In a unanimous judgment by the employment tribunal, the judge dismissed a case brought by a London chef who was sacked after refusing to do tasks until asked politely. The tribunal accepted that a failure to say please in a kitchen environment was not rudeness, it was a matter of practicality. It was accepted that the communication style in the kitchen is “direct and efficient” and therefore “… it is just professional and industry standard”.

Ms. Bridgette Peters, the Claimant, was employed as a Chef de Partie at Leto Café, London from 23 August 2022 until 27 August 2022. The Claimant’s grounds of complaint revolved around the lack of use of the word ‘please’ by her colleagues.  She claimed that instructions from her colleagues came across as rude because staff were not saying please.

On her very first day, Ms. Peters requested her colleagues several times to say ‘please’ when she was set tasks by them. However, one of her colleagues explained to her that he was speaking to her in a normal and professional way for a kitchen. Ms Peters raised further concerns during the week whereupon she was reminded again that the communication style in the kitchen is “direct and efficient, and that this is not personal or rudeness, it is just professional and industry standard and she should not expect that the word ‘please’ follows every request”.

Despite the reassurances given by her colleagues, a dispute between Ms. Peters and a fellow chef occurred on her fourth day of employment. Having only worked one week at the restaurant, she was dismissed by Mr.Sklyrov who is the Head Chef at Leto Café and responsible for a number of other premium restaurants.  After investigations, Mr. Skylrov decided to dismiss Ms. Peters to avoid further conflict between the kitchen staff. Mr. Sklyrov described in his witness statement that Ms Peter’s attitude and expectations were unrealistic.

As a result, Ms. Peters brought a tribunal claim on the basis that her dismissal was because of her race as she is Black British. Mr. Sklyrov denied this claim and reiterated that she was only dismissed as it became clear that her skills and expectations about work demands were unsuited to the role.

The employment tribunal listed Ms. Peters’ claims for a full merits hearing in June 2023 , however her claim of direct race discrimination was held to be not well-founded and therefore dismissed. It was accepted by the tribunal that the behaviour complained of was the normal practice in that working environment and she should therefore not expect that the word ‘please’ follows every request.

The tribunal also agreed with the Respondent’s defence that it is not rudeness if individuals do not use the word ‘please’ and that this is not specific to this particular restaurant; in other words, it is common across the premium hospitality industry, of which Ms Peters herself was part of.

In the case of Dadhania v SAP (UK) Limited et al, part of the Employment Tribunal’s judgment was that swearing is now commonplace in a work setting and therefore swear words do not carry the shock value it once did. In other words, some swear words lack the meaning and significance that they once had. The leading takeaway from this case is that the context in which profanity is used is important. For example, the construction industry is notorious for the use of bad language on construction sites with case law revolving around sexist jokes, negative attitude towards women and reports of harassment, swearing and discrimination.

It follows that swearing in the workplace should be addressed within the organisation’s disciplinary policy or employee handbook. For the sake of clarity, the policies should set out the company’s position on the use of offensive and inappropriate language allowing employees to gain an understanding of the expected standard at the workplace.

Our Employment Law team is able to assist you with a review of your workplace policies and employee handbook and can help identify any potential risks to be addressed in your current practices.

Should you have concerns or simply require guidance on your company policies, please contact our Employment Law team on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk 

Challenges and Future Directions

While there have been positive developments in menopause support, there is still much work to be done. The UK government and industry bodies can play a significant role in driving change by encouraging more companies to adopt menopause-friendly policies and practices. Moreover, fostering a culture of open conversation about menopause is crucial in creating lasting change.

The workplace has seen significant shifts in recent years regarding gender equality and employee well-being. However, one issue that has remained largely unaddressed is the experience of menopausal women in the UK workforce. A recent report by the Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) has drawn attention to the need for reforms in UK employment law to better support menopausal workers. This report marks a crucial step towards recognising the challenges faced by menopausal employees and addressing their specific needs. Some of the key findings and recommendations from the report include:

1. Inadequate Legal Protections: The report highlights that current UK employment law provides limited protection for menopausal workers. Menopause is not classified as a “protected characteristic” under the Equality Act 2010, leaving women vulnerable to discrimination and a lack of workplace support.

