Sunday, 8 October 2017

OCTOBER 2017 EDITION OF EMPLOYMENT LAW NEWS

My periodic newsletter on all things employment law related that I think you should be aware of.
View this email in your browser
                                        EDITORIAL

Hello  Readers, Colleagues and Chums ,   Much to read this month,  all items are of interest as they could affect us all to some degree or another.  For fear of boring you  I've made no reference this month,  to the ongoing saga of the "gig economy"   as UBERS' appeal is to be heard,  but in the meantime another tribunal has found in favour of drivers at Addison-Lee who are workers and not self employed,  so this situation will rumble on for a while.   Do, please find the time to read the piece on Data Protection Bill,   there is a deadline but it will affect how you keep your data.  Vicarious Liability also, may have an impact depending on your type of business.   My "coffee & doughnut " item, is a quite a read,  (that is the idea)   and does show that businesses must be always vigilant as to threats from unexpected sources. 

        However............

           Read on for details of this months reports and, as always, call me or mail me if you have any concerns or need more information about this edition's content.

Kind regards,     Paul 
 

First The News: 

Data Protection Bill unveiled

 

The Government has published the Data Protection Bill, which will supplement the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the UK.            The Bill, which was announced in the Queen’s Speech in June this year, adds detail to the requirements under the GDPR.
It incorporates the highly publicised fine regime, under which organisations can be fined up to €20 million or 4% of total worldwide annual turnover.
However, the Bill makes a number of changes for employers to process special categories of personal data (such as health data and data on ethnic origin, political opinion, religious beliefs, union membership and sexual orientation) and data relating to criminal convictions.
To process special categories of personal data, also known as sensitive personal data, employers have to meet strict conditions under the GDPR, such as obtaining explicit consent.
Under the Bill, employers will be able to process special categories of personal data to fulfil obligations or exercise rights in employment law if it has a policy document in place that meets additional requirements.
Under the GDPR, employers can process data on criminal convictions only if this is specifically permitted by law.
The Bill will allow processing of criminal conviction data if it meets the same requirements as processing special categories of personal data.
This means that employers will be able to process criminal conviction data with consent, or to exercise rights or obligations provided that they have a policy in place that meets the additional requirements.
The Bill also reproduces certain exemptions from the Data Protection Act 1998 relating to subject access requests.
In particular, employers will not have to include information in their privacy notices or disclose information to employees in response to subject access requests for:
  • information that is covered by legal professional privilege;
  • information used for management planning by the employer;
  • information about the employer’s intentions during negotiations with the employee; and
  • confidential references given (but not those received) by the employer.
The Bill also creates a number of new offences, including an offence of altering, destroying or concealing information to be provided to an individual through a subject access request.
Culture secretary, Karen Bradley said: “The Data Protection Bill will give people more control over their data, support businesses in their use of data, and prepare Britain for Brexit.
“In the digital world strong cyber security and data protection go hand in hand. This Bill is a key component of our work to secure personal information online.”
The Bill will repeal the Data Protection Act 1998 when it comes into effect. In addition to implementing the GDPR, the Bill deals with personal data processed by law enforcement and national security.
The GDPR will come into effect directly in the EU, including in the UK, on 25 May 2018. When the UK leaves the EU, the GDPR will be incorporated into UK law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

read the full piece on my blog here      my continuing thanks to Personneltoday.com  for the source material.  
 
