in October’s edition).
The so called Swedish Derogation under the Agency Worker Regulations is likely to be removed in April 2020.
The right to shared parental leave and pay is potentially to be extended to working grandparents, which could beinteresting …
< 17 >
National Minimum WageWorkers aged 25 or over (theNational Living Wage): £7.83per hourWorkers aged 21 to 25: £7.38per hourWorkers aged 18 to 21:£5.90per hourWorkers under 18: £4.20 perhour
1 3 Sick PayStatutory Sick Pay: £92.05per week
CURRENT RATES AND LIMITS (As at 1st January 2019)
Family RightsStatutory Maternity Pay,Statutory Paternity Pay,Statutory Adoption Pay,Statutory Shared ParentalPay, & Maternity Allowance:£145.18 per week.
2Taxation: Scotland
5In Scotland, for the tax year 2018/19:
of 19% applies on
annual earnings above the PAYE threshold
and up to
of 20% applies on
annual earnings from
of 21% on
earnings from
of 41% on annual
earnings from
of 46% on annual
earnings above
Taxation: UK (Excl Scotland)
4In the UK (excluding Scotland), for
the tax year 2018/19:
of 20% applies on
annual earnings above the PAYE
tax threshold and up to
of 40% applies on
annual from
of 45% applies
on annual earnings above
Limits
6Maximum amount of a week's pay
(used for calculating a redundancy
payment or for various awards
including the unfair dismissal
basic award):
Limit on amount of unfair
dismissal compensatory award:
Maximum guaranteed payment
per day:
< 18 >
National Insurance
7The lower earnings limit:
The upper earning limit:
Auto Enrolment
8The minimum contribution rates
for defined contribution schemes,
expressed as a percentage of a
jobholder’s qualifying earnings, is
Vento Bands
9Injury to feeling and psychiatric
injury:
Lower Band of
Middle Band of
Upper Band of
CURRENT RATES AND LIMITS (As at 28th October 2018)
Statutory Minimum Notice
10Length ofEmployment
Notice RequiredFrom Employer
Under 1 month No statutory noticerequirement
1 month to 2 years 1 week
2 years to 12 years 1 week for eachcompleted year ofservice
12 years or more 12 weeks
Statutory or Contractual Notice
There are two types of notice period: statutory and contractual.
Statutory notice is the minimum legal notice that can be given.
Ian Grimshaw Jon Loney Eleanor Barber
Rachel Collins Mark Northey Jess Varley
MEET THE CONTRIBUTORS TO NASH KNOWLEDGE
< 19 >
