Do you risk losing regulatory permissions if you get a team move wrong?

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.100″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” custom_padding=”|||” global_module=”2165″ saved_tabs=”all” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.7.4″ min_height=”66.4px” custom_padding=”50px||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” text_font=”|700|||||||” text_font_size=”27px” background_layout=”dark” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF90aXRsZSIsInNldHRpbmdzIjp7ImJlZm9yZSI6IiIsImFmdGVyIjoiIn19@[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_text_color=”#FFFFFF” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9kYXRlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJkYXRlX2Zvcm1hdCI6ImRlZmF1bHQiLCJjdXN0b21fZGF0ZV9mb3JtYXQiOiIifX0=@[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22.3″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ text_orientation=”justified” hover_enabled=”0″ use_border_color=”off” global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]

Do you risk losing regulatory permissions if you get a team move wrong? Employment specialists Nick Wilcox and Blair Wassman answer this question in this Insurance Post blog (subscription required).

https://www.postonline.co.uk/people/7946721/blog-making-the-wrong-team-moves-risks-losing-regulatory-permissions

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]


Pregnant at work? Your top ten questions on workplace rights answered

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.100″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” custom_padding=”|||” global_module=”2165″ saved_tabs=”all” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.7.4″ min_height=”66.4px” custom_padding=”50px||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” text_font=”|700|||||||” text_font_size=”27px” background_layout=”dark” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF90aXRsZSIsInNldHRpbmdzIjp7ImJlZm9yZSI6IiIsImFmdGVyIjoiIn19@[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_text_color=”#FFFFFF” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9kYXRlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJkYXRlX2Zvcm1hdCI6ImRlZmF1bHQiLCJjdXN0b21fZGF0ZV9mb3JtYXQiOiIifX0=@[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22.3″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ text_orientation=”justified” hover_enabled=”0″ use_border_color=”off” global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]

BDBF Partner, Paula Chan and Managing Associate, Emily Plosker regularly advise senior professional women, including employees, LLP members and partners on their workplace and employment rights during pregnancy. Together they have decades of experience representing pregnant women and mothers, helping them to enforce their employment rights. As mothers of young children themselves, they bring the perspective of their own experience of being pregnant at work. In this article, they answer the top ten questions asked by women who are pregnant at work or planning a pregnancy.   

1. When should I tell my employer that I am pregnant?

The law does not require you to tell your employer you are pregnant until the 15th week before the week your baby is due (referred to as the ‘expected week of childbirth’), which is when you around are 25 weeks’ pregnant.  We recommend telling your employer early as it is only once your employer has knowledge of your pregnancy, that you are protected under various pieces of legislation.

For a long time, there has been a “12-week rule” about when to tell others that you are pregnant. However, in our experience, this is a bit outdated, and many women now feel comfortable telling people before the 12-week scan, particularly at a time when miscarriage and fertility treatment are finally becoming less ‘taboo’.

Ultimately, it is your body and your pregnancy, and you need to feel comfortable with whatever decision you make.

2. Should I tell my employer I am planning a pregnancy or undergoing fertility treatment?

Whilst there is no protection against pregnancy discrimination unless you are pregnant, you may have a claim for sex discrimination if you are treated less favourably because you are planning a pregnancy or undergoing fertility treatment.

If you are planning a pregnancy, it may be a good idea to notify your employer especially if the process of becoming pregnant is causing you stress or affecting your work.  It may also be sensible to speak to your employer if your journey involves fertility treatment, such as IVF which may involve the need for time off work and/or invasive medical treatment.

If your employer knows what you are going through, they are better placed to support you, and in our experience good employers will offer support. Some employers also have fertility policies which may entitle you to paid time off work to seek treatment and, in some cases, offer financial support for fertility treatment such as IVF.

3. What are my rights at work when I am pregnant?

When you are pregnant at work you will have some or all of the following rights:

  • Paid time off for ante natal care.
  • A workplace risk assessment.
  • Maternity leave (employees only).
  • Statutory maternity pay or maternity allowance (LLP members and partners are not entitled to statutory maternity pay but may be entitled to maternity allowance).
  • Shared parental leave (available to employees only where the co-parent meets certain eligibility criteria).
  • Statutory shared parental pay (employees only).
  • Protection against unfair treatment (usually referred to as pregnancy detriment) and dismissal. These rights only apply to employees but there is separate provision which protect agency workers.
  • Protection against discrimination. This right to protection against discrimination extends to workers, as well as employees. This means, for example, that partners and LLP members are protected against discrimination.

4. What are my rights at work in relation to ante natal appointments?

When you are pregnant you will normally be asked to attend an ante natal appointment when you are around 8 weeks’ pregnant (usually called the “booking appointment”) and scans at around 12 and 20 weeks. After the first antenatal appointment, you will need to show your employer evidence of your pregnancy (MAT B1 form) and the appointment card (if requested).

Pregnant employees and agency workers have the right to take paid time off to attend antenatal appointments (i.e. scans, medical appointments but also ante-natal or parenting classes if recommended by your doctor). Certain employees and workers have the right to take unpaid time off to accompany a woman to an antenatal appointment (subject to certain criteria).

Your employer is only able to refuse time off for you to attend an antenatal appointment where it is reasonable to refuse. However, there is no guidance in the legislation or case law telling us what amounts to a reasonable refusal.. A refusal of a request to take time off without a good reason is more likely to be reasonable, when compared to a medically advised need to attend an urgent scan due to a concern about your baby (such refusal would never be reasonable).

Where there has been an unreasonable refusal, you may have a claim in the Employment Tribunal either in relation to the refusal or a broader discrimination claim.

5. When should employers carry out a pregnancy risk assessment? 

All employers have a legal duty to protect the health and safety of their employees and any persons who are affected by the employer’s work or business. It is a legal requirement for all workplace risk assessments to include risks to female workers of childbearing age, even if there are no pregnant employees at the time of the risk assessment.

Once you have told your employer about your pregnancy, they should immediately check their existing workplace risk assessment to ensure that it is still valid and does not require any significant changes (albeit your employer should be doing this at regular intervals in any event)).

Where the work is of a kind that could cause a special risk to a pregnant employee, employers have a legal duty to: (I) assess workplace risks  to new or expectant mothers or their babies; (ii) alter the employee’s working conditions of hours of work to avoid any significant risk; or (iii) in the alternative, to offer suitable alternative work on the same terms; or (iv) if there is no suitable alternative work, to suspend the employee on full pay.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has a guide for protecting new and expectant mothers at work. HSE sets out a variety risks of common risks which include work-related stress and long hours.

If an employer fails to carry out a risk assessment, or ignores any of its findings, this could give rise to an Employment Tribunal claim for maternity, pregnancy discrimination, or sex discrimination in the case of breastfeeding mothers.

6. Can I be made redundant whilst I am pregnant? 

Whilst it is unlawful for your employer to make you redundant because you are pregnant, it can dismiss you if you are genuinely redundant. If you are made redundant because you are pregnant, you will have various potential Employment Tribunal claims, including a claim for automatic unfair dismissal and pregnancy discrimination.  You can claim uncapped compensation at the Employment Tribunal if you have this kind of claim.