Newsflash: 

Vicarious liability: employers face big damages for employees’ actions                                       


Vicarious liability, where employers may be liable to pay damages for an employee’s or others’ actions, can result in high levels of compensation. Akshay Choudhry, an associate at independent law firm Burges Salmon, considers recent cases and how employers can manage this risk.                                                                                     What is the risk?                
Vicarious liability is where employers may be liable to pay damages where someone who works for them causes personal injury or other losses to another person through their actions while at work. It puts employers in a vulnerable situation, not least because the extent of the liability can be far-reaching.
For example, in the recent case of Various Claimants v Barclays Bank, the High Court ruled that Barclays Bank was liable for sexual assaults committed by a doctor engaged by the bank to carry out medical examinations of prospective employees.
Similarly, last year, the courts found a supermarket chain was liable when one of its petrol station attendants racially abused a customer, followed him onto the forecourt and subjected him to a severe physical attack (Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc).
In neither case had the employer endorsed or encouraged the assaults in any sense. Indeed, the assailants had acted in gross abuse of their positions. Yet, because the courts found that the assaults were so closely connected to the jobs that the assailants were engaged to do, the businesses were ultimately liable.
These cases illustrate how a business can be liable for the actions of its employees or workers even though, in reality, it would have been almost impossible for the businesses in question to have prevented those actions, and despite the fact that the actions of those concerned were well outside the scope of their expected conduct.

Is vicarious liability limited to employees?

The Barclays Bank case also illustrates another challenging aspect of vicarious liability. The doctor involved was engaged as an independent contractor, rather than as an employee. However, because he was carrying out activities (i.e. the medical examination) on behalf of the bank and that responsibility had been assigned to him and was controlled by the bank, the bank was still liable for his misdeeds.
In fact, vicarious liability can even extend to situations where there is no commercial activity or wage bargain involved at all. For example, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) was held liable for the negligence of a prisoner who dropped a sack of rice on a prison employee’s back (Cox v Ministry of Justice).
In establishing the MoJ’s liability for the injury caused, it was sufficient that the prisoner had been carrying out activities which were an integral part of the prison’s activities and were for the prison’s benefit.

What should businesses do to reduce their risk?

Where a claimant is trying to establish vicarious liability for discriminatory acts in the employment tribunal, it is open to an employer to avoid liability by showing that it has taken all reasonable steps to prevent the discrimination from occurring.
However, no such employer defence is available in standalone personal injury claims. Businesses should, therefore, focus on preventing wrongdoings from arising in the first place.
For example, businesses should:
  • Ensure all relevant policies are up-to-date and followed as a matter of course. Typically this would mean having in place policies covering expected levels of conduct, health and safety, equal opportunities, bullying, grievances, whistle-blowing and disciplinary matters;
  • Make sure that all relevant individuals understand the expected workplace standards. Your workforce should be aware of and trained on the relevant policies, practices and procedures. If they understand the standards of behaviour expected of them, they may be less likely to act out of line;
  • Carefully consider which of these policies should apply to non-employees working for, or on the premises of, the business;
  • Carefully define the scope of individual job roles; and
  • Ensure appropriate management and supervision is in place.
However, even with preventative measures in place, it is difficult to legislate for the actions of an individual, particularly one who chooses to act with deliberate intent and without regard for the rules.
To prepare for such an eventuality, employers should ensure that they have appropriate mechanisms in place to deal with any financial liability.
For instance, businesses should:
  • Consider whether the scope of cover in any relevant insurance policies (such as public liability or employer’s liability insurance policies) covers all losses for which a business may be vicariously liable, and whether there are any specific risks to address given the nature of the business; and
  • Include suitable indemnities in contracts with suppliers.
While it will be rare for the majority of employers to have to defend claims of vicariously liability, the potential financial and reputational risks that do exist mean the sensible employer will take time to review their risk profile from time to time.

Read the full piece in my blog here            my continuing thanks to Personneltoday.com  for the source material.  

 


And this, just in: my coffee and doughnut item!

