Tom is an Associate Solicitor, who joined the Employment Team in August 2017. Tom deals with all areas of Employment Law but has extensive experience in disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claims on both sides. His varied experience of acting on both sides of tribunal claims allows him to offer employers detailed and accurate guidance as to likely next steps and effectively analyse disputes.

How to avoid a French-style World Cup mutiny in the workplace

Yes, the World Cup is here. Not that that is news. Even if you’re not a football fan, all the adverts for cheap flat screen TVs to ensure you are ‘World Cup ready’ would have done the trick.

Now, naturally, for most people, memories of recent World Cups include a ponytailed England goalkeeper flapping at a Brazilian cross/shot, getting humiliated at the hands of tiny nations (Iceland, anyone?) and, of course, hitting Row Z from the penalty spot against ze germans.

However, for me, one of the most controversial, shocking moments of recent years was the French squad effectively refusing to train at the 2010 World Cup! Just imagine you’ve waited 4 years for the World Cup to come round, you’ve played well enough to make your national team and then, as a team, after a huge training pitch row with management, you walk out of training (into the team bus) in protest at the manager! On that occasion, it was due to the decision to send Nicolas Anelka home after the striker had reportedly sworn at the manager, Raymond Domenech. Needless to say, team spirit hit a massive low and they limply crashed out of the tournament soon after. C’est terrible!

So, what happens in similar situations at work? What happens if a staff member commits an unacceptable offence ending in dismissal against their line manager and their colleagues then actively rebel against the manager in question?

Gender Pay Gap Reporting: Myth-busting

I write further to the deadline for Gender Pay Gap Reporting expiring last week. Much has been made in the media of that deadline being the day by which qualifying employers (i.e. those with 250 or more employees) have to submit the percentage difference in pay between their male and female staff.

The initial results? Nearly 80% of those employers who have responded (some haven’t) have reported higher pay levels to men than women.

So, that means that those employers are discriminating against women, right? Well, not necessarily. But the figures are there in black and white – surely, every employer with a higher pay towards males is inherently sexist? Not really.

The reality is that the figures are suggestive only and there are many legitimate reasons why pay may be skewed either way, whether towards males or females. Let’s take a look and bust some myths about the Gender Pay Gap Reporting.

Do the recent Equality & Human Rights Commission proposals to ‘combat’ sexual harassment make sense?

The Equality & Human Rights Commission (“EHRC”) is a fantastic organisation that seeks to protect employees and workers from discrimination at work. I regularly read their published Reports and publications because they interest me and keep me informed of potential future developments, which is handy given my sizable discrimination-related workload for employees and employers alike.

The EHRC have recently published their most recent Report: “Turning the tables: Ending sexual harassment at work”. The Report raises well-known concerns about the lack of support provided to, and the pressure and detriment placed upon, individuals who identify sexual harassment issues in the workplace.

As usual, the Report ends with some law reform-based recommendations for the Government to consider to improve matters. And, rather unusually with an EHRC Report, whilst I completely agree with the motive behind the recommendations, I can’t much see how the majority of the recommendations themselves will make much positive difference. For me, it appears to be a case of ‘good intent, bad execution’.

But, rather than simply take my word for it, let’s explore some of the recommendations and have a proper look.

Coming back for seconds: Waiter appeals dismissal for ‘rude, aggressive’ behaviour due to ‘being French’

As an Employment Solicitor, I deal with multiple discrimination claims. Personally, I find the majority of discrimination claims fascinating. Why? Because they are so varied and can be brought due to behaviour linked (in almost any way) to an individual’s gender, age, belief or religion, race, sexual orientation, disability, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy or nationality.

As you’ll have no doubt spotted from the unusual title, it’s that last one, nationality, which I want to explore today.

Before we get into the legal angle, let’s quickly look at the facts. A waiter is reported to have taken action against a restaurant in Vancouver for his dismissal last year. His former employer stated that his dismissal was due to his “aggressive tone and nature” with colleagues further to previous verbal warnings as to his “combative and aggressive” behaviour towards fellow staff.

The waiter, Mr Guillaume Rey, has argued that his dismissal (and the reasoning behind it) is discriminatory because French culture “tends to be more direct and expressive”. Yes, that’s right, his core argument is that his confrontational behaviour should have been overlooked and/or condoned simply because he was French.

Ministry of Justice confirm huge increase in Employment Tribunal claims

I’ll start with the big headline: Employment Tribunal claims (brought by individual Claimants) increased by 90% in the period between October to December 2017 (in comparison with the same period in 2016). To cut a long story short, the recent abolition of Employment Tribunal fees has led to Tribunal claims nearly doubling.

A small disclaimer is that the above statistic is currently a provisional figure, however, in reality, that figure tallies with my own expectations and experience over the past 12 months.

