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…

  Miss Otshudi was employed by Base Childrenswear Ltd as an in-house photographer for a little over three months in 2016. During her employment, she has complained of six acts of racial harassment meted out by different work colleagues. Miss Otshudi was called into a meeting without notice and summarily dismissed on 19th May 2016. The Managing Director told Miss Otshudi she was being made redundant, but she thought the dismissal was because of her race. Miss Otshudi appealed against her dismissal and submitted a letter of grievance. Base Childrenswear Ltd failed to respond to the grievance or the appeal. Miss Otshudi brought a claim of racial harassment in the employment tribunal complaining of various acts of harassment because of race in respect of six incidents during her employment and – Read More…

Mrs Kuteh commenced employment with Gravesham NHS Trust on 1st April 2007. She worked as a band 5 Junior Sister in the Intensive therapy Unit. Mrs Kuteh is a committed Christian. In her role, she was responsible for carrying out assessments of patients who were due to undergo surgery. She used a pro-forma document to carry out these assessments and was required to make a simple enquiry as to the patient’s religion and note the response. In March and April 2016, patients had complained that Mrs Kutah had initiated unwanted religious conversations with them. On 11 April 2016, the Matron spoke to Mrs Kuteh to express her concern that she had been having unwanted religious discussions with patients. Mrs Kutah assured the Matron that she would not discuss religion with – Read More…

New legislation in force from April 2019 will require all employers to (a) provide payslips to all workers, and (b) show hours on payslips where the pay varies by the amount of time worked. From 6 April 2019, the statutory right to receive an itemised payslip will be extended to all workers. This right currently only applies to employees, a sub-category of workers. Additional information must be shown on a payslip for workers whose pay varies depending on the number of hours they have worked.    Where this applies, the number of hours paid for on this basis (i.e on the amount of time worked) must be shown.  Any other hours do not need to be shown (although of course they can be shown if it would be helpful to do – Read More…

The government has resurrected the plans for a cap on public sector exit payments and has published two documents for consultation. The consultation closes on 3 July 2019. The following categories of public sector employer are within scope of these regulations where they fall within the responsibility of the UK government, regarding their employment: ·        the UK Civil Service, its executive agencies, non-ministerial departments and non-departmental public bodies (including Crown non-departmental public bodies and Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service) ·        the NHS in England and Wales ·        academy schools ·        local government including fire authorities’ employees and maintained schools ·        police forces, including civilian and uniformed officers   All public sector employers should make value for money decisions on exit payments and spend public money responsibly. The cap remains – Read More…

Background Mr Aplin was an openly gay Headteacher at Tywyn Primary School. He was suspended by the school on 1 September 2015 after they were notified that Mr Aplin had consensual sexual intercourse with two 17-year-old boys after meeting them through an internet dating website. The website required joining individuals to certify that they are at least 18 years of age. Mr Aplin’s case was that he believed they were at least 18 years of age. The boys were not pupils of the school. An investigation was conducted into whether Mr Aplin’s conduct had brought the school into disrepute, whether his conduct outside work had undermined his ability to fulfil his role, and whether it displayed a gross error of judgment such as to undermine the school’s confidence in him. – Read More…