The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has updated its guidance on timescales for responding to data subject individual rights requests. The guidance makes clear that, when calculating the one-month period for response, the day of receipt is day one rather than the day after receipt. How long do you have to comply with a request? You must comply with a request without undue delay and at the latest within one month of receipt of the request or (if later) within one month of receipt of: any requested information to clarify the request; any information requested to confirm the requester’s identity; or a fee (only in certain circumstances). You should calculate the time limit from the day you receive the request (whether it is a working day or not) until the corresponding – Read More…

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld the decision of the Employment Tribunal to find that a GP registered with CBCH, a company providing out-of-hours services to the NHS, was a worker under section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Employment Tribunal had found that the doctor was a worker despite the fact that from October 2015 she was paid through a limited company. The judge noted the main features of the GP’s role, including that she had worked regular shifts for around 12 years, but that there was no mutuality of obligation; she did not need permission to perform work outside CBCH’s activities; she provided her own medical equipment and indemnity insurance; and she was required to work personally for the provider and could not send a substitute – Read More…

In the combined cases of Page v Lord Chancellor and Page v NHS Trust Development Authority 0304/180183/18 the Employment Appeal Tribunal has decided that a magistrate who was removed from office after he publicly expressed his faith-based objection to the adoption of children by same-sex couples was not unlawfully victimised. His removal from office was a response to concern that he was prepared to flout his judicial oath of impartiality and thereby bring the judiciary into disrepute, which was separate to any protected act that he may have done in expressing his beliefs. The EAT also decided that the non-renewal of the magistrate’s term as non-executive director of an NHS Trust did not amount to victimisation, being a response to the manner in which he expressed his beliefs in the – Read More…

In L v Q Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1417, the Court of Appeal was asked to decide whether there was any scope to prevent publication of a judgment on the register. They held that the only reason that would allow for a judgement not to be published would be if the case was a matter national security. Since February 2017, HM Courts & Tribunals Service launched has published all judgments of Employment Tribunal decisions in an online database. L brought disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims against his employer, Q Ltd. The EAT upheld the tribunal’s orders preventing identification of the parties and witnesses and granting anonymisation. However, it set aside the tribunal’s order that the judgment should not be entered on the register. It held that the judgment should – Read More…

On 6th August the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal from 6th March 2018 in the case of Brazel v The Harper Trust. The Court of Appeal considered whether the holiday entitlement of part-year workers on permanent contracts should be prorated to that of full year workers to reflect the fact that they do not work throughout the year. The Claimant, Ms Brazel, was a part-time music teacher working mostly during term time. She was engaged on a ‘zero hours’ contract and had a contractual right to 5.6 weeks holiday pay, mirroring her statutory right. Rather than calculating the basis for holiday pay by the methodology set out in section 224 Employment Rights Act 1996, the Respondent calculated it on the basis of 12.07% of – Read More…

Mr Forbes worked as a security officer for LHR Airport Ltd (LHRA). One of his colleagues was Ms Deborah Stevens who worked in a similar capacity. On an unspecified date prior to 6 November 2016, Ms Stevens shared an image of a golliwog on her Facebook page, accompanied by the message “Let’s see how far he can travel before Facebook takes him off.” The image was shared with people who were on Ms Stevens’ list of Facebook friends. One of those friends was a work colleague, referred to here as BW. Mr Forbes was not on that list. On 6 November 2016, BW showed the image on Ms Stevens’ Facebook page to Mr Forbes. He was shocked and appalled by the fact that Ms Stevens had posted this image and – Read More…

A campaign from an alliance of unions, charities and women’s right groups has called for employers to be legally liable if they fail to protect their staff from sexual harassment at work. The alliance called ‘This is Not Working’ has launched a petition for new legislation that would require employers to take preventative measures to stop sexual misconduct in the workplace. These measures could involve mandatory training for staff and managers, and clear policies on the topic. Currently it is the responsibility of victims to report sexual harassment at work and there is no legal obligation for employers to take proactive action to stop it. A potential barrier to this is that 79% of women don’t feel able to report incidents of sexual harassment to their employers, and a quarter – Read More…

In accordance with the Working Time Directive workers are entitled to at least four weeks’ annual holiday. This is extended by 1.6 weeks as a result of the Working Time Regulations 1998 to give a worker a total of 5.6 weeks’ annual leave. This raises the question of whether employers should allow carry over of 5.6 weeks or 4 weeks when a worker has been off sick for the entire holiday year. In TSN v Hyvinvointialan liitto ry (C‑609/17) and another case the Advocate General gave an opinion that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, read together with the Working Time Directive, allowed member states to limit carry over of holiday in the event of sickness to the four weeks’ leave under the Directive. The employees argued that the EU – Read More…

The court of appeal has confirmed that suspension of an employee is to be treated like any other alleged breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. Does the employers conduct, without reasonable and proper cause, destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence? This was confirmed in The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Lambeth v Simone Agoreyo [2019] EWCA Civ 322. The following facts should be taken into account when deciding if suspension is the correct thing to do: What is the reason for suspending and are there any alternatives to suspension? The most common reason for suspension is either to protect a vulnerable person (e.g. a pupil or a member of staff) or to ensure the investigation can be carried out – Read More…

Mr Pora was employed at Cape Industrial Services as an Industrial Cleaner Operative from February 2014 until his dismissal on 12 May 2017. Mr Pora had an accident at work on 2 June 2017 when he suffered an injury to his arm. He was off work sick from this date until his dismissal. It appears that, at some point, the sickness absence became attributable to anxiety and depression rather than the physical injury. Occupational health’s view was that the prospects of him returning to work in the foreseeable future were negligible. Mr Pora claims that he was the subject of derogatory comments from co-workers and his manager related to being Polish until the end of May 2016. He raised a grievance about this and other matters in a letter to – Read More…