However, a recent case focuses on how the tribunal considered an employee as disabled at all material times by virtue of her symptoms of menopause combined with stress and anxiety symptoms. Albeit, the Equal Human Right Commission (EHRC) have confirmed that the case is the first involving an employment tribunal where menopause symptoms are deemed to amount to a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act. 

2. Stigmatisation and Lack of Awareness: The report underscores the significant stigmatisation surrounding menopause, which leads to many women feeling uncomfortable discussing their symptoms with employers or colleagues. A lack of awareness about menopausal issues exacerbates the problem.

3. Impact on Careers: Menopausal symptoms can have a substantial impact on women’s careers, causing productivity issues, increased absenteeism, and even job loss due to a lack of support and accommodations.

4. Recommendations for Reform: The WEC report recommends amending the Equality Act 2010 to explicitly include menopause as a protected characteristic. It also calls for increased awareness and training to address stigma and better support for women experiencing menopausal symptoms.

The WEC report highlights the urgency of addressing the legal gaps in employment law to protect and support menopausal workers effectively. The reasons behind why a reform is necessary includes Inclusivity, Reducing Discrimination, Promoting Awareness and Supportive Workplace Policies.

Menopause is a natural and inevitable phase in a woman’s life, typically occurring between the ages of 45 and 55. Despite affecting half the population, menopause has long been shrouded in secrecy and treated as a taboo subject, especially in professional settings. Women often suffer in silence, as the symptoms can be embarrassing or misunderstood by colleagues and managers who may lack awareness about menopause.

The impact of the menopause on a woman’s professional life can be profound. Physical symptoms, such as hot flushes and fatigue, can lead to reduced productivity and increased absence. Emotional changes, including mood swings and anxiety, can affect confidence and decision-making abilities. All of these factors can hinder career progression and job satisfaction.

Changing Tides

In recent years, there has been a noticeable shift towards recognising the importance of supporting women going through menopause in the workplace. Several UK companies and organisations have taken steps to create more inclusive and supportive environments for their employees. Here are some key initiatives:

1. Menopause Policy Development: Forward-thinking organisations have introduced menopause policies that outline how they will support employees experiencing menopause. These policies often include flexible working arrangements, adjusted uniforms, and confidential channels for discussing menopause-related issues. It also educates and raises awareness about the potential symptoms of menopause.

2. Training and Awareness: Companies are investing in training and awareness programs for their staff to help break down the stigma surrounding menopause. By fostering understanding, employees can better support their colleagues.

3. Menopause-Friendly Facilities: Some organisations have adapted their physical workplace environments to accommodate women going through menopause. This may include installing fans, improving ventilation, or providing a quiet space for relaxation.

4. Support Groups: Employee resource groups and support networks specifically focused on menopause have been established to create a safe space for women to share their experiences, seek advice, and receive emotional support.

5. Mental Health Support: Mental health is a critical aspect of menopause support. Providing access to counselling and mental health resources can be instrumental in helping women navigate this challenging phase of life.

Conclusion: 

Menopause is a natural phase in a woman’s life that deserves recognition and support in the workplace. By breaking the silence surrounding menopause and implementing supportive policies and practices, UK workplaces can create a more inclusive, understanding, and empathetic environment for their employees. Investing in menopause support not only benefits employees but also employers. A more inclusive and supportive workplace can lead to higher employee retention rates, increased job satisfaction, and improved morale. It also helps to maintain a diverse and talented workforce, contributing to long-term success.

The WEC report on menopause and employment law in the UK shines a light on an important issue that has long been overlooked. It calls for essential legal reforms to better protect and support menopausal workers. Recognising menopause as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act and raising awareness about its impact in the workplace can lead to a more equitable and supportive work environment for women going through this natural life transition. It is a critical step towards promoting gender equality and improving the well-being of the UK workforce.

Our Employment Law team is able to assist you with a review of your workplace policies and employee handbook.

