The Department for Education has published a new guide for schools on what apprenticeships are, how schools can use them, and how the apprenticeship levy and public sector target apply to schools. The guidance is for school leaders and governing bodies in all schools in England, and for local authorities too. It may also be of use to professional associations, unions and staff working with apprentices. Schools employ staff in a wide range of roles that align with apprenticeships. Apprenticeships are for existing employees as well as new recruits, so they are both a way of accessing new talent and retraining or upskilling your current staff. In April 2017, the government changed the way it funds apprenticeships in England. Some employers are now required to contribute to an apprenticeship levy, – Read More…

Mr Afzal was employed by Dominos Pizza. since October 2009 He was obliged to make an in-time application by 12 August to remain in the UK legally and Dominos Pizza asked for evidence that he had done so. Mr Afzal emailed documentation very late on 12 August but his employer could not open the documents and therefore, because they were concerned to avoid any risk from continuing to employ him illegally, posted notice of dismissal to him on 12 August. No right of appeal was given. The Employment Tribunal found that the dismissal was fair and on the grounds of some other substantial reason, namely that Dominos Pizza genuinely believed that his employment was prohibited by statute. It had been reasonable for Dominos to hold this belief (given the lack – Read More…

Another case on the employment status of workers this week is the Leeds Employment Tribunal decision of Leyland and others v Hermes Parcelnet Ltd ET/1800575/2017. The case follows the recent Supreme Court case involving Pimlico Plumbers that ruled the plumbers concerned were workers not self-employed contractors. In this latest case the Employment Tribunal found that the couriers were under an obligation to perform services personally and that they were controlled by Hermes.  According to the Tribunal it was a “dependent work relationship”.  There was a limited right for the couriers to provide a substitute.  However, this either had to be someone already on the books of Hermes (known as a ‘cover’) or someone of the courier’s choice (known as ‘substitution’ or a ‘substitute’).   Hermes reserved the right to veto the – Read More…

The Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that the employer had not justified its decision to issue a disciplinary warning to a disabled employee.  The Claimant in the case, Mrs O’Conner, had a high level of sickness absence, over a number of years, relating to her disability.  She had exceeded the trigger points contained in her employer’s sickness absence procedure.  It was accepted that the employer had adopted a very careful and sensitive approach to managing her absence and had allowed a much longer period of absence than the policy would have allowed.  Ultimately, however, in 2016 she was disciplined and issued with a written warning after taking 60 days absence in the previous 12 months.  The Claimant claimed discrimination arising from her disability contrary to Section 15 of the Equality Act – Read More…

On the 13th June 2018 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Pimlico Plumbers and agreed with the Court of Appeal decision that Mr Smith was a worker and not a self-employed contractor. Mr Smith worked as a plumber, carrying out work for Pimlico Plumbers between 2005 and 2011. In 2011 Mr Smith suffered from a heart attack and claimed he had been unfairly dismissed even though for VAT and income tax he presented himself as self-employed. Pimlico Plumbers had a business model which presented those carrying out work as working for the business itself. At the same time Pimlico Plumbers maintained that the relationship was self-employed independent contractors, not Employer and Employee. The Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the Court of Appeal all reached the decision that – Read More…

Mr Roddis was employed as an associate lecturer by Sheffield Hallam University and commenced employment on 30 January 2006. He brought claims for unfair dismissal, less favourable treatment under the Part-Time Workers Regulations, and a claim of age discrimination. The age discrimination complaint was withdrawn, and the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed by the Tribunal since it was found that the contract of employment had not been terminated and there is no appeal from that part of the decision. He brought various claims including less favourable treatment under the Part time Workers Regulations. The ET considered whether he was employed under the same type of contract as his comparator; Mr Mark Leader, who was employed as a lecturer on a full-time contract. The ET found that Mr Leader was not – Read More…

GDPR comes into force on 25th May 2018 Hardly headline news.  Unless you have been living on the moon for the past three months you will be aware that the new data protection regime GDPR comes into force on 25th May 2018. Here are the latest GDPR developments you need to know:- 1.      New guidance has been published by ACAS on the new data protection provisions of the GDPR. The guide covers the following:- ·        What is GDPR? ·        Who does GDPR apply to? ·        What is personal data? ·        Monitoring employees ·        How long can information be kept? ·        How can employers comply with the regulation? ·        A worker’s right to request their personal data There is also a link to the Information Commissioner’s Office 12 step checklist. Source: – Read More…

D’Silva v Manchester Metropolitan University & Others UKEAT/0328/16/RN This is an appeal heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) on 18th May 2017. Dr C D’Silva (the Claimant) was employed by the Respondent (Manchester Metropolitan University) as a Senior Lecturer within the Science and Engineering faculty from September 1993 until his dismissal. The Claimant was dismissed in 2011. The Claimant made complaints of unlawful race victimisation and unfair dismissal against his former employer and other senior employees. On 15th March 2016 the Employment Tribunal (ET) found that his dismissal was fair when considering the procedure followed by the Respondent. The Claimant had previously made claims against the Respondent but was unsuccessful. On 30th December 2010 a Judgement from Employment Judge Sneath and lay members dismissed all claims including those of – Read More…

  Swansea City Council win appeal over whether SEN allowance was payable to teachers. Rees was employed between 22 April 2002 and 31 December 2015. Mrs Mann was employed between 1 September 1997 and 31 December 2015. Mrs Gustafson was employed between 15 April 2002 and 31 December 2015. The Claimants were home tutors and were employed by the Swansea City Council as home tutors. Mrs Rees said that between 80 and 100% of her time was spent teaching children with special educational needs. This was mostly done in the children’s own homes but occasionally she taught children in small groups, for example, at an education centre and the Tribunal found that this might be twice or three times a week. Mrs Mann said that about 75 to 80% of – Read More…

In Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 978 the Court of Appeal have reviewed the ‘last straw’ doctrine and set out a 5 stage test to be applied in all constructive dismissal cases. In order to succeed in a constructive dismissal case an employee must show that the employer has committed a repudiatory, or fundamental, breach of the contract of employment and that the employee resigned as a result of the breach.  It is common for an employee to claim a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.  Usually there is a series of acts and the employee relies on the final act as ‘the last straw’. The Claimant in this case resigned after being disciplined and issued with a final written warning following – Read More…