Need to Know - Issue 4 2017

Election 2017: What do the parties say about employment rights and workplace regulation?

As the election draws close and the main parties have finalised their manifesto proposals, now seems like a good time to take a look at what's on offer and what the future holds for the UK's employment regime, whoever wins on 8 June.

A worker can have two employers for the purposes of whistleblowing protection

There has been an abundance of case law recently relating to “worker status”. The main focus of these cases has been whether a particular individual falls within the definition of a “worker” under section 230(3) of the Employment Rights 1996 (ERA) or an “employee” under section 230(1). The case of Day v Health Education England and others [2017] EWCA Civ 329, however, raised some different “worker” related questions, peculiar to whistleblowing protection. The questions considered in this case were a) whether the individual was a worker under section 230(3) ERA or a worker under the extended definition in section 43K ERA and b) whether it was possible for an individual to be both.

Redundancy: A reminder for employers

The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s (“EAT”) recent decision in Green v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham gives employers a helpful reminder of the need to act reasonably at every stage of the redundancy process, even where employees in the redundancy pool are competing for a reduced number of new roles through an interview process.

Supreme Court clarifies rules on indirect discrimination: Essop & Naeem

Indirect discrimination occurs when an organisation’s provision, criterion or practice (PCP) has the effect of disadvantaging people who share certain protected characteristics (such as sex, race, age, and so on). It may not be unlawful if an employer can show there is an ‘objective justification’ for it. The Court of Appeal (CA) in the cases of Essop and Naeem said that a claimant had to show the reason why the PCP put him at a particular disadvantage. The Supreme Court (SC) has overturned the CA.