The Law Firm of The Futurewww.plexuslaw.co.uk
Here comes the summer! Think holidays, sunshine and significant employment law reform. The next 18 months are going to be both interesting and challenging for employers now that the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act has received Royal Assent.
In this edition of Employment Writes we have put together a handy “at a glance guide”
listing the key employment law changes over the next few months. We examine in
more detail the changes to the whistleblowing legislation due to commence in June
and the government’s crackdown on unpaid work experience. We also consider the
most recent case law from the EAT and Court of Appeal.
At a glance – what’s new?
25 April 2013
• ACAS are prohibited from disclosing information held by them relating to a
worker, employer or trade union. There are certain exceptions to this including
where the disclosure is made for the purposes of enabling ACAS to carry out
any of its functions.
• The government can make powers to allow tribunals to order an equal pay
audit where an employer loses an equal pay claim.
17 June 2013
• A portable Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check becomes available. Job
applicants will pay a fee of £13 pa, which will allow prospective employers to
carry out a free ‘update’ search to check their DBS certificates.
“...Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act has received royal assent.”
The Law Firm of The Futurewww.plexuslaw.co.uk
“The government will have the power to vary the dismissal compensatory award limit.”
25 June 2013
• EAT judges will sit alone, without lay members, unless a full panel is ordered.
• The qualifying period for unfair dismissal (now two years) will not apply where
the main reason for dismissal is the employee’s political opinions or affiliation.
• Tribunals can award a deposit order relating to a specific part of a claim or
response. They can also make an order for payment of witness expenses where
a preparation time order has been made.
• The government will have the power to vary the unfair dismissal compensatory
award limit. The limit will be the lower of either:
• a specified amount that must be between one and three times median
annual full-time earnings, or
• a specified number of weeks’ pay (not less than 52 weeks). The award
limit may be varied for smaller employers, although no plans have yet been
announced.
• Reform of the EHRC, with certain duties and powers repealed.
• Abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board.
• Changes to whistleblowing legislation (see article below for more information).
• The power to legislate to make caste an aspect of race discrimination. The
government are aiming to introduce legislation by April 2015.
• Rounding up of increases to statutory redundancy payments and tribunal award
limits.
29 July 2013
• Fees are expected to be introduced into employment tribunals and the EAT.
• The new Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure are expected to come into
force.
Summer 2013
• Pre-termination negotiations will be inadmissible in unfair dismissal proceedings.
• Compromise agreements to be renamed settlement agreements.
The Law Firm of The Futurewww.plexuslaw.co.uk
“A new ‘public interest’ test will be introduced...”
The winds of change are blowing the whistleThe current whistleblowing rules are set to change.
Whistleblowing protection is available to workers and employees who are
dismissed or who suffer a detriment because they have made a protected
disclosure. The advantage of this type of claim is that there is no minimum
qualifying period or cap on the compensation a tribunal can award.
As the law currently stands an employee who complains of breach of a term
of their employment contract can theoretically bring a whistleblowing claim.
A new ‘public interest’ test will be introduced which attempts to reverse this
position so that in order to attract whistleblowing protection the employee must
reasonably believe that their disclosure is in the public interest. This term is not
defined, but is likely to cover disclosures affecting more than just one person.
Arguably, however, this could still cover contractual breaches if the disclosure
relates to a breach affecting a class of people.
The second change expands whistleblowing protection to those disclosures
made in bad faith. ‘Bad faith’ isn’t defined but is likely to mean acting with
selfish or malicious intentions or for monetary gain, rather than for the primary
purpose of putting right a wrong.
The Law Firm of The Futurewww.plexuslaw.co.uk
This seems to counterbalance the public interest test. The focus will therefore
be on the message rather than the messenger, so that as long as the message
is in the public interest it won’t matter if the messenger is making the disclosure
for selfish reasons.
‘Good faith’ will still play a part in the tribunal’s consideration of a whistleblowing
claim, as in circumstances where a disclosure is found to be made in bad faith,
a tribunal will have the power to reduce any award made by up to 25%, if it is
just and equitable to do so.
These changes will apply to protected disclosures made on or after 25 June
2013. A further change, due to come into force at an unspecified date over the
summer, is the introduction of vicarious liability for employers and the personal
liability of co-workers for detriment caused by the co-worker to a whistleblower.
