Do Governments Have Ears?

I’ve just read the Government’s response to its ‘Resolving Workplace Disputes’ consultation.  We submitted our own views (copies available for free if you are interested - email us if you’d like to see what we thought) and now we can see what the politicians think.

Our view was that a 12 months qualifying period for eligibility to claim Unfair Dismissal was alright.  2 years is too long.  Surely a decent employer will know inside a year whether they need to dismiss?  And there’s the adverse effect on staff job security too.

The Government noted:

-  Most consultation respondents disagreed with increasing the period to 2 years
-  The increase would not reduce the number of claims by the amount the government had forecast (read: their scaremongering was overdone)
-  Minority groups (e.g. women, disabled people) would probably be proportionately worse off following the increase
-  Small businesses weren’t any more affected by these claims than bigger ones

Good.  That’s settled then.  No need to increase the qualifying period.

The 2 year limit comes into force in April 2012.

And despite negative responses to the idea of ET judges sitting alone in these cases, the Government’s going to do that, too.

I’ve wondered for a few years now whether there’s any point responding to Government consultations.  Why ask the experts when you’ve made up your mind already?

- Paul Scholey, Senior Partner

Flexible Working

The coalition government is keen to reform employment laws, but for the better? 

The Beecroft Report, commissioned by David Cameron, calls for the abolition of the right to request flexible working, in addition to the removal of employee protection for unfair dismissal. 

Currently, employees with children under a certain age and carers are entitled by statute to make a request to work flexible hours, subject to meeting certain qualifying criteria and as long as they follow strict procedures. There is no obligation on an employer to grant the request, but it must be considered seriously. 

It has been said by the coalition government that it is committed to extending those statutory rights to request flexible working to all employees, not just parents and carers. However, it is feared by Adrian Beecroft, a venture capitalist, that extending flexible working would have a detrimental effect on businesses and would lead to a tidal wave of flexible working requests.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) in response has made a Freedom of Information request to see how many tribunal claims relate to the right to request flexible working. The figures show that out of 218,100 claims accepted in 2010/2011, only 277 alleged that employers failed to consider a request for flexible working.  229 of these were successfully conciliated and only 10 of the 48 claims that reached the Tribunal were successful. 

So is it not now clear that the fears expressed about extending the right to flexible working are grossly exaggerated? CIPD say the figures show that most employers already recognise that flexible working is an integral part of the modern workplace and are happy to consider such requests. That may be the case. Or it may be that the statutory right to request flexible working arrangements lacks any real teeth and the procedures to be followed to make a valid request are simply too rigid. It is very difficult for employees to do anything about an employer’s refusal to allow flexible working. 

Either way, it seems unlikely that the extension of the right will lead to an avalanche of requests. Even if requests were to increase, surely a good employer would recognise that employees who get to work flexibly are likely to work harder and are more loyal. Hopefully, the government will stick to their guns and increase flexible working rights. In this tough economic climate there is too much emphasis on diluting employees’ rights, which could ultimately be counter-productive. Promoting a good work-life balance is so easily forgotten. 

- Daniel Kindell, Solicitor

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

Retirement? What Retirement?

I think we are all slowly coming to realise that with the rising costs of living, increase in university fees and the like, we’ll all be needing to work longer in the future. Also, with improving health and people living longer, many want to work and not retire. With the recent removal of the default retirement age of 65, it’s got to be a good thing that employees will be able to choose to work beyond 65 if they wish to. 


A recent survey of employers shows this. It indicates that the majority of employers are doing without a default retirement age. The survey of senior HR professionals in the UK, reveals, among other things, that only 3% of employers intend to keep a specific retirement age, 86% of employers are letting employees over the age of 65 continue in the same role and nearly half of employers are considering flexible working arrangements for over 65s. 

That sounds positive, but on the other hand, only 11% of employers recognise the potential benefit of retaining experienced employees more easily.
What it does show is a shift in ‘mind set’ which means older employees will find it easier to remain working for their employer well after they reach 65.

- David Sorensen, Partner

For further information on Employment Rights, please visit our website or call 0113 245 0733 and ask to speak with our Employment Rights team. 

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