The Santa Clause: Employment Law issues in Lapland

Penguin Santa You know who’s having a low media presence this year? Santa Claus! I mean, just look at the Christmas adverts this year! Without naming names, the ‘biggest’ Christmas adverts this year involve a monster, a carrot and a toy factory. The only ‘big’ advert that sees the big, red man is one in which Paddington bear mistakes a burglar for Santa!

So, why the low media presence? Where is Santa?

On that front, I may be able to help. You see, Mr Claus is currently having some Employment Law and HR issues with his workforce and has been busy obtaining legal advice on what to do next. It’s a stressful time of year, particularly with less and less people believing in him (there seems to be a rumour going around that he isn’t real) and certain big rival companies in the logistics business setting up in competition (the main one named after a geographical location considerably far away from Lapland).

Put simply, Christmas needs saving and Santa can’t operate without solving his current employment law issues. With this in mind, let’s go on a Christmas journey and help Santa save Christmas!

Details

Important ECJ decision opens up the possibility of valuable retrospective holiday claims

I have written in this blog on many occasions about the importance of getting it right if you are going to treat all or part of your workforce as self-employed, rather than as fully fledged workers or employees. As you may recall, the Pimlico Plumbers case earlier this year ruled in favour of the claimants, finding that they were workers rather than being “fully” self-employed and therefore entitled to holiday pay and other benefits. The issue has been a hot topic throughout 2017 with the Uber and Addison Lee cases for example showing a willingness on the part of the courts to find that there was an employment relationship where, previously, there was assumed not to be.

But what basis should be applied for calculating losses if an entitlement to retrospective holiday pay or other benefits is established. The normal cut off point for calculations is six years, since this is the time limit for claims based on breach of contract. However, the entitlement to paid holidays arises under the EU Working Time Directive and this has a statutory footing.

This issue was recently considered by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU/ECJ) and judgment was delivered in the case of King v The Sash Window Workshop Limited and Dollar on 29 November. Mr King had started working for Sash Window Workshop (“the Company”) in June 1999 on a “self-employed commission only contract”. He continued to work for the Company until his retirement in 2012. He took numerous holidays during the 13 years that he worked for the Company, but was not paid for them. Following his retirement he asked to be paid all his holiday pay for the entire period of his engagement. Unsurprisingly, the Company refused.

Mr King took his claim to an employment tribunal which held that there were in effect three types of holiday claims: (i) holiday pay for 2012-13 accrued but untaken when he left, (ii) holiday pay for leave actually taken but in respect of which no payment was made and (iii) pay in lieu covering accrued but untaken leave (amounting to a further 24.15 weeks). The tribunal found that Mr King was a worker (within the meaning of the statutory definition – see the Pimlico case) and therefore ruled in his favour in respect of all three.

The Company appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Details

The end of “fit to work” notes and referrals

Back in March 2010 I reported about the proposed introduction of fit notes, noting that the Government expected savings to the economy of £240 million over 10 years, by aiding the recovery to work of sick workers. Well, it didn’t turn out that way. By July 2010 there were teething problems. Bogus fit notes were widely available on the internet and offered for £9.99 with an introductory “buy one get one free” offer. A further and entirely predictable problem was that employers receiving the fit notes were unable to decipher GPs’ illegible handwriting and therefore overlooked key elements of the process such as, for example, arranging a structured return to work.

In 2015 the Engineering Employers Federation (EEF) reported that the scheme wasn’t working. By September 2014 only 5000 GPs from a pool of 40,854 had received training and 43% of employers said that the fit note had not helped employees to return to work. The EEF’s head of health and safety noted that the quality of advice being given by GPs to help people back to work was deteriorating and that, in order to work, the scheme needed greater resources.

Late in November 2017 it was quietly announced that the scheme is to be scrapped.

Details

Can an employee be disciplined for looking for another job?

Job Application Form You’d think this would be a weird question but I actually get asked this question on a fairly regular basis. Thankfully, I mostly get asked it by employees rather than employers but, in saying that, I can recall two employers (at a past law firm) that asked me this exact question.

The answer? Quite simply: it depends. It depends on the circumstances but, theoretically, yes, an employee can be disciplined for job hunting. In practice, however, it would be a rare occasion where an employer could safely do so.

To explore the dividing line, let’s look at three examples.

Details

Is sacking an employee who has miscarried an act of pregnancy-related discrimination?

Employment Law book Earlier in my legal career, I helped advise an individual who was subjected to detrimental treatment by her employer due to time off linked to a miscarriage. Naturally, I won’t identify the individual or the specific facts here but, save to say, their employer’s conduct made a very difficult situation even more stressful.

The biggest surprise I experienced during that case was their employer trying to argue that a miscarriage wasn’t pregnancy-related under the Equality Act 2010 because the employee wasn’t pregnant anymore. This is completely incorrect. Why?

Details

Calls for Government to adopt German model of redundancy protection for pregnant employees

Baby Toy There has been a sizable amount of space afforded to pregnancy-related discrimination in the media this past year. In fact, that’s one of the reasons for this series of pregnancy-related blogs. As such, it is becoming increasingly difficult for employers to escape accusations of pregnancy-related discrimination when it arises. This being said, there are charitable organisations out there that believe that more needs to be done: one of these charities is Maternity Action.

During the past week, Maternity Action have released a report (named “Unfair Redundancies”) calling on the Government to strengthen anti-redundancy protection for pregnancy employees. The most eye-catching statistics quoted by the charity include that 1 in every twenty mothers are made redundant during their pregnancy, maternity leave or return to work and that 77% of pregnant women felt discriminated against during their period of pregnancy.