This closes the existing loophole and will make it much easier for claimants who
are victimised for making disclosures, to take action.
In recognition of the fact that whistleblowers may have trouble securing new
employment, the government has also pushed for whistleblowing protection
for job applicants. For the time being this extended definition of ‘worker’ to
include job applicants is on hold, pending the launch of a call for evidence by
the Whistleblowing Commission. We will keep you updated.
“...a tribunal will have the power to reduce any award...”
The Law Firm of The Futurewww.plexuslaw.co.uk
No such thing as a free lunchWith summer comes the droves of school leavers looking for unpaid work experience to bolster their CVs.
The number and range of these internships is on the increase and interns are
the norm across many industries. However a recent government crackdown
on the “unpaid internship” raises concerns about the exploitation of unpaid
workers and the fact that such placements may favour the socially privileged
and well-connected.
This comes at a time when Westminster school’s auction of prestigious work
experience placements for its students, which saw bids of up to £825 for two
weeks’ work, has been severely criticised. A group of MPs have written to
participants of the auction including Farbergé and Coutts bank, urging them
to withdraw their placements from the online auction on the grounds that it is
“explicitly favouring privilege”.
The government has said they will be taking “aggressive” steps to “crack
down” on employers abusing the national minimum wage requirements by
using unpaid interns. Last year the Department for Business, Innovation and
Skills (BIS) reclaimed nearly £200k in wages owed to unpaid interns. BIS will be
publishing a student handout to inform graduates of their employment rights,
and encourage people to identify “bad employers” for investigation. Calls made
to the Pay and Work Rights Helpline regarding employer abuse will also be fast-
tracked.
So is this the death of the unpaid internship? Maybe not, but employers need
to be careful to ensure that interns and volunteers do not, contrary to their
intentions, become ‘workers’ by virtue of the behaviour or conduct of the parties.
For example, if there is a mutual promise between the parties to perform and
provide work. This is important as a worker is entitled to receive the national
minimum wage, paid holiday and is protected by anti-discrimination legislation.
An employer can help to protect itself by having a written specification for
the internship, which is carefully worded to avoid creating an employment
relationship.
The Law Firm of The Futurewww.plexuslaw.co.uk
“...a warning to all employers that oral promises can be contractually binding.”
Be careful what you promise, it could cost you €50 millionThe Court of Appeal in Dresdner Kleinwort v Attrill [2013] EWCA Civ 394, has dismissed Dresdner Kleinwort’s (the bank) appeal against the decision that the bank was contractually bound to pay bonuses worth €52 million (£44 million) to 104 ex-employees in early 2009.
With the future ownership of the bank uncertain during 2008, the Financial
Services Authority (FSA) became alarmed by May 2008 at the high number
of staff leaving the bank. The FSA instructed the CEO of the bank to stabilise
staff turnover. In August 2008, the bank approved a bonus pool worth a value
of a minimum €400 million from which discretionary bonuses which would be
distributed in early 2009.
On 18 August 2008, at a meeting with staff, and a live broadcast on the bank’s
intranet, the CEO of the bank announced the bonus pool. The pool would be
distributed ‘no matter what’, said the CEO, regardless of the bank’s actual
performance. The size of actual bonuses as individual’s bonuses would be
calculated “in the usual way”.
The bank was subsequently bought by Commerzbank. Following the Lehman
Brothers collapse in 2008, the German Government lent Commerzbank €18.2
billion. In December 2008 the bank’s employees received a letter from the bank
confirming that the bonus would be paid in January 2009. However, the letter
stated that the bonus would be reduced if the bank’s performance dropped.
In January 2009, the bonus payments were made to employees. The bonuses
were reduced by 90%. The employees sought enforcement of the contractual
obligation to pay the promised bonuses.
The Court of Appeal rejected the bank’s appeal against the decision to uphold
the bonus claims. The Court found that the ‘Town Hall’ announcement by the
CEO in August 2008 was a contractually binding obligation on the bank to make
100% bonus payments to employees. It rejected the bank’s argument that the
The Law Firm of The Futurewww.plexuslaw.co.uk
CEO’s announcement was binding in honour only. The Court decided that the
announcement contained information which was sufficiently clear and precise
to be enforceable and which was intended to create a legally binding obligation
between the bank and the employees.