Abolition of tribunal fees: Next steps for employers

 


What does the Supreme Court decision declaring tribunal fees unlawful mean for employers on a practical level? Camille Renaudon, a partner at Hibberts Solicitors, looks at the implications.                
The Supreme Court decision on 26 July 2017 to declare employment tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal fees unlawful and abolish them with immediate effect took many by surprise.
Firstly, businesses should consider the potential benefit of auditing their records to identify examples of “high-risk” dismissals while fees were payable.
Businesses should assess the potential numbers of historic claims that could now be brought by claimants, and their records should indicate whether those are claims that were referred to the Acas early conciliation scheme, or not.
If they were, some commentators suggest those claims are more likely to now be revived, for a number of reasons.
One key aspect employers should consider is how strong a position they will be in to defend such claims, should they materialise.
Do you have access to evidence, have you retained records and documents? Are the relevant witnesses still employed by you or able to assist with the case? If not, did such witnesses leave in amicable circumstances and are they contactable?
Such considerations will inevitably affect the willingness of an employer who faces a belated claim to engage in the early conciliation process or choose to defend the claim at tribunal.

Out of time claims

At the moment we still do not know the Government’s stance in relation to those potential claimants who were deterred between July 2013 and July 2017 from bringing a claim or lodging an appeal due to fees.
It is unclear whether they may be allowed to submit a claim out of time but it is anticipated that they will.
Should that be the case, significant numbers of claims may be brought long after the event; hence the preparatory steps that employers should take now.
Until we have a test case or guidance from the higher courts on the issue, claims will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and the financial circumstances of each individual claimant will need to be considered and taken into account by a tribunal when deciding whether they will be allowed to submit a claim late.

Recovering fees

Another practical step for employers will be to recover sums owed to them.
It is certainly anticipated that those respondents who were ordered to repay fees to a claimant (and actually did so) will be eligible to be reimbursed for those employment tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal fees, just as claimants will be.
In some cases employers will have paid other fees themselves, such as in the case of judicial mediation, and these too will be recoverable.
To prepare, employers should calculate the value of sums subject to reimbursement. Having done that, if proportionate to do so, they should identify an individual or department with responsibility for tracking developments and dealing with any applications for reimbursement.
An announcement regarding the reimbursement process is imminent, so this is certainly something to keep an eye on.
It is also likely there will be a need to increase resources to HR and personnel departments moving forward as it is certainly anticipated that the numbers of new claims will increase significantly.
A report of a seven-fold increase since the decision in one tribunal seems to be a blip, but many anticipate that we will see far greater numbers of tribunal claims being lodged now that fees are no longer payable.

Increased training

Employers now need to consider whether staff need additional training in dealing with tribunal claims, particularly if their exposure to them has been limited because of the vastly reduced numbers of claims seen over the last few years.
They should also consider their insurance policies and see what cover they currently have in relation to tribunal litigation, both for costs and awards made, as this may need to be reviewed.
Finally, for the overwhelming majority of claims, early conciliation via Acas is compulsory and employers may need to reconsider their approach to this.
It may pay to be more receptive to the idea of early conciliation, as potential claimants are now inevitably more likely to issue claims if conciliation is unsuccessful.
Statistics from 2015/16 indicate that 80% of those who contacted Acas did not go on to bring a tribunal claim and for a significant number of those, the fees were the off-putting factor.
Acas research published in 2015 indicated that more than two-thirds of claimants who had been deterred from bringing a claim due to fees said they could not afford them, whereas others stated the fee was more than they were prepared to pay, or that the value of the fee equalled the money they were owed.
Moving forward, a claimant may be less inclined to settle at the early conciliation stage whereas previously they may not have gone on to submit claims in any event.
This may have been where their type of claim could not lead to a monetary award (such as claims for a written statement of particulars of employment) or the value of the claim would have been disproportionate to the fee payable.
Many claimants will also have taken into account that even if successful, they would have had no guarantee of their award actually being paid by a respondent.
They will still face that same risk but some may opt to take their chances in tribunal rather than settle at the early conciliation stage.
Respondents, on the other hand, are now likely to have more to gain by engaging in conciliation in circumstances when previously, when fees were payable, they may not have done.

My Comment:   I have opined that the fees regime was flawed from the outset,  but if this idea materialises, it will be a step too far,  and certainly plunge the Tribunal system into chaos !

read the full piece on my blog here          
my continuing thanks to Personneltoday.com  for the source material.    

