Are you a recruiter worried about what to write in a job advert? Or concerned about inadvertently discriminating against applicants on the grounds of age?
It’s a difficult area and care needs to be taken. However, some comfort can be taken from a recent case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”), which held that serial litigants may have to pay costs if they try to exploit the Age Discrimination Regulations for financial gain.
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.
At first glance this might not seem the most exciting topic, but bear with me as the recently reported Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of Daleside Nursing Home v Mrs Mathews has thrown up a very interesting point about when costs might be awarded against the losing party before an Employment Tribunal (ET).
The usual rule is that ETs don’t award costs against the losing party, unlike in the High or County Court where that is the starting point (although even in those venues this rule is subject to several caveats but that is another story). ETs have the power to award costs, it is just that they don’t do it very often. The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 provide that power. In particular Regulations 38 – 48 set out the costs regime.