One year after the Supreme Court ruled Employment Tribunal fees unlawful, thousands of claimants are still awaiting outstanding fees for their Employment Tribunal claims. This is a major issue, as the Ministry of Justice announced that these claims are on the rise with 9,252 claimants filing complaints against their employees, which is more than double the amount between October 2013 and June 2017.  

Currently, only £6.6 million out of £33 million has been refunded, which means 80% costs are still outstanding, which does not align with the government’s intentions back in October 2017, where they vowed to repay all fees immediately through their official refund programme.

Commenting on the refund programme, a representative from HM Courts and Tribunals Service stated that:

Maintaining absence management in the workplace is vital, in order to establish guidelines for staff, whether they are absent for short or long-term illness, maternity or paternity leave, or a staff member takes a few days off work of their own accord, without providing a reason why, or may not even inform their employer.

These absences must be regulated by the employer, in order to maintain order in the workplace.

 The following steps should be taken to achieve quality absence management:

The question of whether an employer grievance should disrupt disciplinary proceedings is one up for debate, as the answer is not definitive. As all cases are unique, therefore it is not all grievances cause disruption to disciplinary proceedings , as there may be some proceedings that are affected by a grievance, whereas others are not.

In some cases, the Employment Tribunal may decide to suspend proceedings to allow the employer to attend to any grievance issues raised by the employee.

On other occasions, the disciplinary procedure can run simultaneously with the grievance procedure, as usually the grievance is raised as a response to the disciplinary proceedings brought against the employee. Therefore, the grievance can be dealt with in the disciplinary hearing.

Employers should be aware of the risks involved when changing employment contracts, as employers cannot change contracts unilaterally, therefore employers should ensure that they adhere to the lawful processes when considering changing the terms of an employee contract.

An employer should make sure that they go through the correct procedure when making changes to a contract, ensuring that there will be no negative implications for the employee, as they may risk breaching the contract.

If a breach occurs then the organisation could face extensive damages, as well as unfair constructive dismissal claims.

The Equality Act 2010 sets out the rights and responsibilities of disabled workers, who are either mentally or physically disabled, protecting them against discrimination in the workplace.

To clarify, an employee can be categorised as disabled if they have a long-term physical or mental impairment, which hinders them from carrying out everyday tasks in the workplace, which could include: manual handling, Navigating a computer, colleague interaction, etc.

There are various types of disability discrimination, including:

The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) have insisted that small business owners step up and lead the discussion on mental health, in order to destigmatise it in the workplace. 

Current statistics show that one in four people within the UK have experienced mental health problems, and according to the Government’s 2017 Thriving in work report, over 300,000 people in the UK lost their jobs due to long-term mental health issues.

FSB has recently conducted research, which revealed that more than one in five cases reported to FSB care - the health and medical service for FSB members - involved mental health issues.

Following the closure of the Gender Recognition Act consultation, many people have voiced their opinions regarding the need to reform the act, due to a variety of problematic issues.

The Employment Lawyers Association (ELA) have discussed the negative implications of the Gender Recognition 2004 act and have called for a repeal of section 22 of the act, which they believe inadvertently criminalises innocent members of staff, especially HR employees who assist trans job seekers.

Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 states:

Business Secretary, Greg Clark has announced the implementation of new measures to support organisations, entrepreneurs, and workers, in accordance with the Government’s Modern Industrial Strategy.

One of the more prolific changes is the Government’s plan to ensure that all tips left for employees are given in full, rather than employers taking their staff’s well-earned gratuities.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy stated:

The UK government have recently discussed plans addressing workplace discrimination by requiring employers to report their organisations ethnicity pay gap.

On the 11^th of October, Theresa May launched a consultation in order to determine the need for organisations to report ethnic imbalances in the workplace, as the prime minister relayed that ethnic minority workers can “feel they’re hitting a brick wall when it comes to career progression.”

The government and some PR industry leaders feel reporting is necessary, with statistics showing that 15.6 per cent of ethnic minorities are in the lowest pay bracket.

