January 2020 was a good start for equal pay for women at the BBC. Sarah Montague received a settlement of £400,000 and an apology for sex discrimination in pay, which was lower than that of her male counterparts.
Ms Montague presents the World at One show on Radio 4. She had been working for the BBC for more than 20 years. She did not full compensation (which could run into millions) but some recognition for the gender disparity that she was underpaid as a woman.
Earlier this month, the Employment Tribunal found in favour of Samira Ahmed, who claimed that the BBC underpaid her £700,000. She hosts Newswatch. She compared her wage with Jeremy Vine, who hosted Points of View on a salary six times greater than hers. As these two shows have very different styles and formats, how could the Tribunal make the comparison?
For equal pay claims, the comparator does not necessarily have the same job as the complainant. She (or he) needs to show that they are:
- Doing a similar job
- Doing work that has been rated as “equivalent”, or in the same grade
- Doing work of “equal value”, where jobs might be different but require a similar level of skills
The employer argued that there was no sex discrimination in pay because the profile of the shows and its two presenters were different. It cited research that 71% of people recognised Vine, whereas only 21% recognised Ahmed.
But the employment judge said the BBC had failed to prove that this explained away the pay difference. Skills and experience are vital factors in the assessment, but the tribunal noted that subjective factors such as being “cheeky” and having a “glint in the eye” were not enough for Mr Vine to justify such a wage disparity, either.
Employers need to be vigilant with the wages to their employees. Transparency in the calculation of wages is a must.
By David LiuRead More
We have read news of a settlement for discrimination by a transgender woman in a Northern Ireland case. The department store Debenhams has paid £9,000 to a woman who complained about transgender discrimination. This happened under the Northern Ireland equivalent of the Equality Act.
Ava Moore, who was born male, applied for the position of temporary sales assistant for the Christmas season at her local branch. She performed well at interview and proved her ability by selling to a customer on the sales floor. Despite this, the interviewer’s mood changed when she disclosed her birth certificate (revealing her birth name and gender).
A few days later, Ms Moore received a rejection but also an anonymous email informing her that the reason was because she was transgender. She complained to The Equality Commission. Debenhams has settled, without admitting liability.
The settlement has, unusually, become public, whereas normally, a settlement for discrimination is kept confidential. We infer that she refused to accept a confidentiality clause and Debenhams had no alternative but to accept.
Despite this (slightly larger than average) settlement for discrimination, a spokesperson for Debenhams said:
“We are an equal opportunities employer, committed to promoting equality and diversity within the business and throughout the sector. Decisions on recruitment, training, promotion, and employment conditions are based solely on personal competence and performance.”
Nevertheless, they admitted that Ms Moore performed well at interview and in interacting with customers, and that she was willing to work the required hours.
Ms Moore said that the rejection “knocked her confidence” and that the job was “perfect” for her.
To avoid tribunal claims, jobs should go to the candidate who have performed best in the recruitment process. Companies with policies and training tend to avoid making this kind of mistake.
By David Liu
Image used under CC courtesy of Tnarik Innael
Under the Equality Act 2010, employers must not treat staff less favourably or harass them (discriminate) because of a “protected characteristic”. One such characteristic is their “religious or philosophical beliefs”. This case report sheds light on what counts as a ‘philosophical belief’ by saying that ethical veganism is a belief that qualifies for protection.
This doesn’t have much caselaw yet, which is why the case is of interest. It is not an appeal decision, so it doesn’t set a precedent. But it is likely to be followed by other tribunals.
If other tribunals follow the judgment, employees who are ‘ethical vegans’ will be protected by the law to the same extent as people who hold religious beliefs.
The Tribunal decided that ‘ethical veganism’ meets a series of tests to merit protection under the Equality Act 2020:
- It deserves respect in a democratic society;
- It is compatible with human dignity; and
- Doesn’t conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
Ethical vegans refuse to wear anything made from animals, such as leather or wool; they don’t use products tested on animals. The case says nothing about ‘dietary vegans’ who eat only plant-based food or those who avoid meat because of the taste. We think the former would be protected but the latter would not.