Should you have concerns or simply require guidance on your company policies, please contact our Employment Law team on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk

Is it possible to waive unknown future claims with a Settlement Agreement?

In Bathgate v Technip UK Ltd [2022] EAT 155, the Scottish Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that section 147 of the Equality Act 2010 does not allow a qualifying settlement agreement to settle future claims that are unknown to the parties at the time of entering into the agreement. In other words, a settlement agreement cannot waive future claims that have not happened yet.

In the aforementioned case, Mr. Bathgate accepted voluntary redundancy and signed a settlement agreement which provided for an enhanced redundancy payout and notice payment. In addition to these payments, the agreement referred to a potential “Additional Payment” to be paid at a later stage. The Additional Payment was to be calculated by reference to a collective agreement. However, the collective agreement predated age discrimination legislation and its terms stated that the payment would only be made to employees who had not yet reached the age of 61.

Despite Mr. Bathgate being 61 at the time of signing the agreement, he was under the impression that he was due to receive the Additional Payment. When his employer decided not to pay the Additional Payment to employees who were 61 or over at the time of their dismissal, Mr. Bathgate brought a claim of age discrimination.

The settlement agreement between the parties provided that the terms were in full and final settlement, and this included waiving claims for direct and indirect age discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. The employer therefore submitted that Mr. Bathgate had compromised his right to pursue a claim and argued that Mr. Bathgate’s age discrimination claim has already been validly settled under the terms of the settlement agreement. The Employment Tribunal sided with the employer and rejected Mr. Bathgate’s claims.

Mr. Bathgate appealed the tribunal’s decision and argued that as he did not know of the age discrimination claim at the date of signing the agreement, he was unable to waive the right to bring a future claim to the tribunal. The appeal was allowed.

The employer’s reliance on the fact that age discrimination complaints had been included in the long list of claims being waived by way of the Settlement Agreement was not allowed. In other words, it did not mean that this particular age discrimination complaint had been identified in the settlement agreement. The EAT reiterated the provisions of s. 203 of the Employment Rights Act, specifically that settlement agreements should only be able to settle a particular complaint (s.147 of the Act) that has already arisen between the parties. Mr. Bathgate could not be expected to sign away his right to claim age discrimination before he knew whether he had a claim or not.

Although such a strict interpretation may be inconvenient where both parties wish to avoid future claims, the Parliament did not consider this desirable, and it had legislated to prevent it. 

 Implications and practical considerations

Although the decision in Bathgate v Technip UK Ltd and others was handed down by the Scottish EAT, the case creates a binding precedent for Tribunals in England and Wales. In light of this recent development, employers should be cautious that settlement agreements may not always achieve the desired ‘clean break’ outcome. To mitigate potential litigation risks concerning settlement agreements, employers should explicitly set out the circumstances that have led to the settlement agreement and capture any specific complaints in as much detail as possible. In any event, the employer is still left with the risk of an employee bringing a claim that exists outside the scope of a settlement agreement. Therefore, in practice, it is very unlikely for there to be a significant change in the way settlement agreements are drafted.

 Nonetheless, an employer may still wish to follow practical steps to avoid future litigations concerning settlement agreements. These include seeking a warranty from the employee to confirm that there are no additional claims that the employee is aware of and has no intention of bringing any additional claims in the future. It may also be prudent to resolve any contentious points between the parties prior to entering the settlement agreement so as to avoid the possibility of any future dispute. This includes specifying details of payments and any conditions attached to it to avoid any confusion at a later stage. In addition, if there is a gap between the employee signing the settlement agreement and the employee’s termination date, it is recommended that the employee signs a reaffirmation letter on or shortly after the termination date to re-confirm that they waive the claims specified under the agreement.

For further advice and assistance please contact our Employment Law team on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk

The Equality Act 2010 (the “Act”) prohibits workplace discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and protects lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual workers from direct and indirection discrimination, victimisation and harassment at work.

The Act also protects individuals who are incorrectly (or even correctly) presumed to have a particular sexual orientation.

