A decision leaving employers feeling sick!

In a recent decision an Employment Tribunal has found against an NHS employer who tried to defer automatic annual pay increments for staff who has been off sick for more than the agreed periods. 

Whilst many employers may feel that this was a reasonable step to take the Tribunal disagreed and found the approach was in breach of the employees contracts. It may be that the days of automatic annual pay increments are numbered in these harder financial times. 

There is an argument that salaries should only increase when linked to actual performance however in the meantime for any employer unlucky enough to have this system in place another reason to beware!

Equal pay decision causes a Brummie headache

The recent decision of the Supreme Court to allow equal pay claims by former employees of Birmingham Council to proceed notwithstanding the fact that they were not brought within six months from the end of their employment looks set to give Council bosses in the city a major financial headache at a time when council budgets are already stretched to the bone. 

In an important decision the Court decided by a majority that the claims could be brought in the High Court more than six months after the end of the claimants' employment when similar claims would have been out of time in an employment tribunal. The Court also commented that the reasons for a claimant's failure to bring a timely claim were not relevant. 

This could trigger substantial numbers of claims where former employees discover perhaps some years after they have left a job that their former colleagues have succeeded with equal pay claims.

Not a Domestic – more a part of the family!

In an interesting decision (Nambalat v Taher and another; Udin v Chamsi-Pasha and others [2012]) the Court of Appeal has decided that if a domestic worker is being treated as a member of their employer’s family rather than as a domestic servant they will not be entitled to receive the minimum wage. 

Relevant factors will include eating arrangements, the allocation of accommodation, sharing of household tasks etc. This could be quite a challenge for Employment Tribunals in the future. I wonder if this could also mean that if you treat your husband, wife or kids more as a domestic servants than as members of the family you will have to pay them the minimum wage – oh dear I better take then out to the cinema tonight!!

Magistrates Court closures?

What do they say about buses? No sooner does one story crop up that covers both my political and legal interests another one does, namely the very worrying rumour that consideration may be in hand to consider closing Southend and Basildon Magistrates Courts and transferring the work to Chelmsford. 

Alerted by the local Law Society I am pursuing further investigation but would strongly oppose any such proposal. Southend is the largest urban conurbation in the East of England and needs all aspects of the public sector to operate from South East Essex and be accessible to our residents. 

Apart from anything else the public transport links between Southend and Chelmsford are simply not up to the job.

Employee share schemes – I’m not convinced.

Chancellor George Osborne’s announcement on proposals to allow employees to exchange their legal employment rights for tax free shares in their employer leaves me cold and left me uncertain whether to raise it on my council blog or my Tolhurst Fisher blog so for the first time I thought I would put it on both! I don’t know why all the major parties continue to fall foul of conference-itis when in power and feel the need to announce initiatives which often seem incomplete, ill thought out and raise more questions than answers.

I remain very sceptical as to whether the Government will be able to formulate plans which are attractive enough to entice many employees to risk something as fundamental as their ongoing job and income protection in exchange for the possibility of un quantified benefits in the future – and how many private companies will want to create potential issues with their share structure. 

As usual I did not attend the party conference this year – I was given the choice to either attend or walk over hot coals and the blisters are starting to heal!!

Did you hear the one about the Roman Catholic?

Some may think that a recent employment tribunal decision represents a breath of common sense but others will disagree! 

A newspaper sub-editor had claimed harassment and victimisation on grounds of religion because a fellow sub editor had shouted offensive language relating to the Pope across the newsroom. The claimant, a practising Catholic, found the comment offensive and said he felt intimidated and frightened by it. 

The tribunal said that there had been no intention to cause offence and that, although the claimant had been upset by the comment, it was not reasonable for it to have created a hostile environment for him. They also found that the comment had not been made on grounds of religion, when examined in context. 

(Heafield v Times Newspaper Limited ET/3202080/2010.)