These statistics are slightly ironic given that, before the Supreme Court found Employment Tribunal fees to be unlawful, one of the main reasons the lower courts refused to find Employment Tribunal fees unlawful because there was ‘no evidence’ of the fees preventing individuals from accessing justice.

Frozen out: Can it be too cold to work?

Spring is here. Or is that winter? All over the country, people are facing difficulty travelling on account of snow and ice and, here on Merseyside, things are no different.

In fact, this is quickly turning into that time of year when I receive multiple text messages from friends, some more jokey than others, asking if there is a minimum temperature at which they are required to work because their workplace is so cold or, as my favourite text states: ‘so cold as to give a polar bear frostbite!

Now, poorly polar bears aside, there isn’t a set temperature at which staff can suddenly declare it to be too cold and go home without recourse. Even if there was, those staff would be highly unlikely to be paid during their absence from office.

Instead, businesses rely on guidance from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The HSE recommeds that office-based workers be exposed to temperatures no lower than 16C and any workers whose work requires ‘physical effort’ (i.e. being on your feet and moving arond) are not exposed to temperatures below 13C.

However, be very aware of that word above: ‘guidance‘.

Theft in the workplace: Actionable or a load of hot air?

This afternoon, I returned to my chilly office to discover that my desk heater was absent. After a quick root round, it became clear that someone had borrowed it for a meeting room yesterday and forgot to return it. The mystery was solved and I’m back to being blasted with lovely, soothing warm air once again!

However, the experience did serve as a reminder of the number of times over the years when employers have rang to obtain advice about thefts in the workplace. And, no, I don’t mean borrowing items and forgetting to return them, as in the much tamer world of Canter Levin and Berg but, rather, intending to steal items. Obviously, this can occur either against the Company’s property or between colleagues.

So, how can an employer turn up the heat in pursuing a potential thief?

Protecting employees’ “stories” – Avoiding fines of up to €20m under the incoming General Data Protection Regulations

Last night, I visited a local community café for a fascinating talk about ‘story’. The gist of the evening centred around how humans think and dream in script form rather than in bullet points. A case in point? You dream in vivid, moving events, not static images.

Every part of our lives involves in story. Music is the story of events in lyrical form, whilst books and films introduce characters with backstories which shape their character going forwards. An example? In the Harry Potter books, Harry and Voldemort have the same backstory (magical orphans with horrible childhoods who are ‘saved’ by Hogwarts School) but both deal with that in different ways – i.e. one becomes good and one becomes evil.

Everybody has an individual story, whether in their social lives or during their employment. So, why am I going on about ‘story’?

Would reforming the Working Time regulations be a good idea?

Brexit. Brexit. Brexit. Whilst Christmas and New Year provided a welcome rest from Brexit-dominated headlines, there is no doubt that the media train will start in earnest sooner rather than later.

Just before Christmas, various newspapers reported that the Working Time Regulations could be a target for the Government following the UK’s departure from the EU. Certain newspapers went further and stated that repealing or substantially amending the Working Time Regulations would be a positive example of removing so-called ‘red tape’ and freeing businesses from the burden of overbearing regulations; some newspapers even trotted out the over-used line of ‘taking back control’.

So, to use that awful phrase, should the UK ‘take back control’ and amend the Working Time Regulations?

Can you discriminate against a ‘non-disabled’ employee on grounds of disability?

 So, here we are: January. Christmas has come and gone and the warm lights of December have been replaced with the wind and rain of January. Sigh. But anyway, how was your Christmas? I hope it was a time of rest and good health.

My Christmas? As usual, it was filled with random discussions around the Christmas dinner table including, as ever, conversations about weird and wonderful Employment Law cases. In particular, some of my family members were shocked to hear that a non-disabled employee can suffer disability-related discrimination. One even suggested that I make the subject into a blog when I returned to work and, me being me, I couldn’t resist such an invitation…

So what am I talking about? Well, this was the case of Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey which concerned a female police officer who applied for a job in another police force. The police officer had a progressive hearing condition with tinnitus which, going forward, would continue to worsen. When originally recruited for her current police force, she failed the meet the usual criteria for police recruitment due to her low level of hearing but, after the police force arranged a practical functionality test, she was passed for duty and assigned for front-line duties. There were no concerns over her performance during her time in the role.

The issues started in 2013 when she applied to transfer to a new police force. As was standard, she attended a pre-employment health assessment. The medical practitioner concluded that, whilst her hearing level was technically just outside the usual police force parameters, she performed her current role with no difficulties and a practical functionality test was recommended. However, the new police force refused to follow this recommendation and, instead, declined her request to transfer due to her hearing below the recognised standard and, rather importantly, commented that it would not be appropriate to accept a candidate outside of the recognised standard of hearing because of the risk of increasing the pool of police officers placed on restricted duties.