The Act protects people from the initial application and interview stages, during any probation period, throughout their employment and any notice period. The law applies to full-time and part-time staff, temporary workers, contracted workers and those on internships or work experience.

The different types of LGBT discrimination include;

1. Direct Discrimination – a person is discriminated against because of their sexual orientation and is treated less favourably than others.
2. Indirect Discrimination – when an employer imposes a provision, criterion or practice which appears equal and neutral to all workers but causes disadvantage to people of a particular sexual orientation.
3. Victimisation – where an individual has taken (or intends to take) steps to complain, raise a grievance or give evidence and as a result is treated less favourably than others.
4. Harassment – this is unwanted behaviour that is offensive, degrading or frightening.

We assist employers in taking the necessary steps to prevent discrimination in the workplace, including drafting policies to effectively safeguard employees from discrimination.

We also advise employees who have faced sexual orientation discrimination at work or wish to raise a grievance.

For further advice and assistance please contact our Employment Law Team on 01604 936480 / 01908 916807 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk

On 6th February this year Her Majesty the Queen became the first British Monarch to celebrate a Platinum Jubilee, marking 70 years of service to the people of the United Kingdom, the Realms and the Commonwealth.

To celebrate this unprecedented anniversary, it has been announced that there will be an extra bank holiday which will fall on Friday 3 June 2022 and, as the late May bank holiday has been shifted to Thursday 2 June 2022, this will form a special four-day weekend for many – but not for all!

Whether an employee is legally entitled to this extra bank holiday depends on the wording of their employment contract and their usual work patterns.

• If an employee’s contract says they are entitled to, for example 20 days plus bank holidays, they will be entitled to the additional platinum jubilee bank holiday.
• If an employee’s contract states that they are entitled to, for example 28 days of annual leave inclusive of bank holidays, it will be the employer’s choice whether to allow the extra bank holiday, as it is not explicitly included under the contract.
• If the employment contract refers to “usual” bank holidays, for example “you are entitled to 20 days holiday plus the usual bank holidays in England and Wales”, given the extra bank holiday is not a “usual” bank holiday, the employee would not automatically be entitled to it, but the employer may decide to give it as an extra benefit.
• If entitlement is expressed as a certain number of days “plus eight bank holidays”, or if the contract specifies which bank holidays are included, the employee will not be entitled to an extra day.

Employers will also need to consider part-time workers. The position is the same as above, their entitlement to the bank holiday depends on the wording of their contract. If they are entitled to the additional bank holiday given the wording of their contract, but they do not work on a Friday their holiday entitlement should be adjusted on a pro-rata basis to avoid claims for less favourable treatment of part-time workers.

Employers should closely examine the wording of the employment contract to work out if employees are legally entitled to the extra bank holiday and seek specialist advice if unsure about the position.       

Taking into account employee morale, even if not legally entitled to it, depriving employees of the extra bank holiday could result in them being disgruntled. Employers offering this additional day even in circumstances where they are not legally required to do so, may want to make it clear in messaging to their employees that this is an extra benefit they are receiving. Providing such an additional benefit may help boost employee morale. 

Employment law is often subject to changes and therefore it is vital that employment contracts are reviewed periodically to remain up to date and legally compliant.

For further advice and assistance please contact our Employment Law Team on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employee who refused to return to work during the Covid-19 pandemic was not automatically unfairly dismissed.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld the Employment Tribunal decision in the case of Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd that an employee who was dismissed after he refused to return to work during the COVID 19 pandemic was not automatically unfairly dismissed under S.100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) which applies where an employee refuses to return to the workplace or leaves in the circumstances of danger.

A risk assessment was carried out at the workplace by an external professional, but found that many of the recommendations were already in place to ensure safety. Nevertheless on 29 March 2020 the employee informed their line manager that they had no choice but to stay off work until the pandemic eased due to the fact that he had a child with sickle cell disease and a baby who could have unknown underlying health problems. The employee obtained a self-isolation note from the NHS until 3^rd April 2020.  On the 24 April 2020 the employee received a P45 in the post which lead to him bringing a claim for unfair dismissal under S.100(1)(d) and S.100(1)(e) ERA.