 


Download of employee pay rates,  NMW, "living wage" and other benefit entitlements:

Additionally:
In you need further in depth help working out what exactly counts as minimum wage,  the DBIS has produced this 55 page guide,

"Calculating the minimum wage"     
Tweet
Forward to Friend
Share
Call Me On 
0779 269 7399


Or Connect with me...
Website
Website
Twitter
Twitter
LinkedIn
LinkedIn
Email
Email

Health& Safety

Case 411 - Safety pins on swimming pool locker keys

Issue

A swimming pool operator has removed safety pins from their locker keys on H&S grounds

Panel opinion

Other than the general duties under the HSW Act there is no specific H&S legislation or guidance applying to this. Safety pins have been widely used as a means to secure locker keys and should not present significant risks, however use of safety pins is outdated and has gradually been replaced by either clips or wrist bands. This appears to be a specific policy at this leisure centre, so a fuller explanation would be helpful, beyond the simple ‘health and safety’ line.

Case 410 - Children at school have been banned from eating pack lunches outside allegedly due to health and safety

Issue

Children at a school have been banned from eating pack lunches outside allegedly due to health and safety

Panel opinion

This appears to be a specific approach put in place by this school, perhaps as part of a wider food policy.  It is not a requirement of health and safety regulation and central government guidelines on food hygiene or healthy eating do not cover this.  It might be helpful to explain the thinking behind it more clearly therefore.
 

Case 409 - Store stopped providing customer with empty ‘tester’ perfume bottles to customer for health and safety reasons

Issue

Store stopped providing customer with empty ‘tester’ perfume bottles to customer for health and safety reasons.

Panel opinion

Retailers are not prohibited under health and safety at work legislation from providing empty perfume bottles to customers upon request. In this case the store assistant was correctly following company policy on the destruction/recycling of waste. The company should have been more transparent about the real reason for refusal rather than use the excuse of ‘health & safety’.
 

Case 407 - Employer stopped proving funds for alcoholic drinks at staff Christmas night out (offsite)

Issue

Employer stopped proving funds for alcoholic drinks at Christmas night out (offsite), citing health and safety.

Panel opinion

While the employer may have a proper concern to discourage staff from overdoing it where it is funding a night out, claiming health and safety legislation as the reason for its refusal to fund Christmas party drinks on a staff night out is incorrect.
 

Case 404 - Company told by insurers to employ a professional ‘Keyholding Service’ to comply with health and safety regulations

Issue

A Company with an employee nominated as a primary intruder alarm keyholder was told by insurers that there is a legal requirement to establish a "Keyholding Service" with a professional security company in order to comply with health and safety regulations.

Panel opinion

Employers do need to take steps to ensure that those responding to alarm call outs are not exposed to a risk of violence. Those steps will be based on an assessment of the risks to their employees. Whilst a ‘keyholding’ service’ may form part of a safe system of work, there is no legal requirement to engage such a service. The insurance company should not have implied that this was the case.

Tuesday, 3 October 2017

Data Protection Bill unveiled


The Government has published the Data Protection Bill, which will supplement the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the UK.           