Jordi Casamitjana, an ethical vegan, was dismissed by his employer, League Against Cruel Sports. He raised concerns with his employer that its pension fund was invested with companies involved in animal testing. When they ignored him, he told his colleagues and was sacked. The case continues, with the employer arguing that it dismissed him for misconduct, not because of his beliefs.
This decision doesn’t surprise us. Tribunals have already said that environmental beliefs qualify for protection. The real question is how far future cases will go. Will they extend rights to those with view on other contentious areas, of varying importance such as Brexit, humanism, left-handed equality, treatment of the homeless, the BBC licence fee.
A wider interpretation means that employers will face more claims from argumentative employees unhappy with being told not to share their views in the office.
By David Liu
Image used under CC courtesy of Stuart Spivack
Dress codes at work have been in the news quite a bit recently. See our other articles on the topic here, here and here. And also here. We’ve seen headlines such as Japan ban on glasses for women at work, Goldman Sachs relaxes dress code, and Japan’s labour minister says high heels at work are ‘necessary’.
Anothe recent report tells us that a Russian company gave bonuses to encourage its female employees to exchange their trousers for dresses and skirts at work – link.
This unsurprisingly attracted criticism and offence at the insult to female employees. The feeling is that the reward is not connected to the professional interests of the company. Men might also complain that the ‘trouser bonus’ is unfair as it excludes them.
Avoiding this type of clanger may seem obvious to employers but the intricacies of having a workable and non-discriminatory dress code can still cause upset in UK workplaces. Cases have been well-publicised about dress codes going too far.
Does your organisation have a dress code? Here is a checklist of factors to consider.
- Health and safety – is particular clothing linked directly to the need for keeping the employee safe?
- Product safety and quality – is particular clothing linked directly to the need to keep the product safe (eg, food) or to protect the quality of the product?
- Company image – is there a need to portray a particular image to the users of your product or services, such as a smart appearance for professional job roles?
- Marketing – is there a need to promote a brand image?
- Conformity – is a uniform part of the culture of the organisation to promote equality and practicality?
Dress codes at work are not unlawful but you should guard against imposing different standards on different genders which are not justifiable. For example, employers can ask employees of both sexes to dress smartly but should avoid gender specific requirements such as high heels for women. Don’t forget of course that employees with disabilities may not be able to comply with all requirements (we’ve heard of someone who couldn’t wear a tie due to neck surgery). Employees with specific religious beliefs may prefer to dress in accordance with their faith, which should be allowed unless there is a good reason not to.
Asking female staff to dress in a provocative manner is an obvious no-no in most industries but many employers permit dressing down in hot weather for example.
Dress codes for men and women do not have to be identical but consultation with staff and careful implementation is the key to success. Bonuses are best left for achievements at work not how employees look!
Image used under CC courtesy of Veenya VenterRead More
As a restaurant customer you may wonder who gets the money from tips. Many employees who work in the hospitality industry rely on tips from customers. Still more only receive the minimum wage.
Customers worry that their act of generosity might not reach the intended person, especially where card payments are concerned. And they wonder whether the kitchen staff see any of it.
Many restaurants use a system known as the ‘tronc’, in which a ‘tronc master’, who is sometimes a member of the management, shares them out. The benefit of a tronc system is that no national insurance is payable on tips that don’t pass through an employer’s hands.
Employers in hospitality often ask us if they can pay under the minimum wage and make up the difference with tips. The answer used to be yes but is now no.
What if an employer does not pay over tips to the staff? Can they sue under the Deductions from Wages provisions? The answer to this depends on the way the employer pays them, specifically the level of discretion in their distribution. If it is entirely within the discretion of the employer then the worker cannot show a contractual right to a x% of tips, and such a claim will fail.
It helps workplace relations and reduces the risk of employment claims if an employer has a policy on tips including information such as:
- How tips are distributed
- Whether a tronc system is in place and who is the tronc master
- Are cash and card tips are treated differently
- What the employer deducts from tips
- What happens to tips during holiday and sickness absence
The Government has a code of practice, approved by the unions.
Finally, there are hopes for clarity and fairness going forward as the Johnson government has announced plans to ensure that tips left for workers go to them in full, in the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill. However parliamentary uncertainty caused by the Brexit issue means that this is unlikely to make its way into law any time soon.
