Annual Leave on Sick Leave

The long awaited decision in Stringer v HMRC has been made today by the House of Lords in favour of employees, overturning the previous Court of Appeal decision in this case.

It has been unanimously held that a claim for unpaid holiday or a payment on termination of employment are both unauthorised deduction claims. As a result of this decision employees can benefit from the longer time limits which apply to unlawful deduction claims which can be made within three months of the last in a series of deductions - that would allow a claim to go back more than three months if the underpayments were part of a series.

In a previous ECJ decision a member state could allow an employee on sick leave to take annual leave or could prevent the employee taking leave while off sick but only so long as the employee had the right to carry over holidays to following year/s if he or she was unable to take leave because of illness. The ECJ had also held that compensation payments on termination should not be discounted on account of sickness.

Disclaimer: the contents of this blog are not intended form the basis of legal advice. Independent legal advice should be taken from your own solicitor for all cases.

Success for Equal Pay Battle

Part-time women workers are celebrating a landmark victory in a pension payout dispute after an equal pay fight against a top private school which has lasted for more than 11 years. With the help of public-sector union UNISON, the women finally won a payout in excess of £150,000 after originally taking their pay claim to the employment tribunals in 1998. The female workers at the Haberdashers boarding school for boys and girls in Monmouth School, were denied access to the school's pension scheme, while the full-time male staff working in similar roles were allowed to join on a voluntary basis. The women argued that the school was discriminating against them because of their sex and was in breach of equal pay and sex discrimination legislation. UNISON successfully argued that pensions are deferred pay, with the non-contributory scheme, based on final salary, being worth around £1,300 a year for eight years for each worker, plus a lump sum. UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis regretted that it had taken over a decade to get justice and called for a "speeded-up system" to deal with equal pay claims. "The school dragged out the case and probably spent more in legal costs than it did to settle the dispute with their loyal workers," he said. "Employers must now think twice before they oppose these type of claims or face action from UNISON." There are 27 beneficiaries in the case, including house parents, administrators, assistant matrons, cooks and cleaners. Their claims covered the period when the pension scheme was changed - between 1976 and 1999. The claimants, many of whom are now retired and will receive between £1,500 and £17,000 each, celebrated the win. However sadly because the case was dragged out by the school for so many years before an offer of compensation was made days before the tribunal, retired Kay Bamford, who worked as a cleaner for over 10 years, died before she could benefit from the landmark victory. Tess Taylor from Monmouth, who worked at the school as an assistant matron for 27 years before retiring in 1999, hailed the ruling as "a large victory for small people." She added: "I find it crazy that a satisfactory offer from the school was only made days before the tribunal took place."

Hindsight is a wonderful thing - this is a very good example of why it is important for both employer and employees to have a robust Equality and Diversity policy in place and have a happy workplace into the bargain.....

Disclaimer: the contents of this blog are not intended form the basis of legal advice. Independent legal advice should be taken from your own solicitor for all cases.

Paternity Leave Delayed

Proposals from 2005 relating to paternity leave which would have given fathers 6 months leave have been put on hold by Lord Mandelson's department to help employers in the recession. The proposal was designed to allow mothers and fathers to share a year of parental leave with the mother taking six months leave following by the father's six months leave. It would allow women to get back to work but it was criticised by business groups as being too costly and an "administrative headache".

A spokesman for the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) said plans to introduce the rights this year were now on hold. The spokesman told the Daily Telegraph (http://tinyurl.com/lotfqy): "We have not yet announced a date for extending maternity and paternity rights. We are continuing to review the appropriateness of all new regulations due to come into force in the current economic climate. It is only right that in tough economic times we look afresh at the costs and benefits of new regulations."

But Katherine Rake, director of the women's campaign group Fawcett Society, criticised the delay.

She said: "It looks like Peter Mandelson is undermining the equalities agenda again. He cannot use the recession as an excuse to roll back hard-won commitments to mums and dads."
Under the current legislation, fathers are entitled to just two weeks' paternity leave to be taken just after the baby is born.

In March, the Equality and Human Rights Commission urged the government to offer fathers 90% pay for their initial two weeks of leave at the birth of their child, and for parents to be given four months leave after the mother's initial six months leave, which either parent can take.

Disclaimer: the contents of this blog are not intended form the basis of legal advice. Independent legal advice should be taken from your own solicitor for all cases.

£65,000 Award for Unfair Dismissal, Racial Discrimination + more....

Apparently the British Refugee Council are now reviewing their Equality procedures after an award of £65,000 was made against the body by an Employment Tribunal. A former black employee was awarded the compensation when he along with another black worker (the only two black employees at the centre) were made redundant leaving only white staff at the Oakington immigration centre.

Emmanuel Obikwu was awarded £65,000 for unfair dismissal, racial discrimination, injury to feelings, psychiatric injury and loss of earnings. Just months before (January this year) his former co-worker, Zaina Ukwajuv, won a claim for unfair dismissal and was awarded £30,000 for unfair dismissal, victimisation and racial discrimination.

Although the Home Office's original plan to close the centre was put on hold, both were still made redundant 5 months later. The chairman of the Tribunal, at Zaina Ukwaju’s hearing, said that white staff who were less experienced were kept on over the only two black employees.The Tribunal also heard that there was a likelihod that the operations manager had shown favouritism towards his friends when selecting staff for redundancy.

With the new Equalities Bill in the pipeline, it is ever more important for businesses to ensure they have reviewed their Equalities procedures, particularly when it comes to selection for redundancies.


Disclaimer: the contents of this blog are not intended form the basis of legal advice. Independent legal advice should be taken from your own solicitor for all cases.