The comments came about as part of the CIPD’s response to the government consultation on flexible working, which closed this week. The organisation also suggested that excluding any sized business from employment regulation could constitute a “perverse disincentive” for small companies to expand.

Mike Emmott, of the CIPD, said that although extending the right to request flexible working to all employees was “long overdue”, caution should be adopted regarding exempting some businesses from the Regulations.

The TUC further warned that because the proposal to extend the right to request flexible working to all employees would remove the statutory process for considering requests and replace it with a requirement to consider all those that were “reasonable”, it would ultimately be easier for employers to say no to staff putting in such requests.

A number of business groups have also criticised the proposals, recognising that although flexible working is beneficial, additional legislation could result in a “significant administrative and financial burden” on employers.

The number of employees and self-employed people forced to work in part time roles instead of full time employment had increased by 80,000 in the three months to May 2011.

The total number of unemployed people fell by 26,000 over the same period down to 2.45 million. This was mainly due to a drop in the number of 16- to 24-year-olds who were out of work, which was down by 42,000.

However, during the quarter, the number of students not active in the labour market went up by 41,000. More people were also found to be claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance, which saw an increase of 24,500 claimants.

Furthermore, after a 12 week qualifying period, agency workers are entitled to equal treatment relating to pay and other working conditions such as annual leave and overtime. Pregnant agency workers will also be allowed paid time off for ante-natal appointments during an assignment. For those agency workers already on assignment when the new rules come into force, the 12 week qualifying period will start from 1 October 2011 and cannot be ‘back-dated’.

If your business hires temporary workers through an agency, you will need to provide the agency with up to date information on your terms and conditions so that they can check that an agency worker receives equal treatment, after 12 weeks in the same job, as they would had they been recruited directly as an employee of the business. You will also be responsible for ensuring that all agency workers can access available facilities and information on job vacancies from the first day of their assignment.

For more information on any aspect of employment law please contact Ashley Hunt at Lawson-West on 0116 212 1000.

Default Retirement Age

Employers are no longer able to retire an employee at the age of 65 on the basis that they have reached the default retirement age.

Positive action

Under Section 159 of the Equality Act 2010, an employer is allowed to appoint or promote an individual who has a ‘protected characteristic’ over and above someone who doesn’t, under certain circumstances. Protected characteristics include race, disability, sex, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief, pregnancy and maternity and gender reassignment.

Additional paternity leave

Fathers of babies due on or after 3^rd April 2011 are now able to take up to six months’ additional paternity leave if the mother of the child returns to work. Fathers are also entitled to take up to 10 keeping-in-touch days during the course of the additional paternity leave.  The rules apply to adoptive parents as well.

Statutory maternity, paternity, adoption and sick pay

The standard rates of statutory maternity, paternity and adoption pay have now increased from £124.88 to £128.73 per week. Statutory sick pay has also risen from £79.15 to £81.60 per week.

For more information on any area above please call Ashley Hunt or Carrie-Ann Randall at Lawson-West on 0116 212 1000.

In the case of Conteh v Parking Partners Ltd, the Claimant had been subjected to abusive remarks from a third party ‘x’. However, her employer had no direct control over ‘x’, since the employer was in fact a contractor to ‘x’s employer. The Tribunal found that the employer had not therefore been responsible for creating the adverse environment, and was therefore not liable for the actions of ‘x’.

In this case, the tribunal reached its conclusion by a close examination of the Race Relations Act 1976. Under the Equality Act 2010, the decision may have been different. Section 40 of the Equality Act allows an employee to claim against their employer if the employer has not done enough to prevent third party harassment. However, the employee will only succeed if they have been subjected to harassment on at least two occasions, and the employer has failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the harassment.

In its contribution to the review Lord Davies is carrying out about increasing female representation in the boardroom, the CBI called for the UK corporate governance code to be amended to that listed companies are required to report on diversity on a “comply or explain basis”. This would mean companies have to report on their progress towards targets that have been set internally, and also having to explain if they fail to deliver against them.

Firms in sectors which already have many female employees would be expected to set higher targets on female representation than would firms in more male-dominated industries.

According to the CBI, an Australian scheme which follows similar lines has already resulted in 27 per cent of new board appointments being women last year, compared to just 5 per cent in 2009.

If the change does happen, although employers would have an extra year before facing an unfair dismissal claim, they could still face claims for discrimination or unfair dismissal claims where no qualifying period is required, such as maternity related claims.

This won’t be the first time the length of service needed to qualify for unfair dismissal rights has been changed. In 1971 when it started, the period was six months, which then increased in 1980 to one year (or two years for small firms of 20 or fewer employees). In 1985 it was increased to two years for all employees regardless of the size of company they worked for. In June 1999 it was again put back to one year.

For more information on any employment issues, including our new Employment Protection Insurance Policy please contact Vaishali Thakerar at Lawson-West on 0116 212 1000.

The decision, which received 390 votes for, and 192 against in the European Parliament, is however, likely to lead to a struggle with some national governments, including the UK, before it can become law in the EU’s member states.

In the UK, statutory maternity leave is paid by employers, with the majority recoverable from government. It is currently set at 90 per cent of average earnings for the first six weeks, and £124.88 (or 90 per cent of average earnings – whichever is less) for the remaining 33 weeks. The EU proposal would see employers paying full pay for the first 20 weeks, expected to cost the country an extra £2.5 billion a year.

At a time of government cuts, it’s no wonder this has been received with scepticism by businesspeople across the UK.

While he was off sick, another driver was employed, as a result of which Mr Stafford’s driving hours were reduced when he came back to work. Mr Stafford made a complaint. He was also asked to do some heavy lifting, although he had received medical advice not to do so and had agreed with his employer on his return that any non-driving work would be agreed with him in advance. When he asked for help, it was refused.

When another two drivers were employed, Mr Stafford’s hours were cut still further, and also became less consistent. He made frequent complaints to his employer.

Following time off over Christmas 2008, Mr Stafford told his employer when he would be returning to work but could not contact them on his return. When he went into work on 29th December he found that the other drivers had been given substantially more driving hours than he had. At this point Mr Stafford went home and refused to come back until he was given a proper work schedule.

Mr Stafford raised a grievance. At a grievance meeting his complaint was not upheld. A few days before the meeting, Mr Stafford was told that he faced disciplinary action for going absent without leave on 29 December 2008. A disciplinary hearing was held but lasted only 14 minutes. A few days later Mr Stafford received a letter dismissing him and offering an appeal. However Mr Stafford decided at this point to bring a claim for unfair dismissal.

The employment tribunal found that Mr Stafford had indeed been unfairly dismissed because:
• he was justified in leaving work on 29 December since all his previous complaints had been totally ignored;
• the disciplinary hearing was entirely unsatisfactory, as the employers had already made up their minds to dismiss him;
• No account was taken of anything Mr Stafford said either during the disciplinary hearing or in his repeated complaints; and
• the employer had deliberately cut down his driving hours, forcing him to take on non driving duties including heavy lifting, contrary to what had been agreed after his accident.

The tribunal awarded Mr Stafford just over £13,000, including an amount for loss of earnings for the period from his dismissal until he found a permanent job in July 2009.