S.100(1)(e) applies where an employee takes reasonable steps to protect themselves or others from danger. The EAT held that a refusal to return to the workplace could only fall under S.100(1)(d) and not constitute as taking an appropriate step for the purpose of S.100(1)(e) and therefore this part of the claim was not engaged.

S.100(1)(d) ERA states an employee is automatically unfairly dismissed if the reason for the dismissal is that in the circumstances of danger an employee refused to return to work due to the fact that they believed the danger was serious and imminent and which they could not reasonably been expected to avert. The EAT accepted that the pandemic created at least some circumstance of danger at work and that the employee believed the circumstances to be serious and imminent, however they held that the risk of danger in the workplace was no greater than there was at large and questions the reasonableness of the employee’s belief. They provided a list of findings which countered the employee’s claim and ultimately led to their decision, including:

• The workplace was large with few employees and this meant the employee could generally keep a safe distance at work;
• The employee remained at work from the date of the announcement of lockdown until the 27 March 2020;
• The employee had not asked for a mask when these were available;
• The employee was found to have driven a friend to the hospital when he was meant to be self-isolating;
• The employee was working in a pub during lockdown.

For further advice and assistance please contact our Employment Law Team on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk

Before employees can be made redundant in certain circumstances, consultation is legally required and involves a specific process which must be followed.

If you’re an employer and you are not sure whether you need to consult your employees in your situation, you could choose to carry out consultation anyway to help avoid any risks. You should get legal advice from a competent and reputable firm if you want to check if it will be a legal requirement.

‘Collective consultation’ refers to when an employer consults with a recognised trade union or employee representatives.

The law states that an employer must collectively consult if they propose to dismiss and rehire or plan to make redundant 20 or more employees:

• at one establishment;
• within a period of 90 days or less.

Employers must collectively consult to explore how to:

• avoid the dismissals or redundancies;
• reduce the number of dismissals or redundancies;
• limit the consequences of the dismissals or redundancies within the organisation.

The law says employers must start this consultation ‘in good time’. What counts as ‘in good time’ will depend on the circumstances of each company’s situation. However, they must start consultation for:

• 20 to 99 employees – at least 30 days before the first proposed dismissal or redundancy
• 100 or more employees – at least 45 days before the first proposed dismissal or redundancy

If employers do not meet collective consultation requirements, employees can make a claim to an employment tribunal and if the claim is successful, employers might have to pay their employee or employees compensation (a ‘protective award’), which can be up to 90 days’ full pay for each affected employee.

Clothing retailer T.M. Lewin now faces a lengthy legal battle over claims it was required to consult employees before firing them, after an employment tribunal told it to pay out a total of £439,000 to more than 100 of its former staff.

This came after an employment tribunal ruled that T.M. Lewin is liable to pay former staff as much as £4,352 each, over its failure to properly consult its workers, before firing 600 employees in June 2020.

More than one hundred former T.M. Lewin employees could be eligible to receive pay-outs worth £4,352 each, after 101 workers won a £439,000 lawsuit against the firm.

The employment tribunal ruled in favour of the workers, in stating the formalwear retailer failed to properly consult employees – in line with rules stating companies must carry out a 45-day long consultation period in situations in which they are firing more than 100 employees.

However, this ruling may be overturned in higher courts, as previous case law may fall on T.M. Lewin’s side.

T.M. Lewin may be able to overturn the ruling, by arguing that it was not required to consult its staff, as none of its individual stores had enough staff to trigger the consultation requirements.

For further advice and assistance please contact our Employment Solicitors on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk

If you act like a Turkey at the Christmas Party, you could get stuffed!

The work Christmas party is often eagerly anticipated and a chance for employees to let their hair down. However all too often, the combination of a relaxed atmosphere and too much alcohol brings out the worst in employees, leading to problems within the workplace.