Women selected for redundancy whilst on maternity leave have special legal protection. They have the right of first refusal to any suitable alternative vacancies, without any competitive process or the need to attend an interview.  This means mothers on maternity leave jump the queue ahead of other potentially redundant employees. There are Employment Tribunal cases in which a more senior and better paid role was found to be a suitable alternative rolethat should have been offered to an employee on maternity leave without any competitive process.

There are plans to extend this legal protection to cover the pregnancy period and six months after the return from maternity leave, however, it is not clear when these changes will come into force.

Whilst LLP members and partners do not have the same statutory protection against unfair dismissal or redundancy rights, it is unlawful to terminate a LLP member’s membership or a partner’s partnership because they are pregnant.

7. When should I start my maternity leave? 

Some women like to start maternity leave early in order to have time to prepare for the baby’s arrival or because they start feeling more tired or unwell closer to their due date. Others prefer to work as close to their due date as possible in order to maximise time off on maternity leave with their baby. Whilst in most cases this will be a matter of personal choice, if you are an employee, you cannot start maternity leave before the 11th week before the expected week of childbirth (which is when you are around 29 weeks’ pregnant).

There two exceptions to this rule.  First, if you are absent from work for a pregnancy-related reason after the fourth week before the expected week of childbirth, but before the planned start date for maternity leave, the maternity leave will begin automatically on the day after the first day of absence.  Second, if your baby is born early your maternity leave will start the day after your baby is born.

The Governments intends to introduce the right to 12 weeks’ neonatal leave and pay for parents of babies under 28 days who spend more than 7 days in hospital. However, this legislation is not expected to be introduced until April 2023. Until that time, some employers have already extended their own maternity leave policies to include neonatal leave, so that parents of premature babies, who will often have longer periods of time in hospital, do not unfairly exhaust their maternity or paternity leave. It is, therefore, worth checking whether your employer has a similar policy in place.

8. How much maternity leave am I entitled to?

Employees are entitled to up to 52 weeks’ maternity leave. The first 26 weeks are referred to as “Ordinary Maternity Leave” or OML. The second 26 weeks are referred to as “Additional Maternity Leave” or AML. Employees continue to accrue paid holiday during their maternity leave, and some employees choose to add their accrued holiday entitlement to the end of their maternity leave to extend the period of time off before returning to work (though this extended period will be a period of annual leave and not maternity leave).

Employees may also be entitled to exchange up to 50 weeks’ worth of their maternity leave for shared parental leave, which is a form or leave that may be shared with a co-parent.

Employees with at least one year’s service are also entitled to up to 18 weeks’ unpaid leave for each child up to the age of 18, for the purposes of caring for that child. The benefit of taking parental leave (even though it is unpaid) is that you have the benefit of certain contractual rights during that time and also have the right to return to the same job (or suitable alternative job).

LLP members and partners do not have the right to statutory maternity leave or parental leave but their entitlement to take time off (often paid) is usually covered in the LLP agreement or partnership deed.

9. What is my entitlement to maternity pay?

Employees with 26 weeks’ continuous service when they reach the end of the 15th week before the expected week of childbirth are entitled to Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP). This is:

  • 90% of your average weekly earnings (before tax) for 6 weeks; and
  • £156.66 or 90% of average weekly earnings (whichever is lower) for the next 33 weeks (the rate of pay increases in April each year).

You can read more about this here.

You may also have an entitlement to enhanced company maternity pay. This might mean you are entitled to a period of full pay, or a combination of full pay and half pay for example. Details of any enhanced entitlement can usually be found in an employer’s maternity policy, employee handbook or the contract of employment itself.  Many enhanced pay policies are premised on the employee returning to work for a certain period of time after maternity leave.

LLP members, partners and other workers are not entitled to Statutory Maternity Pay, but they may be entitled to Maternity Allowance (MA) either £156.66 a week or 90% of your average weekly earnings (whichever is less) for 39 weeks. If you are self-employed, you may be able to receive between £27 to £156.66 a week for 39 weeks depending on how many Class 2 National Insurance contributions you have made in the 66 weeks before the baby is due. You can read more about this here.

10. What can I do if I have been discriminated against at work during pregnancy?

There are a number of things you do in this scenario. Deciding on the right strategy will depend on a number of factors, including the strength of your case and the outcome you are looking to achieve.  What is right for one person, may not be right for another.

If ultimately, you feel that you want to stay in the business and that the discriminatory behaviour you’re experiencing is something you feel can be resolved, then raising a grievance and starting Employment Tribunal proceedings may not be the right step. That is because it can be difficult to maintain the employment (or partnership) relationship if there is a dispute, whether internal or external, or both.

If the discriminatory behaviour you are experiencing is having a significant impact on your career prospects because of your pregnancy or maternity leave (such as not being promoted or you have not received the expected level of bonus) or your health or that of your baby, you may wish to take more formal action. The first step for employees will normally include raising a formal grievance. Not only will this put on the record the complaints you have and will require your employer to take action, but you will also be protected going forward from any retaliatory treatment (known as a victimisation claim). There may be a different complaints process for partners set out in the LLP agreement or partnership deed.

It is important that either before or at the point when you submit a grievance or formal complaint that you keep a record of the discriminatory treatment you are experiencing and ensure that any evidence is preserved (e.g. by ensuring emails are not permanently deleted). This will help form the basis of your grievance and any Employment Tribunal claim you may want to issue in the future.

It is important to note that there are short time limits for bringing discrimination claims in the Employment Tribunal. Broadly, you will have three months less one day of the discriminatory treatment (or the last incident if there is a continuing course of discriminatory treatment) to start a claim, which requires you to notify ACAS and submit an ACAS early conciliation form. Whilst the government has said that it is looking into increasing the time limit to 6 months, this may not come into force as law for some time. You can read more about ACAS Early Conciliation here.

Given the complexities involved in raising complaints of discrimination, we always recommend seeking legal advice as early as possible, to ensure that your position is protected, you have someone fighting your corner if things become difficult, and to give you the best options going forward.

BDBF is a law firm based at Bank in the City of London specialising in employment law. If you would like to discuss your rights during pregnancy or maternity leave, pregnancy or maternity discrimination or any issues relating to the content of this article, please contact employment lawyers Paula Chan (paulachan@bdbf.co.uk) or Emily Plosker (emilyplosker@bdbf.co.uk), or your usual BDBF contact.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]


Living with Covid: the new world for employers from 1 April 2022

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.100″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” custom_padding=”|||” global_module=”2165″ saved_tabs=”all” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.7.4″ min_height=”66.4px” custom_padding=”50px||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” text_font=”|700|||||||” text_font_size=”27px” background_layout=”dark” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF90aXRsZSIsInNldHRpbmdzIjp7ImJlZm9yZSI6IiIsImFmdGVyIjoiIn19@[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_text_color=”#FFFFFF” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9kYXRlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJkYXRlX2Zvcm1hdCI6ImRlZmF1bHQiLCJjdXN0b21fZGF0ZV9mb3JtYXQiOiIifX0=@[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22.3″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ text_orientation=”justified” hover_enabled=”0″ use_border_color=”off” global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]

On 1 April 2022, the last Covid-related restrictions were withdrawn, and the Government moved to the next phase of the pandemic – “living with Covid”.   In this briefing, we discuss the changes of most interest to employers and what they mean in practice.

What changed for employers on 1 April 2022?

The following changes took effect on 1 April 2022 and are of particular importance to employers:

  • Covid testing: free lateral flow and PCR testing ended for the general public (PCR tests remain available for social care workers and those at higher risk of serious illness from Covid).
  • Self-isolation: those with Covid symptoms are no longer required to stay at home but encouraged to exercise personal responsibility and show consideration to others, and this includes working from home if they can.
  • Guidance for employers: the stringent “Working safely” guidelines for employers across different sectors were replaced by new lighter touch public health guidance.
  • Risk assessments: the requirement for employers explicitly to consider Covid in their health and safety risk assessments was removed.

There are also two new guidance documents for employers to understand.  First, the guidance on reducing the risk of respiratory infections in the workplace and second, the guidance for people with symptoms of a respiratory infection (this guidance is aimed at individuals, including employees). 

These changes are considered further below.

What is the impact of removing free Covid testing?

The withdrawal of Covid tests means it will become harder to identify when employees have Covid.  Where an employee reports Covid symptoms and is feeling unwell enough not to attend work during this period then the assumption could simply be made that they have Covid without the need for a test.  Such employees would take sick leave in the normal way.  Special statutory sick pay rules have been revoked, meaning that statutory sick pay will only be payable from the fourth qualifying day that the employee is absent from work.

Where the employee has symptoms but feels fit enough to attend work, then their status could be confirmed by way of a private Covid test.  The Government has published a list of private Covid test providers who offer “general population Covid tests” for asymptomatic individuals.  This list is updated daily and contains details of over 1000 providers.

One question for employers will be who pays for the test in these circumstances?  If the employer is asking the employee to take the test in order to be allowed to attend the workplace, then it would be reasonable for the employer to pay.  Similarly, any employers continuing with routine Covid testing arrangements for staff will probably have to foot the bill for them.

Can employers now ask employees with Covid to attend work?

In principle, yes.  Where an employee tests positive for Covid after 1 April 2022, they are not required to self-isolate.  The replacement guidance (discussed in more detail below) is very light touch and does not ask much from employers.  On the face of it, employers have greater flexibility to instruct Covid positive employees to attend work. 

However, employers will still need to consider health and safety risks, particularly to those who are at higher risk of illness from Covid, which will include:

  • older people;
  • pregnant women;
  • people who are unvaccinated;
  • people whose immune system means they are at higher risk of serious illness; and
  • people with certain long-term conditions.

Further, employers will wish to avoid provoking Covid outbreaks in the workplace, which will lead to higher levels of sickness absence.

Finally, the wider employee relations angle should be factored into any decisions here.  The guidance aimed at individuals suggests that they should try to work from home when they have Covid symptoms, and so there may well be an expectation from staff that they will be permitted to do so. Plus, many employees will be unhappy about the prospect of having to work alongside someone with Covid.  

What does the new public health guidance ask employers to do?

The guidance does not specifically deal with Covid but looks at steps to be taken in respect of all respiratory infections (which includes Covid, but also things like flu).

In contrast to the guidance that preceded it, the new workplace guidance is very light touch.  It asks employers to know the symptoms of Covid so that they can take actions to reduce the risk of spreading the infection to others.  Such actions include:

  • encouraging and enabling staff to be vaccinated;
  • keeping the workplace well-ventilated;
  • keeping the workplace clean and providing handwashing materials; and
  • applying these steps more rigorously in the event of an outbreak of Covid in the workplace.

In addition, the guidance urges employers to consider the particular needs of employees who are at greater risk of serious illness from Covid (listed above). 

Separate guidance has also been published for those whose weakened immune systems mean that they are at higher risk.  That guidance says that such staff should work from home if they can and if they feel it is right to do so. Where it is not possible to work from home, affected staff are encouraged to speak to their employers about what arrangements can be made to reduce the risk of infection.  If the individual is disabled, such adjustments would also qualify as “reasonable adjustments” under the Equality Act 2010 (and could give rise to a discrimination claim if not made).

Does Covid still need to be considered in workplace health and safety risk assessments?

Although there is no longer a requirement for employers explicitly to consider Covid in their statutory health and safety risk assessments, the new guidance stresses that employers must continue to comply with their general legal obligations relating to health and safety and employment law. 

The Health and Safety Executive says it no longer requires every business to consider Covid in their risk assessment or to have specific measures in place, but employers may still choose to continue to cover it in their risk assessments.  The HSE also states that employers must comply with general health and safety laws and also take extra steps where staff will come into contact with Covid as part of their work activity (e.g. healthcare workers or those involved in researching the virus in laboratories). 

In practice, this means that the risks arising from Covid in the workplace will usually still be considered, although not in quite so much detail as during the height of the pandemic. 

BDBF is a law firm based at Bank in the City of London specialising in employment law. If you would like to discuss your Covid strategy, or any issues relating to the content of this article, please contact Principal Knowledge Lawyer, Amanda Steadman (amandasteadman@bdbf.co.uk), or your usual BDBF contact.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]


Gender pay gap reporting: where are we and what lies ahead?

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.100″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” custom_padding=”|||” global_module=”2165″ saved_tabs=”all” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.7.4″ min_height=”66.4px” custom_padding=”50px||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” text_font=”|700|||||||” text_font_size=”27px” background_layout=”dark” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF90aXRsZSIsInNldHRpbmdzIjp7ImJlZm9yZSI6IiIsImFmdGVyIjoiIn19@[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_text_color=”#FFFFFF” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9kYXRlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJkYXRlX2Zvcm1hdCI6ImRlZmF1bHQiLCJjdXN0b21fZGF0ZV9mb3JtYXQiOiIifX0=@[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22.3″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ text_orientation=”justified” hover_enabled=”0″ use_border_color=”off” global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]

With the latest round of gender pay gap reports published earlier this month, Amanda Steadman and Blair Wassman take a look at what the process entails, what the latest figures show and what the future holds for this area of law.

What is gender pay gap reporting?

Gender pay gap reporting laws were introduced in 2017 and require all private and voluntary sector employers with 250 or more employees to report a range of “gender pay information” each year. The goal behind the regime is to close Britain’s gender pay gap within a generation. The hope is that greater transparency will encourage employers to manage their pay gaps in a proactive manner, for example by taking measures to support women to progress to the most senior and highly paid positions.

The rules apply to each separate legal entity within a group of companies which meets the 250-employee threshold.  In this context, “employee” has a wider meaning than is usually the case and includes traditional employees, workers and potentially even some independent contractors.  In some cases, those working overseas may also need to be counted if they have a sufficiently strong connection with Great Britain.

Employers who are in scope must gather and analyse their data and publicly report the results by no later than 4 April the following year.  The figures must also be sent to a central Government website.   Importantly, the obligation is confined to reporting the figures only.  There is no requirement to explain them or set out any remedial action plan, let alone implement one, although many larger employers choose to do so.  The information must be published on the employer’s website and kept there for three years.

What is the difference between the gender pay gap and unequal pay?

It is not uncommon for the gender pay gap and unequal pay to be conflated – including by the national media.  However, they address different problems.

The gender pay gap reveals the gap between the mean and median rates of pay of all men and women across an organisation, regardless of their job roles. What it often shows is that women are underrepresented at the most senior and highly paid levels within the organisation and concentrated in lower-paid roles.  It is not unlawful to have a gender pay gap.

By contrast, unequal pay refers to a disparity in pay between men and women who perform the same, similar or like work.  Unequal pay will usually be unlawful, although there are defences available, such as there being a material factor which justifies the difference in pay.

Most employers will have some sort of gender pay gap.  This does not necessarily mean that they are behaving unlawfully and paying men and women unequally.

What do employers need to do?

If the rules apply, an employer is obliged to report four separate types of information in relation to certain employees only, known as “relevant employees”.  A relevant employee is defined as someone who is employed by the employer on the snapshot date of 5 April each year.  Partners and LLP members and anyone who does not identify as either gender are excluded from this definition.  Independent contractors may also be excluded if it is not reasonably practicable to obtain the necessary data for those individuals.

The four types of information that must be reported are:

  • The gender pay gap between the hourly rates of pay of male and female employees, calculated by reference to the specified pay period. This covers both mean and median hourly rates of pay.
  • The gender bonus gap between the bonuses paid to male and female employees, calculated by reference to a specified 12-month period. This covers both mean and median bonus pay.
  • The percentage of male and female employees who received a bonus in a specified 12-month period.
  • The percentage of male and female employees who fell within four pay quartiles bands.

When it comes to calculating the gender pay gap, the employer must consider payments paid to the employee in the “relevant pay period”, which will usually be a weekly or monthly pay interval. Most types of pay are taken into account, including basic pay, allowances, holiday pay and bonus pay (although a bonus relating to a longer pay period such as a year must be pro-rated to the relevant pay period).

When it comes to calculating the gender bonus gap, the employer must consider all bonus payments paid to the employee in the 12-month period ending on the snapshot date of 5 April.  Any remuneration which relates to profit-sharing, productivity, performance, incentive, and commission is captured.

What do these year’s figures tell us?

The figures from the first two years of reporting were published in April 2018 and 2019 respectively.  The pandemic resulted in the cancellation of the third year’s reports due in 2020, although some employers chose to report on a voluntary basis.  Reporting resumed in 2021, although the deadline was deferred to October rather than the usual April.   However, this year saw the return to the original reporting schedule in April 2022.  Over 10,000 employers have reported their figures so far.  A full analysis of the figures will be published by the Government Equalities Office in due course, but early analysis suggests progress is slow and results are mixed.

Early analysis by the CIPD shows that pay gap figures remain high across many sectors.  The sector with the largest median gender pay gap was construction, where women were paid 76 pence for every pound earned by a man.  Analysis of the financial services sector by Reuters revealed an average mean gender pay gap of just over 32%, which represents a 1% narrowing of the gap compared with the previous year.  Although the figures are heading in the right direction, progress in this sector is painfully slow, and well behind the average figure for all UK employers which stood at 14.9% in April 2020.

The results at certain institutions were considerably worse than the average or heading in the wrong direction.  For example, Goldman Sachs reported a 51.3% mean gender pay gap (representing a very slight narrowing on the previous year).  Whereas Deutsche Bank and UBS both saw their pay gaps increase this year to 33.4% and 29% respectively.

What is next for gender pay gap reporting in light of the review that had to be completed by 1 April 2022?

In 2019 the Government published Gender Equality at every stage: a roadmap for change.  The roadmap set out the Government’s proposals to tackle eight key drivers of inequality, including the gender pay gap.  The roadmap promised to review the gender pay gap reporting regime to assess how effective it had been at unveiling the causes of the pay gap and the impact of employers’ policies to reduce it.  The intention is to use the results of this review to decide whether to update the gender pay gap reporting rules.

The original plan was that this review would be completed in time for a public consultation to take place on any proposed changes in 2021.  However, due to the pandemic this timeframe was delayed and was due to be completed by 1 April 2022.  To date, it seems no progress has been made and therefore, if changes are proposed, any public consultation is unlikely to happen before the latter half of 2022.

One possible area of change is the introduction of further measures to increase transparency about the steps that employers are taking to support gender equality.  The roadmap discussed whether, as part of the reporting exercise, employers should be required to provide details of their family-friendly policies and retention rates of employees returning from different forms of family leave.

How could the gender pay gap reporting regime be improved?

While we await the outcome of the review, we think there are three key changes that would improve the regime.

Clearer guidelines to help employers get it right

A survey of around 900 employers conducted between the first and second years of gender pay gap reporting revealed that the majority of employers (82%) felt that they had a good understanding of the theory of gender pay gap reporting.  However, other Parliamentary research highlighted those businesses found the mechanics of reporting very difficult, with many needing to take external advice on how to complete the process. Ambiguities in the gender pay gap rules and guidance are partly to blame for this.  Some common areas of uncertainty include:

  • when to include overseas employees;
  • understanding that bonus payments need to be counted for in both the gender pay gap and the gender bonus gap but may need to be treated in different ways; and
  • identifying whether a particular payment is an “allowance” or a “bonus” or neither.

More detailed guidance, with worked examples of how to deal with tricky issues, would assist employers achieve more accurate reporting across the board and enable a fair comparison of pay gaps between employers.

Revise the treatment of bonuses to make it fairer to employers

At the moment, employers have to calculate the gender bonus gap by reference to the actual amount of bonus paid to the employee. Therefore, where a bonus is pro-rated for a part-time employee, that figure must be used in the calculations rather than the full-time equivalent of the amount paid. Given that women are more likely to work part-time this approach has the effect of inflating the gender bonus gap artificially.   Changing the rules to require employers to use a full-time equivalent figure would enable a like for like comparison between men and women.

The Government has previously declined to make this change, telling employers to explain their results by way of a narrative if they needed to.  However, not all employers choose to produce a narrative and so a change to the underlying rules would produce a fairer and more consistent outcome.

Require employers to publish a narrative, action plan and targets for closing the gap

There is currently no requirement for employers to explain their gender pay and bonus gap figures or to take any action to close them.  Around 40% of employers choose to publish a narrative report explaining their figures.  However, the quality of the reports is variable since there is no minimum standard to be met.  Worse, only around 20% of employers publish an action plan on steps they will take to close the gap, and fewer still set targets for reducing the gap.

The Government has declined to require employers to publish narratives, actions plans or targets, preferring the light touch “what gets measured, gets managed” approach.  However, as discussed above, progress on closing the gap has been slow and there is a case to say that a more proactive approach is needed.  Consideration could also be given to introducing penalties for employers who fail to implement their action plans or make progress towards targets.

