The government announced proposals in May 2008 to increase to age 16 (from, normally, age 6) the age of children whose parents will have the legal right to request flexible working. This consultation document discusses implementation. It states (at para 27) that implementation is now planned for April 2009. Consultation ends 18th November 2009.
A further change will be removal of the obligation on an employer (currently often not observed) to give written notice to an employee of agreement to flexible working arrangements (the obligation to write will NOT be removed if the employer has refused a flexible working request).
Business had pressed for the new rules not to come into force until late 2009 or 2010. The FT reports the early introduction as a "victory for unions over employers" (FT 26.8.08).
See also BERR Press Release 26.8.08 - Government consults on flexible working.
See related topic on emplaw.co.uk here
Mr Maley was dismissed by Royal Mail on 12 weeks notice on grounds of excessive absences from work. He said the absences resulted from dermatitis which could have been alleviated by the provision of a cotton uniform. He claimed unfair dismissal. He later applied to add a disability discrimination claim on the basis that Royal Mail had failed to make reasonable adjstments.
An employment judge refused to allow the addition of the disability/reasonable adjustments claim on the basis that Mr Maley had not complied with the Statutory Grievance Procedures. Mr Maley appealed against that refusal.
Mr Maley won. The EAT gave leave to add the disability/reasonable adjustments claim and remitted the case to the Employment Tribunal for hearing.
The EAT pointed out that neither of the statutory grievance procedures applies where the grievance is that the employer had dismissed or is contemplating dismissing the employee. In this case there was no freestanding grievance which did not have dismissal at the heart of the complaint. Therefore neither of the statutory grievance procedures applied so the employment judge's decision was "plainly wrong".
The EAT also rejected the Royal Mail's assertion that the additional claim was out of time. Facts set out in the original claim supported the additional claim and "the requirements of relevance, reason, justice and fairness inherent in all judicial discretions" persuaded the EAT that the time point should be decided in favour of Mr Maley.
See related topic on emplaw.co.uk here
Miss Muchesa was employed by CCHCS at a care home. She made allegations to the daughter of a resident, the police and social services about what she said were unsatisfactory standards at the home. CCHCS suspended her for misconduct and in due course dismissed her. Meanwhile, she made further allegations to the Council for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) which inspected the home and found the allegations were unfounded.
Miss Muchesa made various claims to an employment tribunal. The claim which is relevant for this note was that she had been unfairly dismissed because (i) her dismissal was for making a protected disclosure ("whistleblowing") and (ii) CCHS had failed to comply with the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedures. Although she won on automatic procedural unfairness she was awarded no compensation beyond a basic award. The tribunal rejected her whistle-blowing claims completely. Miss Muchesa appealed.
The EAT concluded (as had the original tribunal) that the disclosures were not to persons described in 43G which required that the disclosures be made in good faith and that Miss Muchesa "reasonably believed" the information disclosed to be "substantially true".
The EAT said that employment tribunal made no error of law when it found this not to be the case. "They were entitled...to consider whether the complaints were in fact true and to regard their view of their truth or untruth as an important tool to the resolution of the issue before them of reasonable belief. The matters of fact of which Miss Muchesa had complained were matters of which she claimed to have direct personal knowledge...the truth of her allegations would naturally appear to be of greater weight than if this was a case of second-hand information." The tribunal was entitled to ask itself " whether the actions or inactions of Miss Muchesa pointed not only towards the truth of her complaints but also to whether she genuinely believed in that truth. They determined that her actions and inactions were strongly inconsistent with such a belief i.e. she had not behaved in the manner in which she would have behaved had she reasonably believed in the truth of the complaints and was motivated by a genuine desire to protect the residents..."
See related topic on emplaw.co.uk here
After 4 years of alleged enmity between Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur CBE and Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, employment tribunal proceedings have been issued by Mr Ghaffur. The Daily Telegraph of 26.8.08 reports that he is suing his deputy, Richard Bryan, as well as Sir Ian Blair.
According to the BBC he is claiming £1.2 million for loss of earnings and "damages". Apparently Mr Ghaffur alleges discrimination on grounds of race, religion and age.
An article in The Guardian of 20th August 2008 outlines the history of the matter. It may be worth noting that a search for the word "Ghaffur" on the website of the UK National Black Police Association brings up only one reference - and that is to a speech delivered by Mr Ghaffur in August 2006
See related topic on emplaw.co.uk here
Mr Jones left his employers, Money Expert, and emigrated to Australia. He submitted a claim to an employment tribunal for an unpaid bonus of over £5,000. A case management order was made precluding the employer from relying upon documents which it had not disclosed to Mr Jones. Unsurprisingly, Mr Jones did not attend the tribunal hearing. The employer did attend, with witnesses and, notwithstanding the order, with documents it had apparently not disclosed to Mr Jones. An employment judge dismissed Mr Jones's claim and refused to review that decision. Mr Jones appealed against that refusal.
Mr Jones won. The EAT ordered the matter to be returned to the employment judge for him to conduct a review in the light of all documents now disclosed.
HHJ McMullen acknowledged that it was not uncommon in short track hearings relating to unlawful deductions of wages for parties to produce at the hearing the evidence they rely on. Allowing this to happen must be subject to orders already made by the tribunal. In this case there had been a case management order for disclosure of documents to Mr Jones, with Money Expert being warned that it should assume it would not be allowed to rely on evidence it had not previously disclosed.
See related topic on emplaw.co.uk here
Responding to a government consultation paper on increasing the rights of employees to request time off work to undertake training, the Federation of Small Businesses has called for exceptions to be made for small businesses.
Under the proposals from the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skillls, employers will be required to hold formal meetings with employers requesting time off to train. The FSB has called for businesses employing under 20 people to be able to hold informal meetings without the necessity of union representation.
Colin Willman, Education and Skills Chairman, said: "The ‘time to train’ process is too expensive and too bureaucratic for small firms as it stands and the FSB is concerned that the employee’s right to request a meeting to discuss time off to train will not only lead to an extra layer of bureaucracy, but will also lead to panic amongst small businesses that a refusal could be interpreted as constructive dismissal. We believe the best way to engage small businesses with the policy are to keep it informal between employer and employee, making it easier to identify the necessary training."
See related topic on emplaw.co.uk here
This is a consultation paper on the police injury compensation scheme. Areas to be considered include extending "widows'" benefits to unmarried and same-sex partners, payable for life, and simplification of the awards system.
There is a summary of the proposals in an accompanying Home Office Press Release "Proposals for fairer police compensation system", 25.8.08
Consultation ends 18th November 2008.
See related topic on emplaw.co.uk here