The Bill, which was announced in the Queen’s Speech in June this year, adds detail to the requirements under the GDPR.
It incorporates the highly publicised fine regime, under which organisations can be fined up to €20 million or 4% of total worldwide annual turnover.
However, the Bill makes a number of changes for employers to process special categories of personal data (such as health data and data on ethnic origin, political opinion, religious beliefs, union membership and sexual orientation) and data relating to criminal convictions.
To process special categories of personal data, also known as sensitive personal data, employers have to meet strict conditions under the GDPR, such as obtaining explicit consent.
Under the Bill, employers will be able to process special categories of personal data to fulfil obligations or exercise rights in employment law if it has a policy document in place that meets additional requirements.
Under the GDPR, employers can process data on criminal convictions only if this is specifically permitted by law.
The Bill will allow processing of criminal conviction data if it meets the same requirements as processing special categories of personal data.
This means that employers will be able to process criminal conviction data with consent, or to exercise rights or obligations provided that they have a policy in place that meets the additional requirements.
The Bill also reproduces certain exemptions from the Data Protection Act 1998 relating to subject access requests.
In particular, employers will not have to include information in their privacy notices or disclose information to employees in response to subject access requests for:
  • information that is covered by legal professional privilege;
  • information used for management planning by the employer;
  • information about the employer’s intentions during negotiations with the employee; and
  • confidential references given (but not those received) by the employer.
The Bill also creates a number of new offences, including an offence of altering, destroying or concealing information to be provided to an individual through a subject access request.
Culture secretary, Karen Bradley said: “The Data Protection Bill will give people more control over their data, support businesses in their use of data, and prepare Britain for Brexit.
“In the digital world strong cyber security and data protection go hand in hand. This Bill is a key component of our work to secure personal information online.”
The Bill will repeal the Data Protection Act 1998 when it comes into effect. In addition to implementing the GDPR, the Bill deals with personal data processed by law enforcement and national security.
The GDPR will come into effect directly in the EU, including in the UK, on 25 May 2018. When the UK leaves the EU, the GDPR will be incorporated into UK law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

Vicarious liability: employers face big damages for employees’ actions


Vicarious liability, where employers may be liable to pay damages for an employee’s or others’ actions, can result in high levels of compensation. Akshay Choudhry, an associate at independent law firm Burges Salmon, considers recent cases and how employers can manage this risk.                                                                          

What is the risk?                

Vicarious liability is where employers may be liable to pay damages where someone who works for them causes personal injury or other losses to another person through their actions while at work. It puts employers in a vulnerable situation, not least because the extent of the liability can be far-reaching.
For example, in the recent case of Various Claimants v Barclays Bank, the High Court ruled that Barclays Bank was liable for sexual assaults committed by a doctor engaged by the bank to carry out medical examinations of prospective employees.
Similarly, last year, the courts found a supermarket chain was liable when one of its petrol station attendants racially abused a customer, followed him onto the forecourt and subjected him to a severe physical attack (Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc).
In neither case had the employer endorsed or encouraged the assaults in any sense. Indeed, the assailants had acted in gross abuse of their positions. Yet, because the courts found that the assaults were so closely connected to the jobs that the assailants were engaged to do, the businesses were ultimately liable.
These cases illustrate how a business can be liable for the actions of its employees or workers even though, in reality, it would have been almost impossible for the businesses in question to have prevented those actions, and despite the fact that the actions of those concerned were well outside the scope of their expected conduct.

Is vicarious liability limited to employees?

The Barclays Bank case also illustrates another challenging aspect of vicarious liability. The doctor involved was engaged as an independent contractor, rather than as an employee. However, because he was carrying out activities (i.e. the medical examination) on behalf of the bank and that responsibility had been assigned to him and was controlled by the bank, the bank was still liable for his misdeeds.
In fact, vicarious liability can even extend to situations where there is no commercial activity or wage bargain involved at all. For example, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) was held liable for the negligence of a prisoner who dropped a sack of rice on a prison employee’s back (Cox v Ministry of Justice).
In establishing the MoJ’s liability for the injury caused, it was sufficient that the prisoner had been carrying out activities which were an integral part of the prison’s activities and were for the prison’s benefit.

What should businesses do to reduce their risk?

