Rachel Reeves, our current Chancellor, came in for some criticism recently when it was claimed that she had tweaked the details of a previous role at HBOS on her LinkedIn profile (referring to her job as one of ‘economist’ when, allegedly, the role had been a ‘retail banking’ one).
If an employee carries out work, then they are generally entitled to receive wages from their employer in return. The amount of wages payable will generally be set out in the employment contract. Making deductions from the amount otherwise due can be tricky. But deductions can be lawful when made for the right reason and managed correctly.
In De Marchi v London United, the Employment Appeal Tribunal shone a light on the complicated and fiddly provisions contained in the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) relating to relevant transfers and termination of employment. Here is our step-by-step guide to the rules as they are currently understood:
‘Harassment’ doesn’t exist as a free-standing employment claim in the UK. To successfully claim harassment in an employment tribunal, an employee needs to be able to show that the harassment was ‘related to’ a protected characteristic. That is not to say that the employee is required to show that the harassment was ‘because of’ the protected characteristic. The causal bar is not set that high. But some linking factor is required. The relevant protected characteristics for harassment are: sex, sexual orientation, race, religion or belief, disability, age and gender reassignment.
AI applications such as ChatGPT have, over the last 12 months or so, become an important tool in improving business efficiency. However, a recent tribunal judgment indicates that it is not just employers who are taking advantage of AI. It was recently credited with encouraging a serial litigant in a disability discrimination claim against a prospective employer.
Employees with over two years’ service have the right not to be unfairly dismissed. This means that if an employer wants to end an employee’s employment fairly once they have two years’ service, then they need to be able to point to a ‘fair reason’ and show that they acted reasonably in relying on that reason to dismiss.
A warehouse worker has lost his discrimination claim after complaining about his boss having the name ‘Willy’. In Aylmer v Dnata Catering, the Claimant objected to his boss, William McGinty, referring to himself as ‘Willy’. The Claimant asked his boss to avoid using the name because of its other common use as a slang term for penis. He said in an email to his boss: “If you don’t remove it and keep insisting on being called that – I consider it as sexual harassment.” When his complaints were not followed up, he claimed that he had been victimised on the basis that his initial complaints related to sexual harassment.
Contracts of employment often include a provision which states that employers are able to alter an employee’s powers and responsibilities. A recent High Court decision serves as a reminder that such clauses are not without limit, and must be exercised in such a way that trust and confidence in the employment relationship is not undermined.
Indirect discrimination occurs where an employer has a provision, criterion or practice (known as a ‘PCP’) which places people with a certain protected characteristic, and also places the person complaining, at a particular disadvantage when compared to people without that characteristic. An example might include a restrictive working pattern which women (who are acknowledged to statistically take the higher childcare burden) find more difficult to comply with than men. An employee impacted by this work pattern could allege indirect discrimination.