Before we continue, let’s just dial down into that first statistic for a moment.

Details

“Our Line Manager has made discriminatory comments to a pregnant employee?”

Baby's crib with teddy“Our Line Manager, Rosemary, has made discriminatory comments about a pregnant member of staff, Thyme. Her comments include stating that Thyme “has baby on the brain” and has a “poor attitude”. Thyme has complained to the HR Director and is demanding action. What can we do and what could we be facing?”

Thankfully, the above scenario is hypothetical and not a client email. However, some managers do fall into the trap of making discriminatory comments against pregnant staff members and, in doing so, place their employers at risk.

As most employers are aware, pregnant workers obtain advanced protection from detriment under employment law. Contrary to popular belief, this doesn’t entirely prevent genuine concerns about an employee’s conduct and/or performance being formally investigated as long as they have nothing to do with their pregnancy. Unfortunately, in this case, the line manager’s comments appear to be entirely influenced by the Rosemary’s pregnancy and that is a big risk for the employer.

Details

A bitter feud played out in the High Court

Embed from Getty ImagesOver the last few weeks the High Court has heard some astonishing evidence in the bitter wrongful dismissal claim brought by the former CEO of Signia, a wealth management company, as reported in The Independent.

High profile entrepreneur John Caudwell has frequently made the news over the last couple of decades. The founder of mobile phones retailer Phones 4U has presented himself as a forthright, no-nonsense style of businessman. According to the website Caudwell.com (owned, registered and administered by one John D Caudwell and which is currently “down for maintenance”) he is a “successful entrepreneur and philanthropist” who “built an immensely successful mobile telecoms company”.

Signia is a wealth management company that was jointly founded by Nathalie Dauriac and six of her Coutts Bank colleagues in 2010. Another co-founder was Mr Caudwell. The business focuses on high end wealth management. All appeared to be well until details emerged of an extraordinary dispute between Ms Dauriac and Mr Caudwell, ostensibly in connection with expenses claims amounting to some £33,000. Ms Dauriac claimed that the expenses investigation was unfair and was, in effect, trumped up to deprive her of her £12 million 49% stake in the business, which was bought out for a nominal £2.00 fee.

Giving evidence in the High Court trial Ms Dauriac says that when they set up the business in 2010, “Mr Caudwell had asked me…as a last minute condition of jointly setting up the business, to give an undertaking to him not to have children, a proposal I did not agree to”.

Ms Dauriac claimed in evidence that Mr Caudwell orchestrated an “elaborate conspiracy” against her, resulting in her claim of constructive dismissal.

For its part, Signia maintained that she wrongfully claimed the expenses, that her approach to them was “brazen” and that she was “guilty of gross misconduct”.

In his evidence, Mr Caudwell said that the breakdown of his business relationship with Ms Dauriac, who he considered to be a “best friend” was like suffering a “bereavement”:

Details

Solving the riddle – Uber, Addison Lee, workers, employees and the self-employed

Confusing road sign The media has been awash with stories about ‘worker’ status recently. The most obvious being the recent Employment Tribunal decision that Addison Lee drivers are workers, not self-employed as the private hire taxi firm argued, and the similar decision against Uber a few months ago. The appeal for the Uber case was heard last week in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, albeit the decision will probably be announced in December.

So then, you may conclude, all taxi drivers are workers? No. Okay, so most of them are self-employed? No. Well, they must be full employees then? Not really.

To get into this, we should acknowledge one thing. The definition of “worker” in the Employment Rights Act 1996 is purposefully fuzzy. No, that’s not legal jargon, but an acknowledgement that the status is meant to catch those people who fall between the more obvious categories of employee and self-employed. Stereotypically-speaking, employees are those who work in an office on a rolling contract for a specified number of hours per week and self-employed individuals work for their own business and are ‘their own boss’. Now, in practice, it isn’t that simple, but let’s use those examples as vague signposts for now because, otherwise, I’ll need to name enough qualifications and exceptions to fill an employment textbook chapter!

So, ‘worker’ status is designed for those who aren’t ‘full’ employees or self-employed. But where is the line? Where does a ‘worker’ merge into an employee and when does a ‘worker’ get so far as to be effectively self-employed?

These are very good questions. In fact, they are such good questions that a lot of employers, including Uber, Addison Lee and Deliveroo, end up finding out at Employment Tribunal precisely because it is hard to specify otherwise.

Details

When can social media posts be used as evidence? – A Snoopy character study

Charlie BrownSocial media. Oh my. We all know the usual story of an employee getting ‘caught out’ by a social media post. But, in reality, social media is a complicated beast and never quite as straightforward as it appears. Can an employer normally rely on social media posts? Probably. Can it always rely on incriminating social media posts? No!

Before we get into it fully, it’s important to consider that even defining ‘social media’ is tricky nowadays. Raise your hands if you think you’re pretty au faux with social media websites? Good, good. So you’ve heard of all of the following: Facebook, WhatsApp, Tumblr, LINE, Telegram, Foursquare and Snapfish. I thought not… (Bonus point if you actually did!)

Now, we all know the standard tale. An employee posts something anti-employer on their social media or posts something that proves dishonest conduct and the employer then pulls out their social media policy, invites the employee to a Disciplinary hearing and a formal sanction (up to and including dismissal) is given. But, in reality, a lot depends on how that information comes to light.

Details