It is important to remember that any work party or gathering can be argued to have effectively taken place at work. An employer may be vicariously liable for wrongdoing by an employee if that wrongdoing is “closely connected” with the employment. Employees can therefore argue that any unfair treatment that they have received at a Christmas party took place  within the workplace, opening employers up to liability and subjecting employees to disciplinary action for the same reasons. It is therefore important for employers to prepare for the worst, to hopefully avoid issues arising.

In a case heard in October 2018, by the Court of Appeal reiterated this view, in deciding that a drunken attack by the managing director of a small business on an employee was “in the course of employment”. In the case of Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Limited, following a heated discussion about work-related issues, Mr Bellman was punched twice by the Company’s owner and Managing Director, fracturing his skull and suffering severe brain damage as a result. The key to this case was the misuse of the MD’s authority and position; the Court made clear that this case does not mean that employers become insurers for violent or other acts by their employees at the Christmas Party, but that they may do for the acts of the most senior of employees.

Employers should have policies in place that specifically deal with potential problem areas. The standard of behaviour should be clearly outlined within the policy together with the potential consequences of infringing these expectations. Reminding employees of these policies in advance of the staff party may prevent infringing behaviour from occurring in the first instance, and will assist the employer in disciplining fairly. The standard of behaviour expected should be communicated to employees and any breaches should be actioned reasonably, to avoid the following issues:

• Fighting:  In Gimson v Display By Design Ltd, the employer was found to have fairly dismissed an employee for a brawl after the end of a Christmas party.

• Drink driving after the office party: Other than giving the incredibly simple advice of ‘don’t do it’, ensure that employees are advised that; 1) they must arrange alternative transportation home if they are intending on drinking, and 2) if anyone drives home after they are reasonably believed to be in no fit state to do so, that they will be subjected to disciplinary action which could result in their dismissal.

• Absenteeism:  If you are having the work party in the middle of the week, there will be a risk that employees will be absent the following day. Prior to the party, employers should make it clear whether an employee’s absence the next day will be treated as a disciplinary issue. An employer can make deductions from employees’ pay if they turn up for work late the morning after the company Christmas party, as long as the right to make deductions from wages for unauthorised absence is reserved in the employment contract.

Clearly, the above is only a short list of the things that can go wrong. It is important to strike the correct balance between ensuring that employees can let their hair down but also comply with their employer’s expected standards of behaviour. Advising employees of clear and consistent policies should avoid a number of issues from arising in the first place.

If you are an employer or employee seeking advice on any matter relating to employment law,  please contact Ben Stanton on 01908 660966 / 01604 828282 or by emailing ben.stanton@franklins-sols.co.uk.

The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, known colloquially as the ‘furlough leave’ scheme, will end on 30th September 2021. The scheme, which has been in place since March 2020, has been extensively used by employers throughout the UK; as of 14th July 2021, approximately 11.6 million jobs from 1.3 million different employers were furloughed. By the end of the scheme, it is estimated that the UK government will have spent up to £80 billion on payments. The latest available data shows that 1.9 million workers were still on furlough at the end of June. The Institute for Employment Studies is reporting that many employees on furlough may face redundancy at the end of the scheme. An employer contemplating redundancies would need to consider the following:

1.     Is it a genuine redundancy situation?

Section 139(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 confirms that a genuine redundancy situation exists if the employer:

·         Is closing the business for which the employee was employed; or

·         Is closing the specific location at which the employee was employed to work; or

·         No longer needs the employee’s role to be carried out; or

·         Needs fewer people to carry out work of a particular kind

It goes without saying that ‘redundancy’ should not be used as an excuse to dismiss an employee who has bad performance or a poor attendance record or who has committed misconduct.

2.     Warn the employees of the potential redundancies

An employer is required to explain the reason for the redundancy situation and the potential impact that this will have on the affected employee/s.

3.     Create and apply a fair selection pool (and non-discriminatory scoring criteria)

If an employer is closing a business, or only removing one role (or one specific role) from the business organisation, there will generally be little need to select which employee is to be made redundant. However, if the employer is reducing the number of employees it requires, the employer will need to be able to justify which employee is subsequently selected for redundancy. Possible selection criteria can include such things as the employee’s performance (if supported by objective data) and/or their disciplinary records etc.

