[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ background_color=”#ffffff” fullwidth=”on” custom_padding_last_edited=”on|desktop” _builder_version=”3.0.99″ custom_padding_tablet=”50px|0|50px|0″ transparent_background=”off” padding_mobile=”off” custom_padding=”|||” next_background_color=”#000000″ global_module=”136″][et_pb_fullwidth_header global_parent=”136″ title=”Employment Law News” _builder_version=”3.0.99″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” background_layout=”dark” title_font=”||||||||” subhead_font=”||||||||” background_color=”rgba(255, 255, 255, 0)” button_one_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_size__hover=”null” button_two_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_size__hover=”null” button_one_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_color__hover=”null” button_two_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_width__hover=”null” button_two_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_width__hover=”null” button_one_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_color__hover=”null” button_two_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_radius__hover=”null” button_two_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_radius__hover=”null” button_one_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_two_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_one_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_bg_color__hover=”null” button_two_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_bg_color__hover=”null” /][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” prev_background_color=”#000000″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial”][et_pb_column type=”3_4″][et_pb_text use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” _builder_version=”3.17.6″]

TRIBUNAL RULES THAT STANCE ON SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE IS “PHILOSOPHICAL BELIEF” FOR DISCRIMINATION PURPOSES 

An employment tribunal has held that a Councillor’s belief in Scottish Independence can amount to a “philosophical belief” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. 

SNP leader, Chris McEleny, brought a discrimination case against the Ministry of Defence in 2018 claiming that he had been unfairly targeted due to his views on Scottish Independence. He claimed that he had had his security clearance revoked after national security officials had interviewed him about these views together with his opposition to the Trident nuclear system and his mental health.

In a written statement, the Judge held that Mr McEleny’s situation met the legal requirements to constitute a philosophical belief. The judge was persuaded that the Claimant’s belief that Scotland, rather than any other Country, should be independent was of sufficient weight and importance to human life and behaviour to be philosophical in nature. 

By the same analogy, one could view Brexit as a belief that Britain should be independent of the EU and equally the reverse that Britain should remain in the EU. 

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″][et_pb_sidebar orientation=”right” area=”sidebar-1″ background_layout=”light” remove_border=”off” show_border=”on” /][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ background_color=”#ffffff” fullwidth=”on” custom_padding_last_edited=”on|desktop” _builder_version=”3.0.99″ custom_padding_tablet=”50px|0|50px|0″ transparent_background=”off” padding_mobile=”off” custom_padding=”|||” next_background_color=”#000000″ global_module=”136″][et_pb_fullwidth_header global_parent=”136″ title=”Employment Law News” _builder_version=”3.0.99″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” background_layout=”dark” title_font=”||||||||” subhead_font=”||||||||” background_color=”rgba(255, 255, 255, 0)” button_one_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_size__hover=”null” button_two_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_size__hover=”null” button_one_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_color__hover=”null” button_two_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_width__hover=”null” button_two_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_width__hover=”null” button_one_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_color__hover=”null” button_two_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_radius__hover=”null” button_two_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_radius__hover=”null” button_one_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_two_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_one_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_bg_color__hover=”null” button_two_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_bg_color__hover=”null” /][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” prev_background_color=”#000000″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial”][et_pb_column type=”3_4″][et_pb_text use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” _builder_version=”3.17.6″]

PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES PAYABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST BREAKS UNDER THE WORKING TIME REGULATIONS 1998

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that personal injury compensation is available for a failure to provide rest breaks under the Working Time Regulations 1998.

The Claimant, Mr Grange, was employed as a bus driver and then as a worker who monitored and regulated bus services. The Claimant brought a claim in the employment tribunal claiming that his employer had refused to permit him to exercise his entitlement to a rest break throughout various periods of his employment. 

On appeal, the EAT found that as a matter of law the employer’s refusal did not have to amount to an active response to a positive request. Denial of the right could take place through the arrangement of the working day. The tribunal had found that there were 14 days where the employer had been in breach and the Claimant gave evidence stating that the lack of rest breaks amounted to more than discomfort due to a bowel condition and he was therefore awarded £750 compensation.