Further, the Court also decided that the bank’s letter of December 2008,
permitting the bank to reduce the bonus payments, was a breach of the implied
term of mutual trust and confidence between the bank and employees.
This decision is a warning to all employers that oral promises can be contractually
binding. The ruling highlights the need for businesses to be careful when
making any employee announcements, especially in connection with salaries
and bonuses. Businesses should avoid references to bonus payments being
‘guaranteed’ and should include in contractual documents clauses specifying
how and by whom contractual changes can be made.
The Law Firm of The Futurewww.plexuslaw.co.uk
Who are affected employees under TUPE?The EAT has provided clarification as to who is covered by the definition of ‘affected employees’ under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) in the case of I Lab Facilities Ltd v Metcalfe & Others UKEAT/0224/12.
In circumstances where only part of a business transfers under TUPE and the
remainder of the business is closed, the employees within the closed part of the
business are not ‘affected employees’, so the obligation to inform and consult
with those employees does not arise.
I Lab (UK) Ltd (IL UK) provided an overnight service to the film and television
industry. In 2009 it merged with RKT Post Production Ltd (RKT) who also
worked for the film and TV industry but did their work during daytime hours. IL
UK became the employer of both sets of employees, but both parts remained
distinct.
After the merger IL UK went into liquidation and the business
was split into two. The IL UK part was sold and the IL UK
employees TUPE transferred to I Lab Facilities Ltd (ILF). The
RKT business was closed down and the staff made redundant.
Several ex-RKT employees issued tribunal proceedings stating
that IL UK had breached its TUPE obligations towards them
regarding informing and consulting, as they were ‘affected
employees’. If they were ‘affected employees’ IL UK was under
a duty to inform and consult with their representatives. The
penalty for not doing so was up to 13 weeks’ gross pay per
affected employee. IL UK and ILF were jointly and severally
liable for any compensation award.
The employment tribunal held that the ex-RKT employees were
The Law Firm of The Futurewww.plexuslaw.co.uk
‘affected employees’ and awarded compensation of £81,375.00. ILF appealed.
The EAT upheld ILF’s appeal. ILF persuaded the EAT that it was not sufficient
for the ex-RKT employees to state that they were ‘affected employees’ merely
because they were excluded from the transfer, or even, that they were excluded
from it having been informed that they would be part of it. The transfer of the
part of the business which did not employ them, did not make them ‘affected
employees’.
Regulation 13(1) TUPE defines affected employees as “any employees of the
transferor or the transferee… who may be affected by the transfer or may be
affected by measures taken in connection with it”. The EAT explained that the
affected employees are those:
• who will or might be transferred;
• whose jobs are in jeopardy by reason of the proposed transfer; or
• who have job applications within the organisation pending at the time
of transfer.
Employers can take comfort that where there are two distinct businesses, side-
by-side, a TUPE transfer affecting one does not mean that the employers of
the other business are also ‘affected employees’. Like many potential TUPE
situations, however, this ruling is fact-specific. The EAT stated that, in theory, a
proposed transfer may affect employees who do some work in or for the part
of business transferring. Employers should also remember that non-transferring
employees in cases similar to this, would have the right to be consulted
collectively under the redundancy consultation rules.
“...the right to be consulted collectively under the redundancy consultation rules.”
The Law Firm of The Futurewww.plexuslaw.co.uk
Post-termination victimisation is unlawful, confused anyone? In a controversial move the EAT has given conflicting decisions only weeks apart on whether post-employment victimisation is unlawful.
The decision in Rowstock Ltd v Jessemey (as covered in Employment
Writes April 2013) held that post-employment victimisation was not unlawful.
However, a differently constituted EAT has now ruled that post-employment is
protected under the Equality Act 2010 in the case of Onu v Akwiwu and another
UKEAT/0022/12.
Miss Onu was a domestic servant working in the UK for Mr and Mrs Akwiwu,
a Nigerian family. She left her employment alleging that she had been exploited
and badly treated and brought claims for unfair dismissal, race discrimination
and failure to pay the national minimum wage. Some six months later, the
Akwiwus telephoned Miss Onu’s sister in Nigeria and said that “if [Onu] thought
things would end there, she was wrong” and that “[Onu] would suffer for it”. Onu
brought a further claim for victimisation.