Where a claimant is trying to establish vicarious liability for discriminatory acts in the employment tribunal, it is open to an employer to avoid liability by showing that it has taken all reasonable steps to prevent the discrimination from occurring.
However, no such employer defence is available in standalone personal injury claims. Businesses should, therefore, focus on preventing wrongdoings from arising in the first place.
For example, businesses should:
  • Ensure all relevant policies are up-to-date and followed as a matter of course. Typically this would mean having in place policies covering expected levels of conduct, health and safety, equal opportunities, bullying, grievances, whistle-blowing and disciplinary matters;
  • Make sure that all relevant individuals understand the expected workplace standards. Your workforce should be aware of and trained on the relevant policies, practices and procedures. If they understand the standards of behaviour expected of them, they may be less likely to act out of line;
  • Carefully consider which of these policies should apply to non-employees working for, or on the premises of, the business;
  • Carefully define the scope of individual job roles; and
  • Ensure appropriate management and supervision is in place.
However, even with preventative measures in place, it is difficult to legislate for the actions of an individual, particularly one who chooses to act with deliberate intent and without regard for the rules.
To prepare for such an eventuality, employers should ensure that they have appropriate mechanisms in place to deal with any financial liability.
For instance, businesses should:
  • Consider whether the scope of cover in any relevant insurance policies (such as public liability or employer’s liability insurance policies) covers all losses for which a business may be vicariously liable, and whether there are any specific risks to address given the nature of the business; and
  • Include suitable indemnities in contracts with suppliers.
While it will be rare for the majority of employers to have to defend claims of vicariously liability, the potential financial and reputational risks that do exist mean the sensible employer will take time to review their risk profile from time to time.

Changes to how the Insolvency Service Calculates Holiday Pay



Changes to how the Insolvency Service Calculates Holiday Pay

The Insolvency Service pays holiday pay (along with notice pay and redundancy pay, all subject to various caps) to employees whose employers are insolvent.        

It has announced that it will be changing the way it calculates holiday pay to include contractual-based commission. Its decision has retrospective effect, ie will benefit everyone who has ever applied for and received holiday pay from it. If someone applied for holiday pay from the Insolvency Service on or after 1 August 2011 (whether or not they've been paid it), the Insolvency Service will contact them directly to seek evidence of what extra payments they might be entitled to.

If someone applied for holiday pay from the Insolvency Service earlier than August 2011, then they need to contact the Insolvency Service.

But these extra payments will only be made if the employee indicated at the time on their form that they were entitled to contractual commission. If they did not, they cannot raise a claim now.

See the Insolvency Service website for more details.


MY Comment:  Seemed to me to be a fair and balanced idea,    then you read the last paragraph!    what are the chances ?  

Abolition of tribunal fees: Next steps for employers



What does the Supreme Court decision declaring tribunal fees unlawful mean for employers on a practical level? Camille Renaudon, a partner at Hibberts Solicitors, looks at the implications.
The Supreme Court decision on 26 July 2017 to declare employment tribunal and Employment 
Appeal Tribunal fees unlawful and abolish them with immediate effect took many by surprise.
Firstly, businesses should consider the potential benefit of auditing their records to identify examples of “high-risk” dismissals while fees were payable.
Businesses should assess the potential numbers of historic claims that could now be brought by claimants, and their records should indicate whether those are claims that were referred to the Acas early conciliation scheme, or not.
If they were, some commentators suggest those claims are more likely to now be revived, for a number of reasons.
One key aspect employers should consider is how strong a position they will be in to defend such claims, should they materialise.
Do you have access to evidence, have you retained records and documents? Are the relevant witnesses still employed by you or able to assist with the case? If not, did such witnesses leave in amicable circumstances and are they contactable?
Such considerations will inevitably affect the willingness of an employer who faces a belated claim to engage in the early conciliation process or choose to defend the claim at tribunal.

Out of time claims

At the moment we still do not know the Government’s stance in relation to those potential claimants who were deterred between July 2013 and July 2017 from bringing a claim or lodging an appeal due to fees.
It is unclear whether they may be allowed to submit a claim out of time but it is anticipated that they will.
Should that be the case, significant numbers of claims may be brought long after the event; hence the preparatory steps that employers should take now.
Until we have a test case or guidance from the higher courts on the issue, claims will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and the financial circumstances of each individual claimant will need to be considered and taken into account by a tribunal when deciding whether they will be allowed to submit a claim late.

