update based on law at
The list below is a hyperlinked list of the "top 9" more important new and altered entries to this program made since the previous general update (ie since 23rd March 2005).
27 political parties, no less, have issued manifestos in preparation for the 5th May 2005 General Election. The employment related parts of the manifestos issued by the three main parties are summarised in the emplaw program.
A feature of emplaw.co.uk is the provision of thumbnail summaries and/or or headnotes of all cases reported in the ICR and IRLR law reports since end 1999. This is in addition to linked thumbnail summaries and/or headnotes of more than 1,500 other cases, new and old.
Cases reported in ICR 2005 pt 4 and in IRLR 2005 no 4 are noted/summarised in the current emplaw program and short commentary is provided. For most there are direct links to free versions of the full judgments, usually on the Court Service, EAT or BAILII websites.
Official policy is now to introduce new employment regulations at the beginning of April and October each year. Well over 70 new or altered employment regulations came into effect in early April. Ten of the more important ones are:-
for more detail go to emplaw notes on:-
The Working Time regulations give all workers the right to four weeks paid annual holiday. What if an employee is on long term sick leave? The wording of the regulations is such that he is entitled to holiday, and therefore to holiday pay, even if he is no longer receiving normal pay. Or is it? The EAT thought that was the only interpretation possible but the Court of Appeal restored sanity when it found a way to overrule that decision on 22nd April 2005. So the final answer is no.
A recent Court of Appeal decision has made it easier for an employee who has been bullied by a fellow employee to make a claim against his employer. The Court of Appeal has ruled that the employer can be vicariously liable to pay the victim damages under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for any anxiety caused by, or financial loss resulting from, the bullying. To protect themselves from this risk, in so far as possible, employers would be well advised to check the small print of their insurances and/or of any anti-bullying policies they may have in place.
The "opt-out" provision under which it is permissible in the UK for an employer and an employee to make an enforceable agreement to exceed the normal 48 hours average maximum weekly working time limit is under serious threat. In April 2005 the Employment and Social Affairs Committee of the European Parliament voted 31 to 14 (with one abstention) to change the EC Working Time directive so as to make opt-out agreements unlawful by 2010. The full Parliament is due to vote on the question in May. Employers, and any employees who are adversely affected, may wish to contact their MEP and/or employer's organisation or trade union to make their views known.
2005 marks the 10th anniversary of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It is amended by a new Act which the government managed to get onto the statute book in April before the pre-election shut down of Parliament whch includes some employment related provisions. These widen of the definition of disability so that those with Aids, cancer or multiple sclerosis are protected from the point of diagnosis even if they can still function normally and remove the requirement that a mental illness must be clinically well recognised to count as a disability for purposes of the Act. Selection of employees for redundancy can lead to expensive unfair dismissal claims if the Act is disregarded so these changes are likely to be of considerable importance to both employers and employees.
Under new regulations directors of quoted UK companies have to ensure that an annual Operating and Financial Review ("OFR") is produced which must include employee data in a Human Capital Management ("HCM") section. The new rules, the Companies Act 1985 (Operating and Financial Review and Directors' Report etc.) Regulations 2005 SI 2005/1011, apply in respect of financial years beginning on or after 1st April 2005.
Employment Tribunals are normally very strict about enforcing the time limits allowed for making and responding to claims. In one recent case, the electronic version of an application form supplied by the tribunal service failed to arrive at the tribunal even though the employee concerned had pressed the "submit" button on his computer. That was not a good enough excuse to persuade the EAT that he should be allowed to relodge his claim out of time. However in another recent case the Court of Appeal agreed with the EAT that a Marks and Spencer employee should be allowed extra time for lodging a claim when her main excuse for lateness was that her employer's internal appeals procedure had not been completed.