In accordance with the Equality Act 2010, which has set out rules in relation to racial discrimination against potential and current employees in the workplace. This includes discrimination against colour, nationality, and ethnicity.

There are four main types of racial discrimination, including:

• Direct Discrimination, which occurs when an employee is treated less favourably in relation to another member of staff due to their actual race, perceived race, or the race of an employee’s associate.

• STUC ACCUSED OF RACE DISCRIMINATION.

  

  A former employee of the Scottish Trade Union Congress (STUC), Zaffir Hakim, has recently been successful in his race discrimination case against the STUC, with the assistance of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Ultimately, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that Mr Hakim had been unfairly dismissed by STUC, after 11 years of service working under a Scottish Government-funded scheme. This scheme was actually targeting workplace racism, although ultimately decided to allow Mr Hakim’s white colleague to stay on in a similar role.

  Zaffir Hakim started work under the STUC in 2003, working as a Development Officer for the One Workplace Equal Rights Project, which was launched by STUC in order to “challenge discrimination in the workplace and promote good practice”. Although, Mr Hakim actually made several complaints regarding racial discrimination under STUC, stating:

• THE IMPACT ON EMPLOYERS REGARDING EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL FEES ENDING.

  

  The impact on employers regarding Employment Tribunal fees ending.

  As of July 26^th 2017, the Supreme Court ruled Employment Tribunal fees as unlawful, but what does this mean for employers?

  The ruling has visibly increased the amount of Employment Tribunal cases, with the Ministry of Justice publishing Tribunal statistics from October to December 2017 showing a 90% increase in the number of single employment tribunal claims.

• THE NEW GENERAL CONDITIONS OF ENTITLEMENT

  

  Ofcom have amended and implemented the new General Conditions of Entitlement, which were enforced from the first of this month (01/10/2018).

  The General Conditions are in place in order to regulate all providers of “electronic communications networks” and services within the UK. Although there is actually no law in place that permits these providers to obtain a specific license, the General Conditions must be adhered to.

  Talks of amendments first began in December 2016, with the new rules focusing closely on simplification and Ofcom’s current concerns regarding communication providers.

  Changes include the following:

• TRANSFERRED REDUNDANCY

  

  Transferred redundancy also known as bumping occurs when an employee is dismissed, as their job is taken over by another staff member who was originally made redundant.

  The discussion surrounding transferred redundancy is problematic for employers, as there is evident uncertainty regarding whether or not bumping should be discussed with employees during a redundancy consultation, and whether or not the employer or the employee is the first to it up in conversation, there is not actually a legitimate set of language that is currently in place for such discussion.

  In the case of Mirab v Mentor Graphics (UK) Ltd, the Employment Tribunal concluded that as the claimant employee did not discuss the idea of bumping or taking on a new role, they decided in favour of the employer.

• “WORKING MUMS” AWARDED £16,000 FOR SEX DISCRIMINATION.

   

   

  Essex-based Dental nurses, Billie-Jo Janes and Jessica Rowley have recently been awarded a total of £16,000 for unfair redundancy, due to their inability to work full-time, as working mothers.

  In July 2017, the two women were informed of their redundancy, with the explanation that their employer had no need for part-time workers, and as working mums they could not adhere to the dental practices demands. 

  Both Miss Janes and Miss Rowley contacted their union, Unite, working together to bring the surgery to an Employment Tribunal, after being offered insufficient compensation from the surgery.

  The employer was taken to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal regarding gender discrimination, where Judge Foxwell ruled that the dental practice was guilty of “unlawful indirect sex discrimination”.

  The Employment Tribunal awarded a pay-out each of £6,000 plus £498 interest for “injury to feelings for unlawful indirect sex discrimination”, with added payments for statutory rights and loss earnings, resulting in a total of £7,500 awarded to Miss Jane, 26 and £8,159 awarded to Miss Rowley, 29.

  After the ruling, Miss Rowley, who has now found a position at another dental surgery, stated: