Tuesday, 18 November 2014
Less than a quarter of discrimination cases are successful at employment tribunals, new research
The findings from GQ Employment Law found that 710 of 3,210 (22%) of discrimination cases heard at an employment tribunal were successful.
For Non-discrimination case, 18,847 our 30,498 (62%) were successful.
Jon Gilligan, Partner at GQ Employment Law said: “Employers are very anxious about defending discrimination claims in the employment tribunal. Many believe that the employees are at an advantage and consistently win the majority of cases. When you look at the most expensive class of cases this appears to be untrue.”
“There is always a bit of a risk for employers in defending a discrimination case at the employment tribunal, but these figures show that employers normally win.”
“This might encourage risk-averse employers who would normally settle a case to avoid a employment tribunal hearing to take stronger line against weak claims.”
My Comment: well this is encouraging, although it does rather suggest that a large number if cases are ill-conceived in the first place, so who is advising these applicants to "have a go" ?
our thanks to HR grapevine for this piece see them at :
Wednesday, 5 November 2014
Holiday pay to include overtime payments
The Employment Tribunal Appeal has this morning handed down judgment in AMEC Group Ltd v
- Article 7 of the Working Time Directive requires workers to be paid “normal remuneration” during the holiday to which they are entitled under EU law, i.e., broadly speaking, their typical average pay, not only the basic hours’ pay which has long been understood to be the entitlement of workers with normal hours of work under the UK’s Working Time Regulations.
- It is possible to “read down” the domestic Working Time Regulations under the Marleasing principle to achieve compliance with the requirements of Article 7 — potentially giving a very large number of UK workers who have been paid holiday pay representing only their basic hours’ work claims for unlawful deductions from wages. On this and the Article 7 issue, the employers’ appeals failed.
- However, the employers’ appeals succeeded on a key issue of limitation: the meaning of a “series of deductions” from wages. If there is a gap of more than three months in any alleged series of deductions, the Employment Tribunal loses jurisdiction to hear claims for the earlier deductions. Further, workers are not entitled retrospectively to designate which holiday was “EU” holiday under regulation 13 of the WTR and which was additional domestic leave under regulation 13A so as to create an unbroken “series”. The EAT’s conclusions may thus severely restrict the ability of workers to bring valuable, retrospective claims for underpaid holiday pay.
Monday, 3 November 2014