As part of The Sherrards Training Academy, we have asked our Legal Assistants and Trainee Solicitors to write articles to support their learning, and also to ensure they start to build on their own personal brand. This article has been fact-checked and proofread by Head of the Employment department, Mark Fellows.

On Monday the government issued a consultation paper which proposes re-introducing fees in Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeals Tribunal, with the main aim ‘to contribute to the continuous improvement of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and reduce the cost to the taxpayer to fund these services’. The new proposal comes nearly 7 years after the Supreme Court ruled the previous charging regime as unlawful when trade union Unison successfully argued that it prevented thousands of employees from securing justice.

The proposed fee is £55 to bring a claim in the Employment Tribunal, which is considerably modest in comparison to the previous fee regime This is a one-off fee which is £55 irrespective of the type of claim (but some limited claims will be exempted) or whether the claim is brought by a single claimant or multiple claimants. Unlike the 2013-2017 Tribunal fee regime, no hearing fee will be applied under the government’s most recent proposals.

To start an appeal in the Employment Appeals Tribunal, the same fee of £55 would also apply.

A system for remission from fees would be available for those who genuinely cannot afford to pay the fee (as defined by the government).

It is thought that the proposal may act as an incentive for parties to apply their mind to settlement and engage in negotiations early in the process through ACAS, without the need to proceed to issuing actual claims in the Tribunals, thereby helping to alleviate the huge pressures currently faced by the Tribunal service. It is questionable whether such a modest fee will actually have this impact, but at the same time, it was recognised that if the fee was too high, it might be open to further challenge from the Unions.

The consultation runs for 8 weeks and closes on 25 March 2024 – please stay tuned for further updates from the Employment Team.

Legal Entitlement and Calculation

All full-year workers, with the exception of the genuinely self-employed, are entitled to 5.6 weeks of paid statutory holiday per year. Four weeks of this entitlement must be paid at the worker’s ‘normal’ rate of pay, including regular payments like overtime, bonuses, and commissions, as specified by Regulation 13 of the Working Time Regulations. The remaining 1.6 weeks can be paid at the ‘basic’ rate of pay, that is, the worker’s basic remuneration (as specified by Regulation 13A).

Holiday pay is designed to ensure that workers do not suffer financially when taking time off. For those with regular hours and fixed pay, the holiday pay should mirror what they would have earned if they were at work. From 1^st January 2024, the regulations now specify that certain payments, such as commission payments and those related to professional or personal status, must be included in the calculation of the 4 weeks of normal holiday pay.

Irregular Hours and Part-Year Workers

For leave years starting on or after 1^st April 2024, part-year and irregular hours workers must have their statutory holiday entitlement calculated based on actual hours worked, using the 12.07% accrual method. Alternatively, employers can opt for rolled-up holiday pay, a method applicable exclusively to irregular hour and part-year workers.

Rolled-up Holiday Pay

Rolled-up holiday pay allows employers to include an additional amount with every payslip to cover a worker’s holiday pay, instead of paying it when the worker takes annual leave. The calculation involves 12.07% of the worker’s total pay, representing the proportion of statutory annual leave in relation to the working weeks of each year. If employers choose this method, the entire amount of leave for irregular hours and part-year workers is paid at the ‘normal’ rate of pay.

Considerations for Employers

Employers intending to implement rolled-up holiday pay should review workers’ contracts to ensure compliance and avoid unintentional variations. For those opting not to use rolled-up holiday pay, the existing 52-week reference period method can be employed to calculate holiday pay, considering the worker’s previous 52 paid weeks.

Payment in Lieu

If irregular hour or part-year workers do not utilise their accrued holiday entitlement upon leaving employment, they are entitled to a ‘payment in lieu.’ Employers should calculate this by determining the remaining holiday entitlement and computing the holiday pay for the period. Deductions should be made for any holiday taken during the employment period.

Conclusion

As the new Holiday Pay Calculation rules come into effect, employers must stay informed and adapt their practices accordingly. Compliance with these regulations not only safeguards against legal issues but also fosters a fair and transparent work environment. By understanding the nuances of holiday pay entitlement and calculation, employers can ensure that their workforce is compensated appropriately for their time away from work.

If you have any questions or wish to discuss holiday pay for your business, please contact the Employment Department.

 

Pregnant employees and those returning from family leave to be given priority status in redundancy situations from April 2024

What does this mean?

From 6 April 2024, employees who are pregnant or returning from maternity, adoption or shared parental leave will all have the right to be offered a suitable alternative vacancy, if one is available, before being made redundant. This gives these employees priority access to redeployment opportunities over other redundant employees.

When does this priority status apply to pregnant women?           

Protection under the new legislation begins when the employer has been notified of pregnancy and 18 months from the child’s date of birth if notified to employer before the end of maternity leave (or 18 months from the Expected Week of Childbirth if not notified).

For women who suffer a miscarriage, the protection ends two weeks after the end of the pregnancy, for pregnancies ending before 24 weeks (as pregnancies ending after 24 weeks are classed as stillbirths and the employee would be entitled to statutory maternity leave).  

What about employees who adopt?

The protection begins at the beginning of adoption leave and ends 18 months from date of placement or date of entry into Great Britain (if overseas adoption).

