What’s happening this month?
Well what an exciting month we have ahead as we kick off our HR Breakfast Club sessions for 2017. In this round of sessions we will be looking at the challenges and risks posed by social media in the workplace. This is always an interesting and interactive topic and we look forward to seeing many of you at one of our sessions in Peterborough or Huntingdon.
As we look ahead to next month there are some important changes that you should be aware of. One is the change to the National Minimum Wage rates, which will increase from 1 April 2017. Workers aged 25 and over will increase from £7.20 to £7.50 per hour; workers aged 21 to 24 will increase from £6.95 to £7.05; workers aged 18 to 20 increase from £5.55 to £5.60; workers under 19 but above compulsory school age (not apprentices) increase from £4.00 to £4.05 and apprenticeship rates increase from £3.40 to £3.50.
The government have also published its new tribunal compensation levels which will be effective from 6 April 2017. The maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal at Tribunal will increase from £78,962 to £80,541. It is also worth noting that the maximum weekly pay, which is used to calculate statutory redundancy pay and the basic award at Tribunal, will increase from £479 to £489 with effect from 6 April 2017.
I would also take this opportunity, in light of a number of queries we have recently had, to remind you of the requirement to carry out appropriate checks on all new starters before they begin work to ensure they have a right to work in the UK. The penalties for failing to undertake these were increased under the Immigration Act 2016. The fine for employing an illegal worker has increased from £10,000 to £20,000 per illegal worker, the prison sentence has increased from 2 years to 5 years and an employer unable to show documentation on the spot could have their premises closed for up to 48 hours. The Government are clearly introducing tougher penalties in an attempt to crackdown on illegal working. If you are unsure what checks your business is required to undertake then please contact us and Alison, one of our employment solicitors who has a special interest in immigration, will be able to assist you.
On a slightly different note I was interested to read recently that it has been reported that almost 50% of those aged over 55 are likely to work past the age of 65 and anticipate working up to the age of 70. Given that our life expectancy is now greater than it ever has been this should not be a surprise to us but how well are businesses preparing for an aging workforce? Are businesses ready to deal with requests by its older employees to reduce their working hours? Are they ready to adjust any provision criterion or practice to accommodate older employees? Are they ready to deal with any performance related issues that arise as a consequence of their older employees? It may be worthwhile, if you have not already done so, to start considering what measures and working practices you could introduce before these issues start arising.
Finally, I am delighted to report that we will shortly be rolling out a series of International Brexit seminars alongside our colleagues at CastaldiPartners. The first of these will be in our London office on April 27th. We have worked with CastaldiPartners for more than 15 years and the relationship between the two firms evolved and a strategic Alliance was formalised in July 2016. The seminars will take a look at Brexit from the different perspectives of the UK, France and Italy. If your company has an international dimension and this seminar would be of interest to you or a colleague then please feel free to register your early interest here as places will be strictly limited.
Any new cases to be aware of?
There have been some interesting cases this month of which I have selected three to bring to your attention.
In the case of Fidessa Plc v Lancaster the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the employee’s claims for unfair dismissal, indirect sex discrimination and part time workers detriment. This case involved an employee who initially took annual leave before returning to work following maternity leave on a part time basis working four days a week 9am to 5pm. A little over twelve months following her return to work she was made redundant. The EAT upheld the Employment Tribunal’s decision that the employee had been indirectly discriminated against due to her sex. The employer’s provision criterion or practice requiring work to be undertaken after 5pm, and requiring this work to be undertaken in the workplace rather than at home, placed the employee at a disadvantage due to her childcare commitments. The EAT also upheld the Tribunal’s decision that the dismissal was unfair because it was tainted by discrimination. In terms of the Part Time Workers Regulations the EAT considered the argument that these Regulations did not apply to the employee as she had taken annual leave after maternity leave and therefore her old working arrangements were more than 12 months old. However, they concluded that annual leave did not affect the 12 month calculation.
In the case of Sargeant and others v London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and others the Employment Tribunal concluded that age-related transitional provisions in the Firefighters Pension Scheme 2015 were not discriminatory. In this case the provisions of the scheme provided for those within 10 years of the normal pension age would remain within the pension scheme, whose terms were more favourable. Those who were 14 years or more away from the normal pension age transferred into a new scheme on less favourable terms. Those with between 10 and 14 years from the normal pension age received tapered benefits. The Employment Tribunal concluded that, whilst the transitional provisions were age-related and therefore discriminated directly against younger members of the fire service, it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (i.e. to protect those nearer to the normal pension age).
Finally the case of Marathon Asset Management LLP and another v Seddon and another is a High Court decision regarding the use of confidential information which was central to a damages claim. In this case one of the founders of the business left, taking some employees with him, and set up a business in competition. A claim was brought against the departing founder and one of the employee’s claiming that they had taken confidential information prior to leaving. Both admitted that they had copied confidential information, which they accepted was in breach of their contracts (and in the founder’s case his duty of fidelity), but they denied that this information had been used after they had left. There was also no loss shown to the original management company. However, the original management company sought damages valued at £15 million, which they estimated to be reflective of the sum they would have charged to release the individuals from their contractual obligations. The High Court concluded that the two defendants had breached their duties of confidence both contractually and at common law. However, it noted that this information had not been used and there had been no loss to the claimant. As such, the claim for £15 million was rejected and an award of £1 each was made.
To sign up to receive our monthly employment e-bulletin, please head to our newsletter subscription page.
