Employment Matters Bite Size August 2008

Your monthly guide to all the recent changes in the world of Employment Law

Legislation

Maternity, Paternity and Adoption
Regulations will be coming into force from 5 October 2008 and will amend the 1999 regulations so that employees on additional maternity leave (AML) will have the same rights to those on ordinary maternity leave (OML). 

These changes follow the High Court's decision in Equal Opportunities Commission v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 2007 that the UK's obligations under EC law mean that employees on OML and AML should not be treated differently.

This will only affect employees whose expected week of childbirth is on or after the 5 October 2008.

Draft Apprenticeship Bill 2008
The Government has doubled the number of apprenticeships in recent years and now wants to outline in statute the way these apprenticeships should operate.  The current law surrounding apprentices is outdated and hard to relate to the system of modern apprenticeships.  The draft bill will ensure that there will be a steady supply of apprenticeships every year and it will set up the National Apprenticeship Service which will help employers in the organisation of these new apprenticeships.  The Government hopes to put new apprenticeships on a par with university and college courses.

For more information follow this link . 
 

Cases

Assessment of hurt feelings in multi-discrimination claim
It was found that the tribunal had been wrong to attribute a single sum for injury to feelings for race and disability discrimination if the injury to feelings is for separate discriminatory acts. In such an event the tribunal should assess each act and then review the final sum awarded to ensure that "double-counting" does not occur.

The Claimant was an Iraqi national employed by an entertainment centre. He was registered disabled due to a hip problem which had affected him throughout his working life. He was dismissed following allegations that he had been aggressive to his manager and falsified absence records. The Claimant made a claim for unfair dismissal and disability and race discrimination on the basis that his colleagues had not been dismissed despite committing similar acts, and his employer had not made reasonable adjustments for his hip problem.

The tribunal found in favour of the claimant but the claimant appealed on the basis that his award for injury to feelings was calculated incorrectly. The EAT agreed with the claimant in that the tribunal had made a mistake by treating race and disability discrimination together; the injuries to feelings should have been considered separately since they arose from different facts. However, the EAT did not believe the award was too low and did not overturn the ruling that the claimant's compensation be reduced by 20% for contributory fault - Jumard v Clywd Leisure Ltd and ors, EAT

Monitoring employee's behaviour at work not a "detriment"
This case concerned a police constable who brought a race discrimination claim against his employer. The employee had brought claims against his previous employer and, as a result, his current employer asked his colleagues to record incidents involving him so that it might protect itself against any further claims. The employee claimed that this was victimisation.

The tribunal concluded that the other officers' conduct could not be said to have been unnecessary or unjustified. The tribunal knew that they must interpret the term "detriment" widely; they must be "satisfied that a reasonable worker would or might take the view that he or she had been disadvantaged in the circumstances in which they worked". The tribunal referred to previous case law which made it clear that an employee can only establish a 'detriment' if it is objectively reasonable in all the circumstances. The tribunal held that making a written record, where no inappropriate action was taken, was not a 'detriment' under the Race Relations Act, and dismissed the claimant's claim.

The claimant appealed in relation to his victimisation claim only, but the appeal was dismissed before the EAT, owing to the fact that no inappropriate action was taken in respect of the issues recorded in the notebooks, and thus they could have had no effect whatsoever on the claimant, as he had not even known about them until after the proceedings started. Nevertheless, both the tribunal and the EAT agreed that if the notebook entries had been used, an employee might have been justified in bringing a grievance.

Bayode v Chief Constable of Derbyshire