It was held that tribunals are authorised to award damages for personal injury under the Working Time Regulations. The EAT considered previous case law in this area and highlighted the difference between awards for injury to feelings (which did not apply) and personal injury damages. It was clear from EU authority that the objective of the regulations is to protect the health and safety of workers, and it would be natural for them to allow such awards. A formal approach was not required for assessment of damages.  The tribunal was held to be empowered to deal with low-value cases on a common-sense approach without the need for medical evidence.

Grange v Abellio London Ltd EAT/0304/17

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″][et_pb_sidebar orientation=”right” area=”sidebar-1″ background_layout=”light” remove_border=”off” show_border=”on” /][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ background_color=”#ffffff” fullwidth=”on” custom_padding_last_edited=”on|desktop” _builder_version=”3.0.99″ custom_padding_tablet=”50px|0|50px|0″ transparent_background=”off” padding_mobile=”off” custom_padding=”|||” next_background_color=”#000000″ global_module=”136″][et_pb_fullwidth_header global_parent=”136″ title=”Employment Law News” _builder_version=”3.0.99″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” background_layout=”dark” title_font=”||||||||” subhead_font=”||||||||” background_color=”rgba(255, 255, 255, 0)” button_one_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_size__hover=”null” button_two_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_size__hover=”null” button_one_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_color__hover=”null” button_two_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_width__hover=”null” button_two_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_width__hover=”null” button_one_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_color__hover=”null” button_two_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_radius__hover=”null” button_two_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_radius__hover=”null” button_one_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_two_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_one_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_bg_color__hover=”null” button_two_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_bg_color__hover=”null” /][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” prev_background_color=”#000000″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial”][et_pb_column type=”3_4″][et_pb_text use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” _builder_version=”3.17.6″]

LEGITIMATE TO SUSPEND A TEACHER FOR MANHANDLING PUPILS

The Claimant, Ms Agoreyo, an experienced teacher, commenced work as a primary school teacher for the London Borough of Lambeth in order to teach a class of up to 29 five and six-year-old children, two of whom demonstrated challenging behaviour. 

It was alleged that on two occasions the Claimant used unreasonable force towards the two children as follows:

• She dragged one child on the floor out of the classroom in the presence of another member of staff and the rest of the children whilst the child cried “help me”;
• She dragged another child very aggressively a few feet down the corridor whilst shouting at him;
• She also told this child to leave the classroom for failing to follow instructions. When he refused, she shouted “if you don’t walk then I will carry you out!” and then picked up the child who kicked and screamed in the presence of other children.

The Claimant was subsequently suspended pending investigation of these allegations and she resigned whilst on suspension. 

The Claimant challenged the lawfulness of her suspension as being a repudiatory breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence. She did not argue that the allegations against her should not be investigated, but that the suspension was not reasonable or necessary for the investigation to take place.

The Court of Appeal held that Lambeth had been bound to suspend the Claimant after receiving reports of the allegations against her. Given that there had been reasonable and proper cause to suspend her, the suspension had not breached the implied term of trust and confidence.  

It was held that the assessment of whether there was reasonable and proper cause for a suspension, like other issues of reasonableness, was a question of assessment. The allegations of misconduct were serious and had to be investigated. As the employer had to safeguard the interests of very young children, Lambeth had reasonable and proper cause to suspend the Claimant. The appeal court held that the question is not whether suspension was “necessary”. Further, it considered that whether the suspension was to be viewed as a neutral act was “ultimately not a relevant question nor a particularly helpful one”. The crucial question in such cases was whether there had been a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and that depended on whether there had been reasonable and proper cause for the suspension. This was a highly fact-specific question, not a legal question. 

Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lambeth v Agoreyo [2019] EWCA Civ 322

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″][et_pb_sidebar orientation=”right” area=”sidebar-1″ background_layout=”light” remove_border=”off” show_border=”on” /][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ background_color=”#ffffff” fullwidth=”on” custom_padding_last_edited=”on|desktop” _builder_version=”3.0.99″ custom_padding_tablet=”50px|0|50px|0″ transparent_background=”off” padding_mobile=”off” custom_padding=”|||” next_background_color=”#000000″ global_module=”136″][et_pb_fullwidth_header global_parent=”136″ title=”Employment Law News” _builder_version=”3.0.99″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” background_layout=”dark” title_font=”||||||||” subhead_font=”||||||||” background_color=”rgba(255, 255, 255, 0)” button_one_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_size__hover=”null” button_two_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_size__hover=”null” button_one_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_color__hover=”null” button_two_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_width__hover=”null” button_two_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_width__hover=”null” button_one_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_color__hover=”null” button_two_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_radius__hover=”null” button_two_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_radius__hover=”null” button_one_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_two_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_one_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_bg_color__hover=”null” button_two_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_bg_color__hover=”null” /][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” prev_background_color=”#000000″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial”][et_pb_column type=”3_4″][et_pb_text use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” _builder_version=”3.17.6″]

BAD LEAVER PROVISION WHERE SHARES AND LOAN NOTES WERE FORFEITED WAS FOUND NOT TO BE UNCONSCIONABLE OR A PENALTY

The Claimant worked for a company that was acquired by way of a sale of shares. As a condition of the acquisition, the purchaser required that the seller provide equity to key employees to ensure continuity post-acquisition. The Claimant was therefore given a 2% shareholding. 

The Claimant sold her shares to the new company pursuant to a share sale agreement which provided for both initial and deferred consideration. The deferred consideration included staged cash payments and an entitlement to earn-out shares and loan notes, which were subject to good leaver/bad leaver provisions.

A bad leaver included an employee who voluntarily resigned so they would forfeit their loan notes in whatever way the Remuneration Committee may determine in good faith, and would be required to sell back their share at the lower of acquisition cost or fair value. 

The Claimant subsequently resigned and sought to challenge the bad leaver provisions by arguing breach of contract and unauthorised deduction from wages. It was claimed that the bad leaver provisions were unenforceable as they were (1) unconscionable, (2) in breach of the rule against penalties and (3) amounted to a contravention of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 as the covenant not to become a bad leaver amounted to forced or compulsory labour.  

The EAT ruled that the Claimant could not bring a claim under the unauthorised deductions from wages provisions. The Employment Rights Act 1996 excluded claims for any payment to the worker otherwise than in his capacity as a worker. The shares and loan notes were provided to the claimant in her capacity as seller of shares, not worker. 

The EAT held that there is a three stage test for setting aside an unconscionable bargain: (1) one party must have been at a serious disadvantage whether through poverty, ignorance, lack of advice or otherwise; (2) the other party must have exploited that disadvantage in some morally culpable manner, and (3) the resulting transaction must be overreaching and oppressive. The EAT found that the Claimant did not meet even the first criterion – she had warranted in the share sale agreement that she had taken professional advice; further, the bad leaver provisions were, in fact, reasonable. In any event, setting aside the agreement would have put the Claimant in the position of never having received the shares, which was not what she was seeking. 

There was also no bad faith in treating the Claimant as a bad leaver even though the Remuneration Committee had discretion under the Articles to re-classify her as a good leaver. The bad leaver provisions, to which the Claimant had agreed, made it clear that an employee who gave notice to terminate employment was a bad leaver, and no exceptional circumstances had arisen such as to call into question the employer’s decision to apply the default treatment of a voluntary resignation as making her a bad leaver.

Finally, in terms of the alleged penalty, the EAT held that the rule against penalty clauses was not relevant in this case because the consequences of being a bad leaver did not depend on the Claimant being in breach of contract/covenant. The company simply relied on the provisions of the Articles, which set out the conditions that needed to be satisfied to secure payment and these had not been met. 

Nosworthy v Instinctif Partners Ltd [2019] UKEAT/0100/18

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″][et_pb_sidebar orientation=”right” area=”sidebar-1″ background_layout=”light” remove_border=”off” show_border=”on” /][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]