Read on for our monthly digest for employers on upcoming employment law changes and key, recent employment tribunal cases.
Employment Law Changes April 2024
A range of key changes in UK employment law took effect from April 2024, impacting various aspects such as employment rights, compensation limits, holiday pay, and immigration rules:
- Flexible Working Rights: From day one, employees now have the right to request flexible working arrangements.
- Protection for Pregnant Employees and Parents: Extended protection against redundancy is now available for pregnant employees, those on maternity, adoption, or shared parental leave.
- Unpaid Carer’s and Paternity Leave: New provisions for unpaid carer’s leave and changes to paternity leave policies have been implemented.
- Vento Bands Adjustment: These guidelines, which help determine compensation for discrimination cases, have seen an increase in their financial bands, affecting the compensation ranges for ‘injury to feelings’.
- Employment Tribunal Compensation Limits: The government has increased compensation limits and statutory payments in tribunal claims, affecting areas such as redundancy pay and unfair dismissal awards.
- Holiday Pay Regulations: Following a Supreme Court decision, there are significant changes to how holiday pay is calculated, particularly affecting part-year and irregular hours workers.
- Immigration Rules Overhaul: There have been increases in salary thresholds for Points-based sponsored migrants and significant changes to the Shortage Occupation List, now renamed the ‘Immigration Salary List’.
Reasonable Adjustments
Rentokil Initial UK Ltd v Miller
Rentokil Initial UK Ltd employed Mr. Miller as a pest control technician. Diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2017, Mr. Miller was recognised under the Equality Act 2010 as a disabled person. Over time, despite adjustments made to his role, the physical demands of the job became too challenging due to his condition.
Mr Miller requested a transfer to a less physically demanding service administrator role, which he was familiar with. However, due to unsatisfactory performance in assessments, he was not transferred and was subsequently dismissed. Mr. Miller filed a claim for unfair dismissal, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and disability discrimination.
The Employment Tribunal (ET) ruled in favour of Mr. Miller, emphaising that offering him a trial period in the new role with additional training would have been a reasonable adjustment.
Rentokil appealed, arguing that appointing Mr. Miller to the role when he was deemed unqualified was not a reasonable adjustment. The EAT dismissed the appeal, affirming that a trial period could have potentially led to permanent employment for Mr. Miller, altering the course of his dismissal trajectory.
Employer takeaways
This case serves as a crucial reminder of the responsibilities employers have under the Equality Act 2010 to consider all possible reasonable adjustments for employees with disabilities.
Before dismissing an employee with disabilities, it is vital to exhaust all possible job adjustments or alternative roles. This includes considering trial periods in new roles where the employee might succeed with proper support.
Employers should also critically assess whether their standard evaluation methods are fair for disabled employees or if adjustments to the assessment process are needed to provide an equal opportunity for success.
Providing additional training or support to help disabled employees transition to new roles can be a reasonable adjustment, fostering inclusivity and retaining valuable company knowledge and experience.
Race Discrimination
Atif v Dolce & Gabbana
The claimant, an Arab-speaking Algerian employee at the Italian fashion house Dolce & Gabbana, alleged race discrimination after her dismissal for purportedly abusing the company’s sickness policy. Her grievances were left unresolved, and she felt that her treatment differed from her Italian colleagues.
The tribunal originally dismissed the claim, stating that the claimant failed to present sufficient facts to suggest racial discrimination, which would have shifted the burden of proof to the employer to prove otherwise.
Upon appeal, the EAT found that the claimant did indeed present facts that could imply discrimination, such as the all-Italian management, timing of disciplinary actions closely following her complaints, and inconsistencies in handling similar issues with Italian staff. This led to a shift in the burden of proof to the employer.
Despite the shift, the EAT upheld the original tribunal’s decision, agreeing that, after a detailed examination of the facts, there was no discrimination.
Employer takeaways
Employers must understand that once an employee establishes facts that could suggest discrimination, the legal burden shifts to the employer to prove that discrimination did not occur. Preparation to provide clear, non-discriminatory reasons for their actions is crucial.
Ensuring that grievance and disciplinary processes are conducted fairly and consistently across all employees, regardless of their race or background, is essential. This helps prevent any perceptions of unfair treatment that could lead to claims.
Maintaining detailed records of all employment decisions, particularly those related to grievances and disciplinary actions, is vital. These records can be crucial in defending against claims where the burden of proof has shifted to the employer.
Disability Discrimination
Z v Y
In this case, the claimant, employed in fire and rescue, resigned following a prolonged sickness absence and subsequently filed a claim against her employer. The claim included various discrimination allegations and asserted that her resignation amounted to constructive dismissal due to discriminatory treatment that breached trust and confidence.
The tribunal initially found that while the claimant was constructively dismissed, it did not need to address whether the dismissal was discriminatory per se, as the agreed list of issues did not explicitly include discriminatory dismissal.
The EAT corrected this oversight, highlighting that the tribunal should not strictly confine itself to the pre-agreed list of issues if clear indications of additional claims, such as discriminatory constructive dismissal, are evident in the claim form. The EAT emphasised the importance of considering all relevant claims presented by the claimant, particularly when they may impact the continuity and timing of alleged discriminatory acts.
Employer Takeaways
Ensure that all potential issues are thoroughly considered and listed during the preparation phase of tribunal proceedings. This can prevent oversights and the need for later corrections, which could be unfavorable to the employer.
Understand that tribunals might interpret issue lists flexibly to ensure all relevant aspects of a case are addressed, particularly when the claimant’s submissions clearly suggest broader allegations.
Keep detailed records of all interactions and decisions regarding employment disputes. Clear documentation can support your position in cases where the nature of dismissal or discrimination is contested.
A proactive approach can often resolve underlying issues before they escalate to legal claims.
Need assistance?
If you have a question about employment case law and the impact of tribunal and court decisions on your business, we can help. Working closely with our specialist human resource colleagues, we offer a holistic advisory and support service for employers encompassing both the legal and people risks of workforce management. Speak to our experts today for advice.
Last updated: 29 April 2024
Author
Founder and Managing Director Anne Morris is a fully qualified solicitor and trusted adviser to large corporates through to SMEs, providing strategic immigration and global mobility advice to support employers with UK operations to meet their workforce needs through corporate immigration.
She is a recognised by Legal 500 and Chambers as a legal expert and delivers Board-level advice on business migration and compliance risk management as well as overseeing the firm’s development of new client propositions and delivery of cost and time efficient processing of applications.
Anne is an active public speaker, immigration commentator, and immigration policy contributor and regularly hosts training sessions for employers and HR professionals