Conclusion

Whilst some degree of progress has been made in closing the gender pay gap, the impact of the pandemic and the lack of detail required in reporting means progress is slow. If guidance were improved, along with meaningful reporting which included a requirement to specify clear action points to close the gap, we believe we would see better results.

BDBF is a law firm based at Bank in the City of London specialising in employment law. If you would like to discuss gender pay gap reporting or any other issues relating to the content of this article, please contact Principal Knowledge Lawyer, Amanda Steadman (amandasteadman@bdbf.co.uk), Senior Associate, Blair Wassman (blairwassman@bdbf.co.uk) or your usual BDBF contact.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]


Employees who volunteer for redundancy may be able to say they have been unfairly dismissed

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.100″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” custom_padding=”|||” global_module=”2165″ saved_tabs=”all” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.7.4″ min_height=”66.4px” custom_padding=”50px||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” text_font=”|700|||||||” text_font_size=”27px” background_layout=”dark” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF90aXRsZSIsInNldHRpbmdzIjp7ImJlZm9yZSI6IiIsImFmdGVyIjoiIn19@[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_text_color=”#FFFFFF” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9kYXRlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJkYXRlX2Zvcm1hdCI6ImRlZmF1bHQiLCJjdXN0b21fZGF0ZV9mb3JtYXQiOiIifX0=@[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22.3″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ text_orientation=”justified” hover_enabled=”0″ use_border_color=”off” global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]

The decision to make employees redundant is never easy and care needs to be taken to follow a lawful process in order to avoid the risks and costs of potential claims, particularly unfair dismissal. Offering voluntary redundancy can be a useful tool for employers, however, as a recent case highlights, it will not necessarily avoid the risk of an unfair dismissal claim.

What happened in this case?

In this case, Ms White was a part-time receptionist.  Ms White was also covering administrative work for her Deputy Manager (who had been on long term sick), but for no extra pay. Ms White submitted a grievance about the failure to pay her an “acting up” allowance.

A few months later, the employer announced that it was going to reduce the number of employees carrying out administrative and reception work. Ms White was provisionally selected for redundancy.  However, at around the same time, a full-time receptionist was recruited, whose role included the administrative tasks that Ms White had been temporarily covering, but for which the new full-time receptionist was being paid to fulfil.

Against this backdrop, Ms White requested, and was given, voluntary redundancy.  After the termination of her employment, Ms White submitted a claim for unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal.  She argued that the redundancy process had been a sham (in light of the fact that the company still had a need for someone to perform reception and administrative tasks).  She claimed she had been targeted for redundancy because she had raised a grievance and also because the company preferred full-time to part-time staff.

What was decided?

This claim was initially rejected and struck out by the Employment Tribunal on the basis that Ms White had requested voluntary redundancy, meaning, in the Tribunal’s view, that her claim had no prospects of success.

On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal reached a different conclusion. Given the background, which had led to Ms White’s request for voluntary redundancy (i.e. she believed the entire redundancy process was pre-determined and a sham), the EAT said it should not be assumed that the mere fact that she had requested voluntary redundancy meant that the redundancy was lawful.  As such, the case has been remitted to a new Employment Tribunal to decide whether or not Ms White was fairly dismissed.

What does this mean for employers?

This case is a useful reminder that an employee’s request for voluntary redundancy does not necessarily insulate an employer from Tribunal claims.  Indeed, even where an employee volunteers for redundancy, an employer may want to consider whether offering enhanced terms under a settlement agreement is worth exploring, to limit its legal exposure and to give certainty that a claim will not be brought following termination of employment.

White v H-C One Oval Ltd

BDBF is a law firm based at Bank in the City of London specialising in employment law. If you would like to discuss rights arising in a redundancy situation, or any issues relating to the content of this article, please contact employment lawyer Emily Plosker (emilyplosker@bdbf.co.uk) or your usual BDBF contact.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]


BDBF Webinar: Reluctant returners – do your employees have the right to work from home forever?

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.100″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” custom_padding=”|||” global_module=”2165″ saved_tabs=”all” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.7.4″ min_height=”66.4px” custom_padding=”50px||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” text_font=”|700|||||||” text_font_size=”27px” background_layout=”dark” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF90aXRsZSIsInNldHRpbmdzIjp7ImJlZm9yZSI6IiIsImFmdGVyIjoiIn19@[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_text_color=”#FFFFFF” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9kYXRlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJkYXRlX2Zvcm1hdCI6ImRlZmF1bHQiLCJjdXN0b21fZGF0ZV9mb3JtYXQiOiIifX0=@[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22.3″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ text_orientation=”justified” use_border_color=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”]

On 26 April 2022, we held a webinar looking at how employers should approach staff who are reluctant to return to the office after working from home during the pandemic.  Here, you can access the recording of that webinar, together with the slide presentation used on the day. 

To view the PDF webinar slides please click on the image, or view the recording of the webinar by clicking the button below:

[/et_pb_text][et_pb_image src=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Reluctant-Returners-FINAL-1.jpg” title_text=”Reluctant-Returners—FINAL-1″ url=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Reluctant-Returners-FINAL.pdf” _builder_version=”4.14.7″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” align=”center” sticky_enabled=”0″][/et_pb_image][et_pb_button button_url=”https://youtu.be/BPdevj7TIgk” button_text=”View Webinar Recording” button_alignment=”center” _builder_version=”4.14.7″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][/et_pb_button][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ text_orientation=”justified” use_border_color=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”]

BDBF can help businesses and employers prepare for the future. Please contact Amanda Steadman (amandasteadman@bdbf.co.uk), or your usual BDBF contact, for further advice.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPdevj7TIgk


BDBF announces 2022 promotions

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.100″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” custom_padding=”|||” global_module=”2165″ saved_tabs=”all” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.7.4″ min_height=”66.4px” custom_padding=”50px||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” text_font=”|700|||||||” text_font_size=”27px” background_layout=”dark” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF90aXRsZSIsInNldHRpbmdzIjp7ImJlZm9yZSI6IiIsImFmdGVyIjoiIn19@[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_text_color=”#FFFFFF” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9kYXRlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJkYXRlX2Zvcm1hdCI6ImRlZmF1bHQiLCJjdXN0b21fZGF0ZV9mb3JtYXQiOiIifX0=@[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22.3″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ text_orientation=”justified” hover_enabled=”0″ use_border_color=”off” global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]

Congratulations! BDBF is pleased to announce the promotion of three of its 12 strong associate team with effect from 1 April 2022.  Emily Plosker is promoted to Managing Associate and Theo Nicou and Blair Wassman are promoted to Senior Associate. Their promotions support the continued growth of BDBF as a top ranked employment firm as it approaches its tenth year. Having a team of expert employment law associates means BDBF is able to offer a top tier service to all of its senior individual, partner and employer clients. We regularly work as a team on cases at BDBF which makes us ideally placed to continue to fight and win cases, as well as to move at speed to achieve favourable out-of-court settlements for our clients.  