The employment tribunal rejected Onu’s victimisation
claim as the Akwiwu telephone call did not make specific
reference to the discrimination claim. Further Onu had failed
The Law Firm of The Futurewww.plexuslaw.co.uk
to show that the threats from her employers were because she had commenced
proceedings for race discrimination.
Onu appealed this finding and the EAT considered the provisions of the
Equality Act 2010 and whether it provided protection from post-employment
victimisation. The EAT stated that this required a two-stage approach, involving
a consideration of domestic and then EU law.
Following a convoluted analysis, the EAT came to the conclusion that the
Equality Act 2010 does cover post-employment victimisation, contradicting the
finding of the EAT weeks earlier. The EAT explained that the draftsman of the
Equality Act 2010 must be taken to have been aware of the 2003 House of
Lords’ decision in Rhys-Harper v Relaxion Group and that victimisation under
previous discrimination legislation could give rise to a claim if it occurred post-
termination.
Further section 108(7) Equality Act 2010 was not considered expressly to
exclude a claim for victimisation under other provisions of the Act, which were
deemed to apply whether the employment was continuing or had ceased.
The final reason given by the EAT was that if the construction of the Act did not
accord with the EU law, the second stage would be for the tribunal to interpret
the Equality Act 2010 in a manner consistent with European obligations which
provided post-employment victimisation protection.
Employers are right to be confused by the conflicting EAT decisions on this point.
The EAT has granted permission to appeal. In the meantime, employers should
assume that ex-employees are protected by post-termination victimisation.
“...employers should assume that ex-employees are protected by post-termination victimisation.”
The Law Firm of The Futurewww.plexuslaw.co.uk
Can obesity amount to a disability? Yes, says the EAT in Walker v Sita Information Working Computing Ltd UKEAT/0097/12.
The BBC recently reported that the number of people with obesity in the UK has more
than trebled within the last 25 years. Doctors now say that the condition is reaching
‘epidemic’ proportions. It is therefore unsurprising that the issue of whether obesity
can amount to a disability has found its way to the Employment Tribunal.
Mr Walker brought a disability discrimination claim against his employers. He weighed
21 stone and suffered from what his doctor referred to as ‘functional overlay’, which
was compounded by his obesity. He had numerous health problems such as asthma,
chronic fatigue syndrome, knee problems, bowel problems, anxiety and depression.
At first instance, the employment tribunal decided that he was not disabled, for the
purpose of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal based this decision on the fact that a
specialist had examined Mr Walker and had not been able to identify a ‘physical or
organic cause’ for his conditions other than his obesity.
However, the EAT overturned this decision on the basis that it was not the cause of
Mr Walker’s symptoms that should be focussed on, but rather the effect. Mr Walker’s
health problems amounted to a disability even though the symptoms may have
been caused by obesity which is not, in itself, a disability. The key question for the
EAT was whether Mr Walker had a physical or mental impairment and not what
the cause of the impairment was.
An employer managing an obese employee with health problems should seek
medical advice to identify whether the employee has a physical or mental
impairment satisfying the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010. This
would be the same for an employee with alcoholism or drug dependency. Whilst
the condition itself is not a disability, the possible effect of that condition, i.e.
liver disease would qualify as an impairment. The employer can then consider
whether the employee in question is suffering from a substantial disadvantage
(in comparison to those who are not disabled) as a result of a provision, criteria,
practice or physical feature, and therefore whether reasonable adjustments
should be considered.
The Law Firm of The Futurewww.plexuslaw.co.uk
Contact UsFor more information please contact:
Charlotte Cooper
Head of Employment
Plexus Law
T: 01386 769179
These articles are not intended to constitute legal or other professional advice and should not be relied upon or treated as a
substitute for specific advice relevant to particular circumstances.
T: 0844 245 4000www.plexuslaw.co.ukOffices in London, Leeds, Manchester and Colchester
Plexus Law is a trading name of Parabis Law LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership. Incorporated in England & Wales. Reg No: OC315763. Registered office: 8 Bedford Park, Croydon, Surrey CR0 2AP Parabis Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the SRA.