4.     Consult with employees

If more than 20 employees are to be made redundant within 90 days, an employer’s consultation obligations are more specific and require the appointment of employee representatives with whom the employer should consult. If there are fewer than 20 employees, the employer should consult and meet with the employees directly, explaining why they have been selected for redundancy.

5.     Explore suitable alternative employment options.

Just because an employee has been selected to be made redundant does not mean that the employee should be made redundant. The employer should then consider whether there are any suitable alternative roles available for the employee within the business, taking in to account the skills, experience, and current terms and conditions of the employee.

6.   Dismissal

If, after following the above and exploring all the options, there are no suitable alternatives, an employer can take steps to dismiss the employee. The employer can invite the affected employee to another meeting and clearly explain the decision. The employer should then write to the employee to confirm the dismissal, clearly stating their termination date. An employer should also generally offer the employee a right of appeal.

An employee who will have two years’ service by the termination date and who is working their notice for redundancy is entitled to reasonable time off to look for another job.

7.    Redundancy Payments

An employer can either have the employee serve their period of notice, or pay the employee in lieu of them working it. The employee should also receive payment for any accrued but untaken holiday entitlement.

An employee has the right to statutory redundancy pay if they have been employed for two years or more. This amount is based on their age and length of service, at a maximum of £544.00 per week for 30 weeks. The maximum statutory redundancy pay an employee can currently receive is £16,320.00.

Some employers offer an enhanced redundancy payment under what is known as a Settlement Agreement. A Settlement Agreement confirms that the employee waives their rights to bring any claim against their employer for any alleged breach of their employment rights, usually in exchange for some enhanced payment. For a Settlement Agreement to be valid and binding, an employee must take legal advice on its terms, something on which Franklins Solicitors LLP can advise you upon.

If you are an employer considering making redundancies, or an employee who has been made redundant or is being offered a Settlement Agreement please contact Ben Stanton on 01908 660966 / 01604 828282 or by emailing ben.stanton@franklins-sols.co.uk.

The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021, have been approved by both Houses of Parliament. These regulations make it mandatory for a person working or providing professional services in a care home to have had the Covid-19 vaccine.

Photo by RF._.studio from Pexels

The Regulations mean that a Care Home must ensure that any non-resident over the age of 18 does not enter the residential accommodation unless that person has provided evidence that they have been vaccinated with the complete course of an authorised vaccine against coronavirus, or the person has provided evidence that for clinical reasons they cannot be vaccinated. Unvaccinated people will still be able to enter a Care Home to visit a resident service user as a friend or relative.

The Regulations apply to England only. They now need to be made and will come in to force within 16 weeks of that date, so this should give all adults enough time to have the vaccine in accordance with the Government’s vaccination timetable.

You will perhaps have read many articles discussing the right for employers to demand for its employees to have the jab; ‘no jab, no job’, if you will. There is no straightforward answer to this question, as it will depend on the job the employee carries out, their personal circumstances (i.e. if there are any medical reasons for not having the vaccine), and the employer’s reasons for demanding the employee takes the vaccine. There is more justification for demanding that employees working with vulnerable adults have the vaccine, but the exemption for employees with medical reasons demonstrates that the Government acknowledges that there cannot be a ‘one size fits all’ approach.

It is possible that this legislation could be opposed through the Courts by anti-vaxxers, arguing that this breaches their rights to hold a ‘manifestly held belief’ that they disagree with the vaccine; Section 10(2) Equality Act 2010 confirms that a “philosophical belief” is also a protected characteristic, capable of protecting the holder from any less favourable treatment as a result. However, it is likely that these new Regulations would be seen as being the proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of trying to avoid care home patients from catching Covid (and therefore a reasonable policy to adopt), although it remains an interesting argument.

If you have a question about any of the issues in this article, or any other employment law issue, please contact Ben Stanton by email at ben.stanton@franklins-sols.co.uk or call our Employment Team on 01908 660966 / 01604 828282.