Recovering fees

Another practical step for employers will be to recover sums owed to them.
It is certainly anticipated that those respondents who were ordered to repay fees to a claimant (and actually did so) will be eligible to be reimbursed for those employment tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal fees, just as claimants will be.
In some cases employers will have paid other fees themselves, such as in the case of judicial mediation, and these too will be recoverable.
To prepare, employers should calculate the value of sums subject to reimbursement. Having done that, if proportionate to do so, they should identify an individual or department with responsibility for tracking developments and dealing with any applications for reimbursement.
An announcement regarding the reimbursement process is imminent, so this is certainly something to keep an eye on.
It is also likely there will be a need to increase resources to HR and personnel departments moving forward as it is certainly anticipated that the numbers of new claims will increase significantly.
A report of a seven-fold increase since the decision in one tribunal seems to be a blip, but many anticipate that we will see far greater numbers of tribunal claims being lodged now that fees are no longer payable.

Increased training

Employers now need to consider whether staff need additional training in dealing with tribunal claims, particularly if their exposure to them has been limited because of the vastly reduced numbers of claims seen over the last few years.
They should also consider their insurance policies and see what cover they currently have in relation to tribunal litigation, both for costs and awards made, as this may need to be reviewed.
Finally, for the overwhelming majority of claims, early conciliation via Acas is compulsory and employers may need to reconsider their approach to this.
It may pay to be more receptive to the idea of early conciliation, as potential claimants are now inevitably more likely to issue claims if conciliation is unsuccessful.
Statistics from 2015/16 indicate that 80% of those who contacted Acas did not go on to bring a tribunal claim and for a significant number of those, the fees were the off-putting factor.
Acas research published in 2015 indicated that more than two-thirds of claimants who had been deterred from bringing a claim due to fees said they could not afford them, whereas others stated the fee was more than they were prepared to pay, or that the value of the fee equalled the money they were owed.
Moving forward, a claimant may be less inclined to settle at the early conciliation stage whereas previously they may not have gone on to submit claims in any event.
This may have been where their type of claim could not lead to a monetary award (such as claims for a written statement of particulars of employment) or the value of the claim would have been disproportionate to the fee payable.
Many claimants will also have taken into account that even if successful, they would have had no guarantee of their award actually being paid by a respondent.
They will still face that same risk but some may opt to take their chances in tribunal rather than settle at the early conciliation stage.
Respondents, on the other hand, are now likely to have more to gain by engaging in conciliation in circumstances when previously, when fees were payable, they may not have done.

My Comment:   I have opined that the fees regime was flawed from the outset,  but if this idea materialises, it will be a step too far,  and certainly plunge the Tribunal system into chaos !

Monitoring workers' emails



Monitoring workers' emails

Remember the 2016 ECHR decision in Barbulescu v Romania, which said that a Romanian employer acted lawfully when it monitored an employee's Yahoo messenger account?        

Something unusual has happened.  There has been an appeal from the Chamber of the ECHR (7 judges, who take most of the decisions) to the Grand Chamber (17 judges, the final tier and unusual).  And the Grand Chamber has come down more in favour of the right to privacy and reversed the decision.

It's a complicated and nuanced judgment.  But the main point is that workers have a right to respect for privacy in the workplace, and if an employer is going to monitor their emails and messages, the employer should (exceptional reasons aside) tell the worker that their communications might be monitored.  Here, although the employee knew it was forbidden to use work computers for personal purposes, he had not been told that the employer was monitoring his communications.

Accordingly the ECHR held that the Romanian court's decision was wrong, and that Romanian law failed to strike a fair balance between the employer's and the employee's interests.  Accordingly there was a breach of Article 8 and the employee was entitled to compensation.


My Comment: So,   we pay vast sums of investment on our IT,  actually pay salaries to employees to "work", whilst they are at work,   and we tell them they mustn't use the internet for personal use,    and they ignore all this,  and we are STILL in the wrong !!