The online Right to Work Checking Service which was launched in April 2018 gives employers access to up-to-date, real-time information about migrants’ right to work, making it easier for individuals to prove their rights in the UK. Until now, employers have still needed to request paper documents alongside using the service. The new changes will mean employers can use the online service to demonstrate they have conducted the necessary right to work checks. An employer using the online service will be excused from a civil penalty if: ·       The online check confirms that the employee is allowed to work in the UK and perform the work in question. ·       It satisfies itself that any photograph on the online right to work check is of the employee. ·       It retains a – Read More…

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has published detailed guidance on contracts and liabilities between controllers and processors. This guidance will help both controllers and processors to understand what needs to be included in a contract and why. It will also help processors to understand their new responsibilities and liabilities under the GDPR. There are many common issues to discuss about contracts and liabilities. The guidance is structured so that these are discussed first. After this, the issues specific to controllers and processors are discussed separately. Please note that this guidance is not a guide to contract law or to the intricacies of commercial contract negotiation. Source: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/contracts-and-liabilities-between-controllers-and-processors-multi/  

Background Mr Hargreaves was employed as a Teacher at Manchester Grammar School from 1st September 2005 until his dismissal on 17th June 2016. On 3rd March 2016, there was an interaction between Mr Hargreaves and a pupil which led to his dismissal. It was reported by a pupil (“pupil A”) that Mr Hargreaves had grabbed him, shoved him against the wall and then pushed two forefingers against his throat. When reporting this matter to his form tutor, on 7 March 2016, pupil A had apparently presented as visibly upset. Following an investigation Mr Hargreaves was invited to a disciplinary hearing to face three allegations: (1) of unwanted and unreasonable physical conduct against pupil A, (2) of breach of his duties as a teacher and of the Code of Conduct and – Read More…

There is a common misconception that a current or former employee is entitled to a ‘good’ reference or, more accurately, that an employer cannot make any negative comments about an employee.  This is simply wrong. In the education sector a useful starting point is the School Staffing (England) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/2680) which states that where a candidate applies for employment at an academy or maintained school in England then the governors of the previous school must, if asked, advise in writing whether the candidate has been the subject of capability proceedings within the last two years and, if so, give written details of how the concerns arose, for how long they lasted and the outcome of any proceedings. In addition, the new DfE non-statutory guidance on ‘Staffing and employment – Read More…

In Ball v First Essex Buses Limited ET 3201435/2017 an Employment Tribunal decided an employee was unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct when he failed a routine drug test. The Law An employer must hold such investigation as is “reasonable in all the circumstances” when investigating a potential misconduct issue (Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2002] EWCA Civ 1588). An employer will need to investigate sufficiently and the more serious the allegation the more detailed an employer should be.  The allegations put to the employee must be sufficiently clear so that the employee can respond in a meaningful manner. When an employer dismisses for misconduct, the Burchell test requires that, at the time of dismissal, the employer has:- 1.     A reasonable belief in the employee’s guilt which is, 2.     based on – Read More…

    Summary In two German cases relating to the right to a payment in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave the European Court has ruled that, under the Working Time Directive, a worker does not automatically lose their accrued but untaken holiday entitlement at the end of a holiday year in when they have failed to seek to take their holiday entitlement for that period. However, holiday entitlement can be lost if the employer can show that it took steps to encourage the worker to take the holiday before the end of the holiday year. If the worker has not lost their holiday entitlement, they are entitled to a payment in lieu of that entitlement on termination, or to carry the entitlement forward into the next holiday year. – Read More…

Background The appellants are two companies in the same group and a senior executive of that group. Five employees of group companies had made allegations of discreditable conduct by the senior executive. Three of them did so through the companies’ confidential internal grievance procedures. Two of those employees, when their grievance was not upheld, brought (separate) proceedings in the Employment Tribunal, as did another who had not employed the grievance procedure. In all five cases the complaints were compromised by settlement agreements under which substantial payments were made to the complainants and were subject to non-disclosure agreements. On 16 July a Daily Telegraph journalist contacted the appellants with a view to obtaining their comments on a story which it was proposing to publish about the complainants’ allegations and also about – Read More…

Firstly, it is important to note that cases involving vicarious liability depend heavily on the facts. Vicarious liability in employment terms is where an Employer is held responsible for the acts or omissions of an Employee in the course of employment. The test used in these cases asks the question, were the torts so closely connected with the employment that it would be fair and just to hold the Employers vicariously liable? In the case of Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd an incident took place after a Christmas party. The Managing Director (the MD) of the Respondent company physically attacked an employee leaving him with severe injuries. The Christmas party took place at a golf club and following the party, around half of the guests moved on to the hotel – Read More…

On 10th October 2018 it was World Mental Health Day. Around 1 in 3 people will at some point in their lives suffer from a mental health problem whilst in employment. Mental health is the single largest cause of disability in the UK, costing £100 billion each year, with around 70 million work days lost. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Greg Clark, has urged businesses to increase awareness of mental health problems in the workplace. He has encouraged colleagues to look out for each other. It has been announced there are 8 new Mental Health Networks that will bring together their research and work with charities in order to improve mental health outcomes. It is important to help those who are struggling with mental health – Read More…

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has commenced enforcement against 34 organisations that have failed to pay the new data protection fee following the introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on 25th May 2018. All organisations must pay a fee to the ICO if they process personal data, unless an exemption applies, with fees used to fund the ICO. The 34 enforcement notices were sent in September 2018 to a range of organisations across both the public and private sectors including the NHS, recruitment organisations, financial services and government departments. The ICO has stated that more notices will be issued shortly.  The organisations have 21 days to respond. If they pay the relevant fee, no further enforcement action will be taken. Depending on the size and turnover of the – Read More…