Image used under cc courtesy of Adrian Clark
By Johnmark AboderinRead More
In the UK, no.
But that didn’t stop Australian marketing consultant Josh Thompson from hiring a clown to be his redundancy companion in a consultation meeting, in a news story that has gone viral.
Thompson’s employer invited him to a meeting to discuss his role . He foresaw that he would be sacked at the meeting. in the UK, an employee has the statutory right to bring a companion who is a colleague or union official to a grievance or disciplinary meeting. But (like in New Zealand), this does not include a redundancy consultation meeting. Still, the employer said he could bring a redundancy companion for support and it is good practice to allow that here too. So, as a joke he hired Joe the Clown for £100 to sit through the meeting making balloon animals and miming a tearful reaction to the news that his job would come to an end.
Thompson said: “There’s not much to it really. I thought it’d be funny, so I did it. There’s not much more to the story than that.“.
In the UK, a meeting companion is not permitted (unless the employer agrees) to answer questions but may address the meeting and may advise the employee but must not disrupt proceedings, eg with the squeaking of balloon-rubber as Joe the Clown did. We have seen a surprising number of Employment Tribunal over the years about the right to be accompanied. An employer should permit a companion, even where there is no statutory right, in cases where communication disability or language barrier might apply. An employer should say no to a particular companion if that person is, for example, a co-accused in a gross misconduct disciplinary or a witness in a grievance. If the right applies, it is the right to a reasonable choice of companion.
The remedy for a failure to permit a reasonable choice of companion is compensation of up to two weeks’ gross pay but awards have been as low as £2, where there was no real prejudice caused to the employee.
The Government currently has no plans to permit redundancy companions or to add clowns to the list of permitted companions for disciplinaries and grievances.
Image used under CC courtesy of Sophie.Read More
This unique birth has highlighted the inadequate paternity rights fathers of premature babies have. They have to return to work after just 2 weeks’ leave. Their babies may be in hospital for long periods of time with many complications. The current paternity leave laws make no provision for this scenario.
How do new dads cope?
Firstly, the employee should have discussions with their employer. The employee can check whether they have enhanced contractual paternity rights. The employer may also sign the employee off sick so they can support their partner and baby. The employee could use parental leave but this is usually unpaid and unsuitable.
Current paternity rights
Statutory paternity leave is limited to one or two weeks’ paid leave. It is taken after the birth and completed within 8 weeks from birth. The medical definition of a premature baby is at 37 weeks or earlier. Most are born between eight and three weeks early. Eight weeks is clearly insufficient time. Babies born prematurely are also more likely to have a disability.
Over 60,000 babies are premature in the UK, which is 7% of all births. A number that will affect many new fathers. Lobby groups are urging the government to do more to support these families by improving paternity rights.
What can employers do?
Employers might consider offering better contractual paternity rights by way of:
- Additional paid leave
- Allow employees to take leave beyond the 56 days deadline
- Allowing temporary flexible working arrangements
- Varied start/finish time
- Home working
Alternatively, employers could introduce a compassionate leave provision. Or even paid parental leave for such circumstances. Ensuring line managers understand the difficulties of this scenario will also help. This would result in better support for employees while balancing the needs of their business.
Employees who keep their employers informed of their situation will find most are supportive. Many problems arise through lack of communication. At such a difficult time, they might even consider asking a relative to speak for them.
Employees are encouraged to talk openly about the difficulties they face. Both parties can then agree practical ways to cope with paternity issues.
Image courtesy of César RinconRead More
We saw this job vacancy on the internet. You might ask what is wrong with seeking a bearded retiree to a deliver parcels by sleigh and be paid in mince pies and sherry – after all this has been the protocol for centuries!
Well, it’s bound to lead to employment claims for this recruiter. Let’s take it apart:
The Equality Act requires a recruiter to consider a wide enough pool of potential applicants to avoid discrimination.
This advertisement deters candidates who are young (“white hair” and “retired”) and female (“beard”). Age and sex are “protected characteristics” and cannot be used as a criterion for selection. Why shouldn’t a young female applicant, who can drive a sleigh etc, perform the job?
