Employment law & HR update (May 2024)
In the May edition of our Employment Law & HR update, we have published a selection of news, insights, case studies and more on topics including:
If you require further information on anything included in this update or any employment issue you may be facing, please do not hesitate to contact the Employment team?by calling?01332 867 766 or send an email to [email protected]
Navigating workplace disputes with protected conversations and settlement agreements
Navigating workplace disputes can be extremely challenging, but tools like protected conversations and settlement agreements can help resolve conflicts and end employment relationships amicably.
By adhering to these best practices, employers can effectively manage protected conversations and settlement agreements, reducing the risk of legal disputes and promoting fair resolutions.
Refusal to make reasonable adjustments justified
Powell -v- University of Portsmouth
Readers will be familiar with the duty to make reasonable adjustments to remove the disadvantage posed to a disabled employee when compared with a non-disabled colleague. We often find ourselves asking, “what is reasonable?” and there are of course many factors to be considered.
A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision tells us that an employer can refuse to make an adjustment, provided that their response is proportionate. So, what happened in this case of Powell v University of Portsmouth, and what does it mean for employers? Read on to find out...
Case background
In Powell v University of Portsmouth, the Claimant worked as a lecturer. He began experiencing blackouts that were, at the time, unpredictable and medically unexplained. ? Whilst medical investigations were carried out, the Claimant asked that a support worker be appointed to accompany him at all times. The Respondent considered this request but did not feel it could allow him to return to work whilst the blackouts continued to pose a risk to him and to his students. He was therefore unable to return to face-to-face teaching.
The outcome
Both the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that the Respondent had adequately assessed the requested adjustments and that they were not reasonable. Further, they found that the refusal to allow the Claimant to return to work was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, in view of the need to provide a high quality of teaching and in order to avoid the risks posed by the ongoing blackouts.?
It is worth noting that this case was on very specific facts and the same outcome in another case would require thorough examination in view of the employee’s condition and their specific requests, plus the requirements of their role.
The point to take away is that an employer should carry out a detailed and evidence-based consideration of the employee’s role and the actual practical impact of their condition before rejecting the suggestion of any adjustment.
WEBINAR: Settlement Agreements and Protected Conversations
Settlement agreements can offer a quick and clean exit for all parties involved but must be handled with care.?
Join us for our next employment law webinar on Thursday 27 June, where we?will provide you with an overview of this complex area of law, update you on the relevant case law developments and provide you with our top tips. ? ?
领英推荐
Key topics to be covered include:
Volunteers entitled to remuneration deemed workers
Groom -v- Maritime & Coastguard Agency [2024]
In a groundbreaking decision, the EAT has redefined the employment status of volunteers entitled to remuneration in the recent case Groom -v- Maritime & Coastguard Agency [2024]. This ruling, which addresses the complex dynamics of volunteer arrangements and worker classification, marks a pivotal shift in legal interpretations.
Mr. Martin, a dedicated Coastal Rescue Service volunteer, challenged his status after being denied union representation at a disciplinary hearing.?Initially dismissed by the tribunal, the EAT's reversal emphasises the significance of remuneration and contractual relationships in volunteer roles.
Read on to explore the implications of this landmark case and its impact on volunteer rights and organisational responsibilities.
Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling highlights individual liability in disability discrimination
Baldwin -v- Cleves School and others
An important case was heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal regarding the liability of individually named Respondents in a discrimination claim.
The Claimant was employed as a newly qualified teacher ("NQT") from September 2014 until she resigned the following March. She subsequently brought claims of disability discrimination the Respondent (a school) and two of the individual employees of the Respondent.?
At first level, the Employment Tribunal concluded that the Respondent was liable for acts of disability discrimination done by its two employees BUT that the two employees should not be held liable for disability-related harassment on an individual basis as their acts were a “misguided attempt to deal a complex situation”. This finding offered some comfort to those dealing with difficult and emotionally charged workplace issues, at the direction of their employer.
However, the Claimant appealed this decision and the EAT upheld the Claimant’s appeal by finding that the individual employees were liable- along with the Respondent -for disability related discrimination.?
The reasoning for this turns on the construction of section 110 of the Equality Act 2010. There is no discretion open to a Tribunal to find that where the employer itself is liable under section 109 for the acts complained of, the individuals themselves will not be liable, unless the employees can establish that they were told by their employers that the proposed action was lawful and they reasonably believed that to be true.
Key takeaways for employers
If you are involved in managing staff and dealing with situations that could lead to termination, then you need to ensure that you are not engaging in discriminatory behaviour that could lead to you being personally liable. This is different to being named as a witness and having to give evidence - it is being personally named as a Respondent and having to defend the claim(s) against you with the possibility of a finding of unlawful conduct and compensation being awarded.?
Our advice is to ensure that all staff dealing with these types of complex issues are provided with support and advice and given up to date Equality & Diversity training.?
For further information or advice in dealing with discrimination in the workplace, or you would like to find out more about our bespoke training courses available for senior managers and HR professionals, please call us on?01332 867 766 or send an email to [email protected]
?