Monday Morning Dispatch - 9 May 2022

What’s Happening – Video/Multimedia

Our weekly video has now been uploaded to our You Tube Channel.

The video explores the plans for reform of the Tribunal system, with plans to move back to in-person hearings for some types of claim. The video also discusses current listing issues and the expected move to online portals to facilitate more modern case management.

Watch the video

2022 Seminar Programme

11am Wednesday 8th June 2022- Lateness and Short-term absence/ Evalu8 system

In this Seminar we will be covering how to manage employee lateness and absences. Employees’ lateness or absences may be for several reasons and we explore how to manage these situations. We will also present on practical HR solutions manage employee lateness and absence.

8:30am Wednesday 15th June 2022- Lighthouse Mock Health & Safety Trial at Headingley Stadium, Leeds, LS6 3BR

Chadwick Lawrence & Lighthouse Risk Services warmly welcome you to join us for an interactive mock Health & Safety trial. The event will see a fictional company stand trial against the HSE for injuries sustained by an employee in a workplace accident. This free event gives you a real insight into how a trial operates and the impact it could have on you as the employer.

Free breakfast and networking commences at 8:30, with the trial starting at 09:00. The judge will have made a decision and sentences will have been handed out by 11:00am.

The seminar program is now in full swing and links the all the events can be found on our website:

Business Services Seminars – Chadwick Lawrence

In the News

There have been lots of relevant employment law/HR updates this week.

Employment Tribunal – Claimant wins Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Claims

An in-house solicitor with British Gas won her sex discrimination claim on the basis of being treated less favourably than a comparable employee.

The claimant asserted that the discriminatory treatment began when she returned from maternity leave for a period of 2 years up to her dismissal. Upon her return to work she had reduced her working pattern to 3 days a week. She felt pressured by managers to work on her agreed non-working days, with discussions such as “are you going to speak to her about not dropping everything when she leaves on Wednesday?”

The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and despite her manager previously noting her work as good, she was given a score of 1 out of 7 for focus, which the tribunal found irrational. The tribunal held that the claimant’s manager had applied a discriminatory criterion by using the claimant’s performance rating from when she was on maternity leave when her score was capped at ‘achieving expectations’.

The tribunal concluded that the claimant’s dismissal was direct sex discrimination and she had been treated less favourably than a full-time employee in comparison. The tribunal also found that the claimant’s claim for equal pay was founded as British Gas were unable to justify why her male colleague was paid an additional £2,000 per year.

The remedy hearing is yet to take place.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62385db68fa8f540f43e5093/Mrs_G_Long_v_British_Gas_Trading_Ltd_3327522.2019_FMH_Reserved_Judgment.pdf

Employment Tribunal – Ryanair Pilot held to be an Agency Worker not Self-Employed Contractor

The Claimant who was placed with Ryanair by MCG Aviation Ltd was found to be an agency worker for the purposes of the Agency Worker Regulations 2010. When his engagement commenced, he was asked by Ryanair to set up a personal service company and was told he would be a self-employed “contracted” pilot through MCG.

The tribunal found that in reality he was not a self-employed contractor and referred to the recent decision reached in the Uber driver case (which is to not let a document determine the factual reality of the situation). Despite the claimant’s contract with MCG including a substitution clause, the tribunal held that this was not an unconstrained right to substitute. In reality, his contract with MCG was to supply his services personally.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62582629e90e0729fc71bc01/Mr_J_Lutz_-v-_Ryanair_DAC___Other_-_3201452_2020_-_Preliminary_Judgment.pdf

Employment Appeal Tribunal – Reasonable Adjustments

The EAT held that if an employer dismisses a disabled employee, and does not make reasonable adjustments during that process, it does not make the dismissal unfair.

The disabled claimant has been dismissed as a result of a capability procedure. The employer denied the claimant’s request for an extension of time to appeal the decision, which the tribunal held was a failure to make a reasonable adjustment. But, the dismissal was deemed to be fair overall for the purposes of the Employment Act 1996.

The EAT held that the appeal, if it had taken place, would not have affected the fairness of the dismissal and the dismissal itself was considered proportionate therefore the claim under s.15 Equality Act 2010 (discrimination arising from disability) was rejected.

The EAT confirmed that there were 3 separate claims before the tribunal (unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from a disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments) for which there are three separate legal tests to be considered. Therefore, if the employer was to fail on one of the claims, it does not necessarily follow that it will fail on the others. In this case, the conclusion on the reasonable adjustments claim did not depend on the merits of the unfair dismissal or the dismissal itself or whether the appeal would have made any difference to the outcome.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6267c393e90e07169115b8f5/Ms_C_Knightley_v_Chelsea___Westminster_Hospital_NHS_Foundation_Trust__2022__EAT_63.pdf

AOB

Whilst our primary aim is to bring you the latest updates on issues and changes in employment law and HR, we understand that businesses have other requirements from time to time and would like to take this opportunity to remind you that our firm offer other services that can support you:

Media Law Team

Chadwick Lawrence has significant expertise in advising individuals who find themselves in a situation where they have been subjected to adverse online activity. When they find themselves in these situations, they need quick and reliable legal advice.

The Team’s expertise covers advice in respect of defamation, privacy, breach of confidence, data protection and harassment.

Often, the team at Chadwick Lawrence work with a number of third party organisations, adopting an all-round approach to resolving disputes. The team at Chadwick Lawrence also have experience of advising individuals in respect of pre-publication material, carrying out risk assessment analysis, prior to publication of material that may expose the publisher to some form of adverse legal action. We are able to advise both pre or post publication of material, regardless of platform.

The Media Law Team at Chadwick Lawrence is led by Asma Iqbal and Joshua Smith, who both have significant high level litigation experience, meaning that the team is able to effectively advise clients at both the pre-litigation stage and also at the Court proceedings stage, should it be necessary to issue formal Court proceedings. The team prides itself on offering a bespoke service to each client and testimonials provided to the team state that their approach is discreet, personal and commercially focused.

The team prides itself on adopting a client centred approach to resolving disputes. Client’s objectives are assessed and managed from an early point in time and they are also always in control of their legal spend. Chadwick Lawrence has experience of working with third party funders to explore alternative methods of funding, as well as exploring conditional fee agreements (CFAs). Not every case is suitable for these types of funding but the team at Chadwick Lawrence are able to explore this with you, them having the appropriate connections to allow this to happen.

Clients are provided with pricing options at the outset and continually throughout matters, so they remain in control of legal spend. An innovative approach is taken to pricing, thereby allowing clients to choose the best method of funding, applicable to their personal circumstances.

The team speaks to clients in plain English, in a language that they can understand. Clients expect law firms to be able to act within the law, but the team at Chadwick Lawrence believe that what sets them apart, is their ability to effectively manage client relations, at what can be a very serious stage in an individual’s life.