Gareth Brahams, Managing Partner, says: “We are delighted to announce the well-deserved promotions of Emily, Theo and Blair. At BDBF we pride ourselves on nurturing and developing our associates to ensure we remain “best in class”. Emily was our very first associate at BDBF almost ten years ago and we are proud to have supported her journey to Managing Associate. Theo and Blair joined us over the past two years, during which time we have recruited in order to service growing levels of demand at BDBF. We are pleased to recognise their talent in 2022’s promotion round”.”

[/et_pb_text][et_pb_image _builder_version=”4.14.7″ _module_preset=”default” title_text=”BDBF-2022-Promotion-Announcement-Rev1″ src=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/BDBF-2022-Promotion-Announcement-Rev1.jpg” hover_enabled=”0″ sticky_enabled=”0″][/et_pb_image][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]


Quick recap of the employment law changes coming into force in April 2022

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.100″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” custom_padding=”|||” global_module=”2165″ saved_tabs=”all” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.7.4″ min_height=”66.4px” custom_padding=”50px||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” text_font=”|700|||||||” text_font_size=”27px” background_layout=”dark” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF90aXRsZSIsInNldHRpbmdzIjp7ImJlZm9yZSI6IiIsImFmdGVyIjoiIn19@[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_text_color=”#FFFFFF” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9kYXRlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJkYXRlX2Zvcm1hdCI6ImRlZmF1bHQiLCJjdXN0b21fZGF0ZV9mb3JtYXQiOiIifX0=@[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22.3″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ text_orientation=”justified” hover_enabled=”0″ use_border_color=”off” global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]

In this briefing, we round up eight key changes for employers to know about this April.

  1. Covid-related changes – 1 April 2022

The following changes will take effect on 1 April 2022:

  • Self-isolation:those with Covid symptoms will be encouraged to “exercise personal responsibility” and show consideration to others, but will not be required, nor advised, to stay at home.
  • Covid testing:free lateral flow and PCR testing will end for the general public (PCR tests will remain available for social care workers and certain vulnerable groups).
  • Risk assessments:the requirement for employers explicitly to consider Covid in their health and safety risk assessments will be removed.
  • Guidance for employers:the “Working safely” guidelines for employers in different sectors will be replaced by new public health guidance (which had not been published at the time of writing), which will urge employers to continue to consider the needs of those at greater risk from Covid.
  • Covid certification:the use of voluntary Covid-status certification will no longer be recommended for use.
  1. National Living / Minimum Wage: rates increase – 1 April 2022

The hourly rates for the National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage will increase as follows:

  • National Living Wage – age 23+: £9.50 (up from £8.91).
  • Standard adult rate – age 21+: £9.18 (up from £8.36).
  • Development rate – age 18+: £6.83 (up from £6.56).
  • Youth rate – age 16+: £4.81 (up from £4.62).
  • Apprentice rate: £4.81 (up from £4.30).
  • Accommodation offset – maximum daily deduction: £8.70 (up from £8.36).
  1. Statutory pay: increase to statutory family leave payments – 3 April 2022

The weekly rates of Statutory Maternity Pay, Maternity Allowance, Statutory Paternity Pay, Statutory Adoption Pay, Statutory Shared Parental Pay will increase to £156.66 (up from £151.97).

  1. Deadline for publication of gender pay gap report – 4 April 2022:

During the middle of the pandemic, gender pay gap reporting was suspended and then reintroduced with a delayed publication schedule.  The original reporting pattern has been restored for 2022, meaning that private sector employers with at least 250 employees must publish gender pay gap reports by 4 April 2022 (with public sector employers having to publish by 30 March 2022).  Reports must be published on the organisation’s own website and also on this central Government website.

  1. Statutory Sick Pay and changes to fit notes – 6 April 2022

The weekly rate of Statutory Sick Pay will increase to £99.35 (up from £96.35).

It had been the case that a doctor’s fit note had to be signed in ink by the issuing doctor.  From 6 April 2022, fit notes may be issued digitally without the need for a “wet-ink” signature by the doctor (although wet-ink signed fit notes may continue to be issued).

  1. Employment Tribunal awards: increase to certain limits – 6 April 2022

The limits on certain Employment Tribunal awards will increase as follows:

  • The ceiling on a “week’s pay” for calculating redundancy payments, the basic award for unfair dismissal and various other statutory rights increases to £571 (up from £544).
  • The maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal claims increases to £93,978 (up from £89,493).

In dismissal claims, these figures will apply to claims where the effective date of termination falls on or after 6 April 2022.

  1. Changes to right to work checks – 6 April 2022

New rules will permit employers to use “Identification Document Validation Technology” (IDVT) service providers to verify digitally the identity of British and Irish citizens with valid passports or Irish passport cards for the purpose of right to work checks.  This will be an alternative to conducting a manual check.  Provided the employer has complied with relevant guidance and the Code of Practice, they will be excused from paying a civil penalty in the event that they employ someone who is disqualified from working because of their immigration status.

  1. New duty to provide personal protective equipment to workers – 6 April 2022

The duty to provide suitable personal protective equipment (PPE) where there is a health and safety risk will be extended to cover the wider group of “workers”, in addition to employees.  Employers may not charge workers (or employees) for the provisions of such PPE.

Steps for employers to take

  • Decide whether you will require those displaying Covid symptoms to take a lateral flow test before attending work and, if so, whether you will pay for such tests.
  • Decide whether you will, in principle, permit those testing positive for Covid on or after 1 April 2022 to attend work if they are fit to do so. However, ensure that you review the new public health guidance when it is published and consult with your workforce before finalising your approach
  • Ensure that staff are paid at least the minimum wage at the applicable rate for the hours they work.
  • Ensure that staff are paid the correct rates of pay for family and sick leave and that any policies and template letters that refer to the statutory rates of pay are updated.
  • Notify those responsible for receiving fit notes from staff about the new form of digital fit note.
  • If you are within scope, ensure that your gender pay gap report is published by the deadline.
  • Ensure that statutory redundancy calculations made in respect of any redundancies taking place on or after 6 April 2022 are calculated using the new weekly rate of pay.
  • Decide if you will use an IDVT service provider to conduct relevant right to work checks and, if so, ensure that you review the related guidance and Code of Practice.
  • Ensure that all workers provided with suitable PPE if this is not already the case.

If your business needs advice on preparing for any of these changes please contact Amanda Steadman (amandasteadman@bdbf.co.uk) or your usual BDBF contact.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]


Government confirms ethnicity pay reporting will remain voluntary but announces new measures to tackle race inequality

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.100″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” custom_padding=”|||” global_module=”2165″ saved_tabs=”all” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.7.4″ min_height=”66.4px” custom_padding=”50px||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” text_font=”|700|||||||” text_font_size=”27px” background_layout=”dark” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF90aXRsZSIsInNldHRpbmdzIjp7ImJlZm9yZSI6IiIsImFmdGVyIjoiIn19@[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_text_color=”#FFFFFF” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9kYXRlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJkYXRlX2Zvcm1hdCI6ImRlZmF1bHQiLCJjdXN0b21fZGF0ZV9mb3JtYXQiOiIifX0=@[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22.3″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ text_orientation=”justified” hover_enabled=”0″ use_border_color=”off” global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]

On 17 March 2022 the Government published its response to the report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities (the Sewell Report), which examined racial and ethnic disparities that persist in education, employment and enterprise, crime and policing and health.  The Government’s response paper, entitled “Inclusive Britain”, responds to the recommendations made in the Sewell Report and sets out a 74-point action plan towards a “more inclusive and integrated society”.   In this briefing we consider the proposals of most interest to employers.

The action points in Inclusive Britain are extremely wide-ranging but the following will be of most interest to employers.

Voluntary ethnicity pay reporting

A consultation on introducing mandatory ethnicity pay reporting for large employers was launched in October 2018.  Over three years later, the Government has not responded to that consultation, but has announced that mandatory reporting will not be introduced “at this stage”.  The rationale for this is that the Government does not wish to impose new reporting burdens on businesses as they recover from the pandemic

Instead, the plan is to support employers to report voluntarily on ethnicity pay within their organisation.  The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will publish guidance this summer to support employers to do this.  The new guidance will:

  • encourage employers to use specific ethnic groups rather broader categories (e.g. white vs non-white) when publishing their data. It is acknowledged that this means ethnicity pay reporting will be a more resource-intensive activity for employers than gender pay gap reporting;
  • support reporting across demographically different areas, in particular to assist employers in parts of the country with very small ethnic minority populations to report in a meaningful way;
  • include case studies from employers who have already chosen to report on their ethnicity pay to set the benchmark for other employers to meet; and
  • help employers identify the causes of pay disparities and take steps to address them.

It is not clear whether the Government will collate and publish reported ethnicity pay gaps on a central Government website, in the same way as is done for gender pay gap reporting.  A centralised website would enable readers to access all the reported data in one place and compare how employers are performing.  However, the response paper is silent on this issue.

Strengthening the Equality and Human Rights Commission

The Government says it wishes to strengthen the ability of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to enforce the Equality Act 2010.  The response paper says the Cabinet Office will invest in EHRC enforcement activity to challenge race discrimination through investigations and supporting individual cases.

In order to improve good practice in equality law across Britain it is said the EHRC will also support a wider range of organisations to comply with the law and develop policies and processes that support equality of opportunity for all.  However, no details are given as to which organisations will receive this support or when it will be provided.

New resources for employers to promote inclusion at work

The Government says it wishes to build a stronger evidence base showing how we can make workplaces more inclusive and fairer for everybody.  To that end, it proposes to establish an “Inclusion at Work Panel” by Spring 2023.  The Panel will be made up of academics and practitioners in business and will develop and disseminate resources for employers to drive fairness within their organisations.  This will go beyond race and ethnicity and identify actions to promote fairness for all in the workplace.

The UK Civil Service and public sector employers will lead by example by adopting evidence-based approaches, rooting out poor quality training and trialling new approaches.

Improved guidance on the use of positive action measures

The Government recognises that employers wish to introduce measures designed to improve representation and provide opportunities to certain protected groups.  However, it is important that such measures amount to lawful positive action, rather than straying into unlawful positive discrimination.

The Government believes it can help smaller organisations be more confident in using positive action measures by refreshing the guidance in this area.  Therefore, updated guidance on positive action is to be published by the Government Equalities Office by December 2022.

Improve standards by launching an “Inclusion Confident” scheme

While the Sewell Report found that the ethnicity pay gap is improving and ethnic minorities have made significant strides in occupational representation, underrepresentation persists at senior levels and ethnic minorities are more likely to experience discrimination at work.

The Government notes that the Disability Confident Employer Scheme helps organisations take action to improve how they recruit, retain and develop disabled people within the workplace.  The plan is to put in place a similar scheme that includes, but is not exclusive to, ethnicity and race. The new scheme will be live by Autumn 2023 and employers will be able to sign up to the scheme on a voluntary basis.

Regulation of artificial intelligence technology

The Sewell Report had recommended that the Government do more to improve the transparency and use of artificial intelligence (AI) technology by publishing guidance on applying the Equality Act 2010 to algorithmic decision-making.  In response, the Government has said that later this year the Office for AI will publish a white paper setting out the national position on governing and regulating AI.  This will include how to address potential racial bias in algorithmic decision-making.

In addition, the EHRC will issue guidance explaining how the Equality Act 2010 applies to algorithmic decision-making.  An algorithmic transparency standard will also be piloted in the public sector.

What are the next steps and what should employers do now?

The Government says the Inclusive Britain action plan will serve as a template for the public sector, businesses, charities and individuals.  It plans to report back to Parliament in 12 months’ time on the progress made in delivering these actions.

Despite the wide-ranging nature and ambitious tone of the Government’s response, there is, in fact, no new legislation for employers to get grips with.  Rather, the workplace initiatives are all voluntary in nature and it remains to be seen how many employers will choose to take them forward.  However, it would be sensible for employers with an interest in these issues to diarise the following dates and give some thought to which, if any, initiatives they wish to pursue.

  • Summer 2022 – review new guidance on voluntary ethnicity pay reporting and work towards reporting.
  • December 2022 – review new guidance on positive action and implement appropriate measures
  • Spring 2023 onwards – review new materials on inclusion in the workplace and implement a strategy.
  • Autumn 2023 – sign up for the Inclusion Confident scheme.

Inclusive Britain: Government Response to the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities

If you would like further information, or to discuss how your organisation can approach these initiatives, please contact Amanda Steadman (amandasteadman@bdbf.co.uk) or your usual BDBF contact.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]


High Court upholds a one year non-compete restriction against a solicitor

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.100″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” custom_padding=”|||” global_module=”2165″ saved_tabs=”all” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.7.4″ min_height=”66.4px” custom_padding=”50px||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” text_font=”|700|||||||” text_font_size=”27px” background_layout=”dark” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF90aXRsZSIsInNldHRpbmdzIjp7ImJlZm9yZSI6IiIsImFmdGVyIjoiIn19@[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_text_color=”#FFFFFF” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9kYXRlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJkYXRlX2Zvcm1hdCI6ImRlZmF1bHQiLCJjdXN0b21fZGF0ZV9mb3JtYXQiOiIifX0=@[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22.3″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ text_orientation=”justified” hover_enabled=”0″ use_border_color=”off” global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]

In the recent case of Law by Design v Ali the High Court upheld a 1-year non-compete restriction preventing a solicitor from going to work for a competitor

What happened in this case?

Ms Ali joined Law by Design (LBD), a boutique employment law firm, as an employee in 2013. She became a shareholder in 2016, at which point she signed a Shareholders’ Agreement which contained restrictive covenants.  In 2021, she received a substantial pay increase and entered into a Service Agreement which included further post termination restrictions lasting for 12 months. This included a non-compete clause preventing her from being involved in any business which was in competition with the parts of LBD that she had been materially involved with in the 12 months before her employment ended.

In May 2021, she resigned to join a larger national firm as a partner. LBD wrote to her asking that she confirm in writing that that she would abide by her restrictions. She refused, stating that, in her and her new employer’s view, the non-compete clause was not enforceable. Ms Ali did agree to abide by the separate non-solicitation and non-dealing restrictions.