Using the word “active” implies that only able-bodied candidates are suitable, which again deters those with disabilities.
If Santa is diabetic there is no reason why mince pies and sherry could not be substituted with gin and sugar free tonic and salted peanuts! This may be an adjustment the employer should consider in order to avoid employment claims.
But wait! Muslims, Presbyterians and Quakers are unlikely to be open to being paid in alcoholic drinks. This is indirect discrimination (a one-size fits all policy that affects some religions more than others).
But this is Santa we’re talking about. Santa must be an older man, that’s what the role requires.
Or, in legal terms, could the direct discrimination be justified by the ‘genuine occupational requirement’ defence?
It depends on whether Santa is performing a role or playing a role. If only people with a particular protected characteristic can do the job (the usual example is a male or white actor needed for a white male role) then these requirements are needed. But there is no such requirement to perform the role of delivering parcels.
If Santa is playing a role, then the ad is fine from the discrimination angle. But as we all know, Santa is real and the ad falls foul and could lead to employment claims.
Excluding candidates based on protected characteristics can be costly – tribunal claims can be bought by anyone who sees a job ad. All this would lead to claims of a few thousand pounds in injury to feelings per applicant who brings a claim, plus some compensation for the chance of losing out on the job by otherwise qualified applicants.
National Minimum Wage and Working Time Reg claims
Payment in sherry rather than money is a real concern, because workers should receive the NMW in the form of cash, rather than benefits in kind (regulation 10(f) of the NMW Regulations 2015). Santa must get at least £187.92 for the 24 hour shift.
Obviously, deliveries must take place overnight, otherwise the world’s little boys and girls would see them take place and the magic of Christmas would be spoilt. However the employer must ensure that no night worker doing work involving special hazards or heavy physical strain works for more than eight hours in any day (reg 6(7) of the WTR). In our view, carrying loaded sacks onto slippery roofs counts under this regulation. Therefore the employer should be looking for several candidates to cover the shift.
Under reg 7(1) Santa is entitled to a free health assessment. If that shows that the cold conditions would be bad for him (or her) then deliveries would have to take place in the daytime, on Boxing Day (reg 7(6)). Regardless of the health check results, Santa would have to get the deliveries done in 13 hours to get the 11 hours’ uninterrupted rest per day given by regulation 10.
Other WTR regulations allow Santa regular rest breaks because the work is ‘monotonous’. Santa should certainly take opportunities to sit down in armchairs by the fireside.
Holiday entitlement accrues, of course, as Santa rides around the world’s rooftops. Parents should put an extra 12.07% of sherry in the glass and leave a note to explain that the extra sherry represents rolled-up holiday pay.
There is no legal entitlement to extra pay for working on a bank holiday.
Could Santa be self-employed? This is an uncertain area for employment claims and we’re sure many Christmases will go by before this is area becomes clear. As there are no hours mentioned in the ad, we presume Santa will be on a zero-hours contract, which indicates they are likely to be a worker rather than an employee.
Neither the NMW nor WTR apply to self-employed people. If so, ignore everything in this section!
Health and safety
Anyone thinking of giving alcohol to staff needs to know that they may end up sharing liability for any alcohol-related sleighing accidents that take place.
In fact, Santa’s job is a health and safety nightmare from the employment claims perspective. Chimneys may look roomy at the top but the health and safety people don’t let children or grown-ups go up or down chimneys these days.And we’re not even going to discuss compliance with the Work at Height Regulations 2005!
Merry Christmas from Hatton James Legal!Read More
From time to time we tell you about a Birmingham employment law case we have recently dealt with. Our other stories are here. This is the story of Lisa, who was asked to leave (with a settlement agreement offering him £25,000) after 23 years.
When an employee calls us to say that their employer has asked them to leave like this we direct them to our page on settlement agreements. We explain that there is no charge to them if they want to accept the deal – the employer pays our costs of advising on what it says and means. Like most employment lawyers we include some redrafting and advice on whether it’s a good deal, at no extra charge. But not all employers offer an amount which is a good deal and often the employee can obtain a better deal by calling the employer’s bluff.
Typically the employer plays a game of ‘carrot and stick’, offering a sum of money to leave, alongside a threat to find a reason to dismiss them if they don’t accept – redundancy or poor performance, or one of the other ways an employer can dismiss fairly.
