EAT rules students should be allowed to see their teacher's face

The recent news that France has imposed the first Niqab fines on 2 French Muslim women who continue to wear the full-face veil despite the new law banning it, prompts us to think about the position in relation to the manifestation of religious belief in the UK.

The law appears reasonably well settled and has been consistently interpreted, but many of the well reported cases have been appealed to as high as the European Court of Justice: judgment in the case of Jivraj v Hashwani2011 UKSC 40 has been given this month by the Supreme Court.

Notwithstanding the hysterical approach adopted by the media, at large the decisions this far taken in the UK have been in line with common sense.

Significantly, but not widely reported, AishahAzmi, the British Muslim teacher who refused to remove her veil in a primary school when male colleagues were present, was told by the EAT to let her students see her face; an approach most would think in line with common sense – students should be able to see their teachers face, it was argued, and our courts have not disagreed.  Certainly there is no evidence here of political correctness gone mad (much though that is what the media would prefer to report).

It is right that a proportionate response should be taken when addressing needs in the workplace, but leaving people free in their own time to do as they wish, as long as they are not harming anyone, seems to us to be far more satisfactory in today’s multicultural society than imposing fines on women. 

- Anna Power, Associate

http://tinyurl.com/3vxoclw

Riding Out The Storm Together?

RIDING OUT THE STORM TOGETHER? MORE LIKE TRAMPLING OVER EMPLOYEES’ RIGHTS WITH A CARTHORSE

So here it is, the CONdem Government shows its true view of the average working person today by its blatant attempt to dilute workers’ rights in 2 major ways:

1. By bringing in court fees for Employment Tribunal cases meaning that in a typical case, it will cost a person £1,250 to issue Tribunal proceedings and have a hearing.

Now, bearing in mind the most common award for unfair dismissal is in the region of £4,500, a person who has just been dismissed is supposed from April 2013 to fork out £1,250 to be able to get justice. This really shows that access to justice for those on average or low wages is becoming a thing of the past, with only the rich (with savings...remember those?) able to afford to get justice from the Tribunal system. How many employees, who have been sacked unfairly, with all the stress of paying the rent or the mortgage, feeding the family and so on, will be able to stump up £1,250 within 3 months of being dismissed (because the three month time limit still applies)? Well, the CONdem Government’s own stats predict that at least 2,000 extra workers will be put off from bringing such a claim – I think it will in fact be many more.  Fees will be even higher for cases where damages of more than £30,000 are sought, as is common in claims of discrimination.

2. They also plan to extend from April 2012 the period of qualifying service to gain protection from general unfair dismissal from one year to two years in order to make the workplace more ‘flexible’ – flexible of course only for the employer not the employee, who faces an extra year of uncertain employment, during which he or she may be able to be sacked unfairly at any time.

This shows what the CONdem Government’s ’business-friendly’ approach really means: weakening workers’ rights and making it harder for an average person to get justice against an employer which acts unlawfully or unfairly.

-        David Sorensen, Partner

For further information, please contact our Employment Rights team on 0113 245 0733.

The impact of social networking on employment rights issues

Acas has produced some Guidance Notes on Social Networking, offering tips on how to manage the impact of social networking on managing performance, recruitment, disciplinary and grievance issues.

There is also an excellent section on How to Draw up a Social Networking Policy, including practical tips and an explanation of the legal considerations involved.

For more information on workplace rights, please contact our Employment Rights team on 0113 245 0733.

Number of tribunal claims falls by 8% in 12 months

The annual statistics for employment tribunals and the EAT for April 2010 to March 2011 have been published.

The statistics show that the amount of claims issued in the Tribunal have reduced by 8% in comparison to the 2010 figures. However this still means a total of 218,100 claims were received.

The statistics also reveal that:   


* The number of single claims received has fallen 15% over the period in question
* The number of unfair dismissal and redundancy claims has fallen slightly
* Claims under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 have almost tripled
* Age discrimination claims have risen 32%
* The median award of £12,697 for age discrimination claims is the highest of the discrimination strands, with all others around £5,000 and £6,000.

For further information, please contact our Employment Rights team on 0113 245 0733 or email info@morrishsolicitors.com 

Rioting and Employment Rights

The recent rioting across the UK has led to a number of queries in relation to people’s employment rights. 

In relation to those who were involved in the rioting, what will happen about their employment if they have been arrested and subsequently prosecuted?

In addition, what happens to those who are unable to go to work because their workplaces were attacked in the riots?

As stated in the ACAS Code of Practice, “If an employee is charged with, or convicted of, a criminal offence, this is not normally in itself reason for disciplinary action”. Essentially, for the criminal conduct to be a disciplinary or dismissible offence it must affect the business in some way or undermine the employer’s confidence in the employee.

In terms of those involved in the rioting and looting, it is clear from the press reports that the Courts are dealing with those individuals very seriously and the majority are receiving custodial sentences.  Much personal information has appeared in the press about those convicted, including in some instances the name of the employer.

Given the seriousness of the incidents, some employers may be inclined to summarily dismiss those individuals for gross misconduct for bringing the company into disrepute.  Dismissal in these circumstances might be looked upon sympathetically by the Tribunals.  But arguments will differ depending e.g. on the degree to which the employee has exposure at work to or dealings with the public (in the past cases have been decided against probation workers where their work brings them into contact with young offenders; criminal convictions for rioting are not consistent, it is said, with that sort of work).