LBD applied for an interim injunction to restrain Ms Ali from breaching her obligations.  However, the hearing did not go ahead because Ms Ali provided undertakings that she would comply with the covenants the evening before the hearing. She was, however, ordered to pay LBD’s wasted costs of £50,000 due to the delay in agreeing to LBD’s request.       

What was decided by the High Court?

At the final hearing, the High Court held that, while the restrictions in the Shareholders’ Agreement were too wide to be enforceable, the non-compete clause in the Service Agreement was enforceable. The Court was satisfied that LBD had a legitimate business interest to protect (including confidential information in the form of client contacts, charge-out rates and training materials) and that the restrictions were no wider than reasonably necessary.  In particular:

  • Ms Ali could join a business anywhere in England and Wales which did not compete with LBD for the same clients;
  • the geographical location was definable by the location of LBD’s clients; and
  • the 12-month period was considered to be the shelf life of the confidential information and was also the time required to replace Ms Ali.

It was the Court’s view that Ms Ali was asking it to release her from a restraint so that she could take up employment with “the very type of competitor in respect of whom the restraint was intended to apply”.

What does this mean for employers?

It is surprising that the Court found that LBD was not adequately protected by Ms Ali’s ongoing obligations of confidentiality, non-dealing with and non-solicitation of clients, and needed the non-compete restriction. If it were to be appealed, we do think there is a fair chance this decision would be overturned. In any event, as restrictive covenant cases tend to be fact-specific, this is not a decision that will necessarily be repeated   

In this case, LBD’s position was helped by the fact that it had issued Ms Ali with a Service Agreement when it provided her with a pay rise in 2021. It is prudent for employers to consider updating employees’ contracts at the time of any pay rise or promotion to increase the chances of the restrictive covenants being enforceable. This is because it demonstrates that the restrictions have been considered and that payment is being made in exchange for the employee’s acceptance of the new terms.

This decision also demonstrates that employers may be awarded costs not just when they have succeeded in an application for interim relief but also when an employee has delayed unreasonably in responding to an employer’s request for undertakings that would avoid the need for an interim hearing.  

Law by Design v Ali

If you would like to discuss any issues arising out of this decision please contact Theo Nicou (theonicou@bdbf.co.uk), Amanda Steadman (amandasteadman@bdbf.co.uk) or your usual BDBF contact.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]


Using a PILON clause to bring forward employees’ termination dates after they have resigned does not amount to a dismissal – for now, at least.

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.100″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” custom_padding=”|||” global_module=”2165″ saved_tabs=”all” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.7.4″ min_height=”66.4px” custom_padding=”50px||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” text_font=”|700|||||||” text_font_size=”27px” background_layout=”dark” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF90aXRsZSIsInNldHRpbmdzIjp7ImJlZm9yZSI6IiIsImFmdGVyIjoiIn19@[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_text_color=”#FFFFFF” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9kYXRlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJkYXRlX2Zvcm1hdCI6ImRlZmF1bHQiLCJjdXN0b21fZGF0ZV9mb3JtYXQiOiIifX0=@[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22.3″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ text_orientation=”justified” hover_enabled=”0″ use_border_color=”off” global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]

In the recent case of Fentem v Outform EMEA Ltd it was decided that the employer’s use of a PILON clause to bring forward an employee’s termination date after he had resigned did not amount to a dismissal.

What happened in this case?

Mr Fentem resigned from Outform, giving nine months’ notice in accordance with his employment contract. He indicated to Outform that he might be willing to be flexible about the amount of notice he served.

A month before Mr Fentem’s notice was due to expire, Outform told him that they were using the PILON clause in his employment contract to bring his termination date forward and that he would be paid in lieu of notice for the remainder of the notice period.   Bringing the termination date forward by a month meant that Mr Fentem would not be eligible for a bonus under the terms of the company’s bonus scheme.

Mr Fentem argued that where employment is terminated by an employer (no matter what the circumstances) this constitutes a dismissal. He claimed that bringing forward his termination date amounted to unfair dismissal.

What was decided?

Ever since the 1994 decision in Marshall (Cambridge) Ltd v Hamblin it has been accepted that an employee’s resignation is not converted into a dismissal if an employer exercises its contractual right to make a PILON. This decision was unpopular at the time and has remained unpopular ever since. Mr Fentem, therefore, wanted the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) to look at this question again.

The EAT agreed with Mr Fentem that the use by an employer of a PILON in these circumstances should amount to a dismissal. However, the EAT concluded it could not override the earlier decision in Marshall. For the decision in Marshall to be overturned a higher court (i.e. the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court) needed to hear the case. Therefore, it held that the use of the PILON clause by Outform did not amount to a dismissal of Mr Fentem.  However, it granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

What does this decision mean for employers?

For now, the law remains that employers can bring forward the termination date of an employee who resigns and this will not constitute a dismissal (providing there is a valid PILON clause in the employee’s employment contract). If the employee’s employment contract does not contain a PILON clause, then bringing forward the employee’s termination date will amount to a dismissal.

However, it is worth remembering that the judge who made the decision in this case did so reluctantly. There are many who think the use by employers of a PILON in such circumstances should amount to a dismissal and may be overturned in a future case.  We are inclined to agree. Therefore, employers should exercise caution before using a PILON clause to bring forward an employee’s termination date without their consent.

Fentem v Outform EMEA Ltd

If you would like to discuss any issues arising out of this decision please contact Rebecca Rubin (rebeccarubin@bdbf.co.uk), Amanda Steadman (amandasteadman@bdbf.co.uk) or your usual BDBF contact.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]


Legislative change to isolate P&O exposes the holes of employment law

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.100″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” custom_padding=”|||” global_module=”2165″ saved_tabs=”all” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.7.4″ min_height=”66.4px” custom_padding=”50px||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.7.4″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” text_font=”|700|||||||” text_font_size=”27px” background_layout=”dark” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF90aXRsZSIsInNldHRpbmdzIjp7ImJlZm9yZSI6IiIsImFmdGVyIjoiIn19@[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ _dynamic_attributes=”content” _module_preset=”default” text_text_color=”#FFFFFF” global_colors_info=”{}”]@ET-DC@eyJkeW5hbWljIjp0cnVlLCJjb250ZW50IjoicG9zdF9kYXRlIiwic2V0dGluZ3MiOnsiYmVmb3JlIjoiIiwiYWZ0ZXIiOiIiLCJkYXRlX2Zvcm1hdCI6ImRlZmF1bHQiLCJjdXN0b21fZGF0ZV9mb3JtYXQiOiIifX0=@[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22.3″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.7.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.7″ text_orientation=”justified” use_border_color=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”]

P&O Ferries can’t shake the press coverage of their decision to make 800 redundancies without undertaking any consultation.  How common is it for employers to break the law knowing they will have to pay compensation later?  Managing Associate Tom McLaughlin spoke to CityAM.

Please click on the link below to view the article:
https://www.cityam.com/snap-legislative-change-isolate-po-exposes-holes-employment-law/

#ukemplaw #redundancy #collectiveconsultation

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″ global_colors_info=”{}”][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]