Lisa was in this position. She was an executive on a salary of £50k, and was being threatened with a PIP (a performance improvement plan) and possible dismissal if she didn’t improve. But there was, in reality, nothing wrong with her performance. It was just that a new manager wanted to put ‘his guy’ in Lisa’s place.
Often with a performance dismissal it is hard for the employment lawyers to assess whether the employer is likely to be able to dismiss fairly by blaming the employee for performance problems. This is especially true in executive situations, where judging performance is quite subjective. But Lisa advised that she was willing to call the employer’s bluff and go through the PiP, showing in detail how her performance was what a reasonable employer could expect.
If an employer is not likely to show poor performance then it is not likely to win a tribunal claim if it wants to dismiss. In that case, the employee’s position is quite strong. But in such a case the employee rarely wants to stay employed there. So we told Lisa that we would help to improve the offer by negotiation. We offered to either charge modest fees in three hour tranches or take a percentage of the improvement in the compensation (no-win, no-fee). She chose the first option and as it turned out that was the right choice.
We showed that Lisa was prepared to tough it out and provided the employer with a detailed analysis of why the allegations of poor performance were unfair, together with an assessment of where that left it legally. We had a hard-fought battle with the employer which took several weeks to complete but increased the offer by £15k and our fees were £1,200 in the end.
So with a combination our advice not to accept the first offer, confidence in us from Lisa and a joint willingness to do battle, we got a great deal for her.
Not all settlement agreement cases are like this but in many instance an improved offer can be negotiated. If the employment lawyers offer a no-win, no-fee agreement, it is typically about 35% of the improvement in the offer. So Lisa ended up with an extra £14k. We hear she is very happy in her new job and has invested the extra money in her pension!
By Zahid RezaRead More
The latest target of the #MeToo movement could be settlement agreement confidentiality. It is currently being reported that the Government is to examine use of NDAs in employment disputes. An NDA is a ‘Non Disclosure Agreement’, a legally-enforceable promise by an employee not to reveal, eg that they have suffered from discrimination or other breaches of employment rights. These are a key feature of settlement agreements.
This news comes on the back of a report published recently by the House of Commons’ Women and Equalities Committee. The key finding from the report is under the heading “A chilling effect? The silencing of victims”:
We are concerned that NDAs are being widely used to silence victims of sexual harassment in the workplace and to prevent cases being brought into the public eye for fear of bad publicity. However, the confidential nature of these agreements makes it difficult to estimate out how many there are out there and to gauge how ethically they are being used. The main risks from unethical use of NDAs in silencing victims [are] that individuals
- will not report serious wrongdoing to the police;
- will feel compelled not to assist with relevant law enforcement investigations or prosecutions; and
- will feel unable to speak openly and in the public interest about serious wrongdoing
thus inhibiting public awareness and debate.
- A new duty on employers to prevent harassment, supported by a code of practice.
- Regulatory intervention backed by fines.
- Making it easier to bring a tribunal claim. It proposes extending the time limit for bringing a claim and greater compensation for discrimination.
- Making it a crime to misuse confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements and letting employees who have signed them report wrongdoing to bodies such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
- Collecting data on the extent of sexual harassment in the workplace.
It is estimated that 40% of women half that number of men have experienced unwanted sexual conduct at work. Only 40% of employers mention at induction the behaviour expectation and how to report breaches.
Whilst the committee considered that settlement agreement confidentiality clauses are a widespread problem that is not being taken seriously. Our experience is that employers are not proactive in preventing it but that they don’t in fact condone sexual misconduct when they come across it.
it is interesting that MPs are mooting extending the three-month time limit for bringing claims for sexual harassment. We find that this limit is short but that it rarely causes problems for employees, who very rarely leave it too long to do something about it.
We don’t anticipate that settlement agreements will be affected as the report proposes. While in theory it is possible to have a law that allows parties to settle claims and potential claims whilst allowing them to talk about the circumstances that led to the disagreement, it is hard to imagine that industry would allow this change without making a big fuss. We believe that paying ‘hush money’ to claimants is something that is too ingrained in the system.Read More