If an employee is unable to attend work for personal circumstances, for example if their house has been damaged in the rioting, then that employee needs to be aware that they will not necessarily be entitled to be paid for any time that they have off, unless there is some provision in the contract which says so.  If there is no contractual term then the employer can lawfully withhold pay until the employee returns to work. 

However, if the employee is unable to work because the workplace is closed, then assuming the employee is otherwise ready and willing to work, then the employer must continue to pay their wages, unless there is an express contractual right that the employee can be laid off without pay.  If there is such a contractual right, then those employees may be able to claim a guaranteed payment. 

If the workplace has been completely destroyed then there is an argument that the employment contract has been frustrated because there has been an unforeseen event which makes the parties unable to perform the contract.  If the contract has been frustrated then there has been no dismissal which means that the employee would be unable to claim unfair dismissal and they also would not be entitled to receive any notice.

Somewhat unusually, if there has been an unforeseen event which has led to the contract being frustrated, the employee may be entitled to receive a statutory redundancy payment under s.136(5) Employment Rights Act 1996, which specifies that such a situation is to be classed as a termination by the employer for redundancy pay purposes.

However, frustration is a difficult point for an employer to take: the situation may better be dealt with simply as a redundancy situation and the employee may be able to claim redundancy pay as well as still having an entitlement to notice.

If you would like to speak to us about bringing a claim or are interested in further information on employment rights, please contact our employment rights team on 0113 245 0733.

State landed with £3m Jarvis bill

THE 1,200 staff who were sacked without warning by failing rail firm Jarvis are to be awarded more than £3m compensation - more than it would have cost to keep the company afloat.

The employees - of which 350 were based in York, 300 in Doncaster and 80 in Leeds - arrived for work on March 31 last year to be told they were unemployed. As a result the company failed to meet its statuary obligation to consult and give notice so the staff will be entitled to eight weeks compensation, capped at £380 per week. As Jarvis is no longer operating, it will be the Government which pays the bill and a tribunal court in Leeds yesterday heard that any staff who were unable to find work and therefore claimed Jobseeker's Allowance will have that, and any other relevant benefits, docked from their compensation.

The staff all worked for Jarvis Rail, Jarvis Fastline or at the York headquarters, Jarvis PLC.

Union bosses said it was disappointing that a number of workers, particularly those holding management positions, found employment swiftly and would therefore get more compensation than those who have been left jobless. It is also understood that administrators Deloitte went to Network Rail - owners of Britain's rail infrastructure - to request around £3m to keep the company going and retain staff but this was turned down.

Bill Rawcliffe, of Justice for Jarvis Workers and a member of the RMT Union, said: "This is only the first hurdle and the result is pretty much what was expected because employment legislation clearly states if you do not receive notice you are entitled to claim compensation.

"We think it is a disgrace that the compensation is being paid for by the taxpayer - that money should be paid by Network Rail which owed millions in work that had been already carried out by Jarvis workers.

"What is also difficult to take is compensation will have Jobseeker's Allowance and other benefits knocked off, but the management who did not have to claim benefits as they went round the revolving door and straight into other jobs will get the whole payout."

A Network Rail spokesman was unable to comment last night. About half of the organisation's budget is public money.

Unions claim some workers, who were also based in Glasgow, Newcastle, and Peterborough, were owed money for months before the company closed. Talks between Network Rail and the administrators officially finished in April 2010.

The fallout prompted a number of protest rallies, and Mr Rawcliffe claimed that workers from other parts of the UK have been carrying out the rail engineering work.

Unions were unable to say how many of the 1,200 had now found employment, but Mr Rawcliffe said those they knew of in work were now earning 30 per cent less in wages.

The tribunal yesterday heard that the company had no money at all to pay staff by March last year.

Claims against Jarvis will continue with at least 600 unfair dismissal claims likely to be made. Toni Haynes, of Morrish Solicitors, represented the members of the TSSA union at the tribunal.

"We are obviously pleased with the compensation offer - it is the maximum that we could have asked for," she said.

"Not all of the staff will receive all of that money, it will depend on their individual circumstances and what they have already received in other benefits.

"But what is clear is that the amount of money to be paid out of the public purse, is more than the £3m the administrators needed in the first place to keep the company afloat and these people in work."

- Reproduced with kind permission of The Yorkshire Post and Johnston Press

Employers need to grasp the benefits of flexible working!

A recent report by Dan Leighton on Re-inventing the workplace has highlighted the significant benefits which Flexible working brings to the workplace. In addition it can aid the UK company growth.

Employers need to recognise huge demographic changes in the UK workforce. With an ageing population, more women in the workplace and a shift from manufacturing to service based industries has in recent years increased the demand on employers to introduce and offer more flexibility within the workplace. However, some employers still fail to see the benefits.

The fundamentals of flexible working assist in coping with the  work/family life balance. It is essential for those companies who wish to attract and retain the best talent to implement such policies positively and  promote them within the workplace. On a wider perspective, the benefits are numerous. They  can address the social challenges of shared parenting and an ageing population that requires care. They can also reduce  sickness absence and increase motivation within the workplace.  

Employers need to grasp the benefits sooner rather than later!