Employment Law Explained

Monthly Archives: September 2009

SRP to increase on Thursday

Statutory redundancy pay (SRP) increases by the rate of inflation every February and this year’s increase saw it rise to £350 per year of service. However, unusually, in the last budget the Chancellor increased it again to £380 per week, although he did not specify a date for the implementation. He has now done so and, from 1st October next, the increase will take effect. The measure was introduced to provide greater support to those people made redundant;  whether it will do that seems unlikely in most cases, whilst increasing the burden on employers.

Too little time

As I’ve previously announced on this blog, I am writing a guide to employment law for the Insite Law free legal resource project.  May I correct that and say I am trying to write?  Finding the time is proving to be a bit of a struggle but this afternoon presents an opportunity.  Mrs J. has taken the Junior Jobsworths to a birthday party so I have the house to myself. Time to put in some serious work at the keyboard.  Problem is, it’s lovely weather outside, I had a late night last night and Arsenal are on ESPN at 17.30.  A snooze seems more attractive …

Heyday loses

Hot off the press comes news, via the BBC website,  that the Heyday challenge to the default retirement age has been defeated in the High Court.  This means that it is not illegal for employers to insist that an employee retires on their 65th birthday, although that conflicts with the Age Discrimination legislation.  At the moment I have not seen the rationale for the decision but will post on this again when I have.

A new look for Jobsworth

London Fashion week may well be in full swing, but Jobsworth wasn’t going to miss out on the fun.  To keep up with the Naomis, Kates and Giselles, Jobsworth has gone for a makeover.  Now, I don’t happen to know whether hemlines are up or down this year, or whether purple is the new black (Mrs J. was unable to enlighten me) and, frankly, my dear reader I don’t give a damn. 

Latest News

Employers have to repay sick pay

Some good news for employees came out last week with the decision by the European Court of Justice in Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA that says if an employee is sick whilst on holiday, they can retake the holiday later on or carry the days lost over to the next year.

Not surprisingly employers’ representatives are unhappy about it as it places additional burdens on them. It also increases the risk of unscrupulous employees taking advantage. No guidance is offered by the ECJ on how this could be policed. Employers can only insist on a sick note from GPs after seven days absence.

How (not) to sack someone

As an employer, if you want to avoid your name appearing in the Metro or any of the other free papers, try to avoid sacking employees suffering from cancer by email.  This is the moral from the recent report concerning Melinda Bolnar, a 27 year old teacher suffering from bowel cancer and who had just endured seven months of chemotherapy and given a 30% chance of survival.  According to the report it is alleged that her private school sacked her by email.  I should point out that the case is due to be heard at an Employment Tribunal later this year and the above report are merely the employee’s allegations against her employer and not the proven facts.

Extra-Mile Charity Loire Cycle Challenge 2009

My friend Richard Gordon is taking part in the above cycle challenge later this month to raise funds for St Francis Childrens’ Society in Milton Keynes, as well as the RNLI, Prostate Cancer Charity and a local charoty called MK Snap for people with special needs.

They have committed to cycling (in relay) 500 miles through and around the Loire.  Donations can be made via this address

http://www.justgiving.com/teamfrankieskids/

Good luck guys!

Things employers shouldn't ask …

Most people know that employers these days shouldn’t in job interviews ask women of child-bearing age when they intend to start a family.  Nor should they now ask potential employees how old they are.  The reason in both cases is that (a) it is usually going to be none of the employer’s business but, also, (b) it runs the risk of the applicant/employee later stating that the failure to appoint them was on discriminatory grounds. A report on the Personnel Today website from a few days ago questioned the wisdom of Cherwell District Council in asking employees to state whether they intended to retire in the next two or three years.  The Council is currently asking staff to work fewer hours or to work without pay to avoid the need for redundancies.  However, its request to staff to detail their plans and aspirations over the next two to three years could lead to them facing an age discrimination claim, suggests the article, if an employee could show that they were selected for redundancy because of their stated plan to seek retirement.  The same risk would apply if a woman stated she intended to start a family and was subsequently place “at risk”. 

Amnesty in trouble

There are some things you just don’t expect to come across, like good weather at Bank Holiday weekends for instance, or Amnesty International being found by the Employment Appeal Tribunal to have discriminated against one of its employees on the grounds of race.  Yet that is what was found to have occurred in the case of Amnesty International v Ahmed that was reported recently.