What did we get up to last month?
We read with interest the answers that Mike Ashley, owner of Sports Direct, gave to MPs when called to give evidence about working conditions at the company’s warehouse in Shirebrook. Concerns include breaches of the National Minimum Wage legislation; some workers receiving pay through a pre-paid card, which they had to pay to get, as well as paying a monthly admin charge; and zero hours contracts being used for 75-80% of workers, despite many of those workers regularly working full time hours. Mr Ashley admitted that there were some issues in the way that working practices had developed and that these were being looked into with a view to being addressed. Mr Ashley appeared before the Commons Business Select Committee, despite his initial refusal to do so, after he was issued with a Parliamentary summons to attend.
Peace of mind
Over the last few years more and more of our clients have moved to fixed price retainers for HR and employment law advice with Buckles. We can give your organisation complete peace of mind in having 24/7 access to our experienced team of employment law solicitors at very affordable prices. We can even include insurance cover too against Tribunal claims. More information is available here or you can get in touch with me here and if you have a retainer with another provider please do bear us in mind when it comes to renewal time!
Any plans for next month?
Our HR Breakfast Club workshops on the topic of Managing Stress and Depression in the Workplace will be taking place in Peterborough, Huntingdon and Nottingham on:
Peterborough: Tuesday 5 July 2016
Huntingdon: Wednesday 6 July 2016
Nottingham: Wednesday 13 July 2016
Peterborough: Thursday 14 July 2016
This is a topic that we are increasingly being asked to advise our clients on and we shall be giving practical advice on how to handle these issues as well as taking a look at some recent key cases on stress and disability. Please book early to avoid disappointment.
Katharine, AKA Paul Baker, MD of PRO-Blems Ltd, will be taking part in the next Cambridgeshire Chambers of Commerce “Effective HR” event at the Marriott in Peterborough on Thursday 7 July. This time, the Chambers’ HR and Recruitment committee will be sharing best practice advice on how to deal with disciplinary matters. To find out more and book a place, please click here.
The EAT in Risby v London Borough of Waltham Forest, clarified that there needs to be only a loose connection between an employee’s conduct and their disability in order for a claim for discrimination arising from disability to be made out. In this case, Mr Risby who had 23 years’ service and who was disabled on account of his paraplegia, was known to have a short-temper. This was unconnected with his disability. Mr Risby was dismissed following an angry outburst when he discovered that a training course that he was shceduled to attend had been moved by his employer to a venue which was not accessible for disabled users, meaning that he would not be able to attend. His outburst included the statements “the council would not get away with this if they said that no f**king ni**ers were allowed to attend” and that he was being treated “like a ni**er in the woodpile”. The target of Mr Risby’s rant was of mixed race and believed that he was directing his comments at her specifically. Mr Risby was suspended and ultimately summarily dismissed for using offensive and racist language.
Mr Risby brought a claim for discrimination arising from disability. The Tribunal did not uphold this claim, finding that there was no link between Mr Risby’s disability and his angry outburst. However, the EAT disagreed. It concluded that if Mr Risby had not been disabled by paraplegia, he would not have been angered by the decision to hold the workshop in a venue he could not access. It concluded that “his misconduct was the product of indignation caused by that decision” and that “his disability was an effective cause of that indignation and so of his conduct”. The fact that Mr Risby’s personality trait of shortness of temper, which did not arise from his disability, was also a cause of his conduct, did not mean that the other cause, which was related to his disability, should be disregarded.
On this basis, the EAT sent the matter back to the Tribunal to consider whether or not the Council could justify the discriminatory treatment of dismissal as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
In Carreras v United First Partnership Research, the EAT has held that an expectation for Mr Carreras to work long hours amounted to a “provision, criterion or practice” (PCP) to which reasonable adjustments would need to be made for disabled employees. It also held that an employer’s fundamental breach of contract did not have to be the sole reason for an employee’s resignation in order for a constructive dismissal claim to succeed, it just had to be one of the reasons.
Mr Carreras had worked for United for a number of years and was expected to work more than 8 hours a day. After a bike accident left Mr Carreras with a disability, he found that he was unable to work the long hours that he used to as it left him too tired. When he raised this with his manager, he was verbally reprimanded and told that if he didn’t like it he could leave. Mr Carreras promptly resigned and brought a claim for constructive unfair dismissal and a failure to make reasonable adjustments. A month later, he moved to the US to join his wife who had obtained employment there.
The employment tribunal rejected Mr Carrereas’ claims. It said that he had not established that there was a contractual requirement for him to work long hours, and that it was likely he would have resigned in any event to move to the US with his wife. The EAT overturned the Tribunal’s findings: it concluded that it was enough that there was an expectation that long hours would be worked for a PCP to be established even if it was not a contractual requirement. Secondly, the possibility that Mr Carreras may well have resigned soon to move to the US did not mean that he did not in fact resign in response to United’s breach. The matter was sent back to the Tribunal for reassessment in light of the EAT’s findings.
This month’s mini quiz – just for fun!
1. It has been reported by Citizens’ Advice that guidance being sought by employees in relation to pregnancy discrimination has increased by what percent in the last financial year?
a) 15%
b) 20%
c) 25%
2. In France, a claimant is seeking 360,000EUR in compensation and damages from his employers for what?
a) Illness caused by his job being too boring
b) Illness caused by his annoying colleagues
c) Illness caused by having to start work too early
3. If employers breach the Working Time Regulations 1998 by failing to provide rest breaks, can a worker claim compensation for injury to feelings?
a) Yes
b) No
Answers to the mini quiz are: 1. c; 2. a; 3. b
To sign up to receive our monthly employment e-bulletin, please head to our newsletter subscription page.