Is it the same for shared parental leave (SPL)?

A parent needs to take only a minimum of 6 weeks’ consecutive shared parental leave before becoming eligible for 18 months of protection.

How does this affect your business?

You’ll need to bear the above in mind for any restructures taking place after April 2024. There will now be more employees who are potentially going to be given priority status, which may mean you’ll need to carry out a selection process amongst priority status employees at risk of redundancy where there aren’t enough vacancies. Careful consideration will need to be applied here to prevent claims of discrimination.

You may also see a take up of SPL because of the additional protections the employee will benefit from.

It’s important to comply with the law as an employee that isn’t offered a suitable alternative vacancy when they have priority status would have a claim for an automatic unfair dismissal, which would mean a compensatory award that is not capped. There’s also no requirement to have two years’ service to qualify for this type of claim. The employee may also have a claim for discrimination. Given the significant penalties, employers will need to exercise extreme caution and it’s strongly recommended to take legal advice before making redundancies.

 

What are the key take away points from the new Carer’s Leave Regulations?

 An employee will be entitled to take one week of unpaid carer’s leave in any 12 month period, where they have a dependant with a long-term care need and want to be absent from work to provide or arrange care for the dependant.

• Importantly, the right will be a Day one employment right. 
• Employees will have the option to take the carer’s leave on consecutive days, non-consecutive days, half days or full days.
• Employees must give written notice of their intention to take carer’s leave, confirming their entitlement to take it. The notice requirement will be at least twice as many days as the period of leave requested.
• Employers will have a right to postpone a request if they reasonably consider that the operation of the business would be unduly disrupted. The employer must give notice of the postponement before the leave was due to begin and must explain why the postponement is necessary. The employer must then permit the employee to take carer’s leave (of the same duration) on a date determined by the employer after consulting with the employee, which must be within one month of the start date of the leave originally requested by the employee.
• Employees will be protected from detriment and dismissal because they choose to take, or seek to take, carer’s leave (or the employer believes they are likely to do so).

To find out more, contact the Employment team or Head of the Department, Mark Fellows.

 

Hot on the heels of the US Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) proposal for a complete ban on non-competes, the UK Government has announced its intention to limit post termination non-compete clauses to just three months. This comes as part of a wider announcement of proposals which the government says have been made to help boost the economy, in this case by promoting competition and productivity in the workplace.

When will this happen?

It’s unclear at the moment when this restriction will come into force. Any reform to the rules on non-complete clauses will require primary legislation, which the government’s press release states it will be done “when parliamentary time allows”, so when that will be is anyone’s guess.

What’s the impact of this change?

At first glance, this will cause alarm for many employers, particularly those in recruitment or sales where the exposure of former employees joining a competitor or setting up in competition is a real concern. However, there’s long been criticism in the courts for non-compete clauses with judges seeing them as unreasonable restraint of trade, particularly where there are non-dealing and non-solicitation clauses which can arguably offer sufficient protections to a business’ legitimate interests, without there being a total ban on competition.

What we do know is that the government have confirmed that limiting non-compete clauses will not affect restrictions during garden leave or paid notice periods (the proposal relates to post-termination only), or change the position on confidentiality clauses or non-solicitation clauses (which prevent employees from contacting previous customers, clients or suppliers in an attempt to win their business).

However, amongst other things, the government’s press release was silent on:

• non-dealing clauses (which sit somewhere between non-solicitation and non-compete clauses and are generally, therefore, easier to enforce than non-compete clauses); and
• whether the proposals will have retrospective effect (it’s likely that they will so an employee who spends 3 months of garden leave would likely not be restricted after the end of their employment, regardless of whether the restriction is longer).

What should employers do now?

Until the proposal becomes law, there’s no legal requirement to amend any existing restrictions, however employers that currently have restrictions beyond 3 months, or who are considering introducing them, should think carefully about whether these are likely to be enforceable now, and in the future.

Restrictive covenants are a complicated area and for the best chance of them being enforceable, they should be regularly reviewed. This is particularly important because the courts will only consider whether a restriction is enforceable at the time it’s entered into, not at the time the employer seeks to enforce them (by which time the employee/former employee may have a far more senior position, making the restrictions even more important).

For advice and assistance with drafting enforceable restrictive covenants, contact the Employment Team at Sherrards.

Partner in Employment law at Sherrards Mark Fellows, answers some common questions ahead of another heatwave:

Do I have to pay employees who are unable to get into work due to travel difficulties?

Take a look at your employment contracts and Employee Handbook. These might specify whether an employee is entitled to be paid if they are unable to get in due to travel problems. If they are silent, however, then the default position is that the obligation is on the employee to get into work, regardless of any difficulties caused by the weather or otherwise. If they do not attend, they are on unauthorised absence and they are arguably not entitled to be paid.

Be careful, however, if you are going to take this approach. Firstly, there is a potential that the employee can argue that failure to make payment in these circumstances is an unauthorised deduction from wages (assuming this is not covered in the employment contract). The defence to this would be that there was no entitlement to pay as no work was done, but it may be an argument you would prefer to avoid. Secondly, you should assess whether the financial benefit of withholding pay is outweighed by the impact on staff morale and productivity. This is particularly so if the weather and travel conditions are extreme and, even with the best of intentions and efforts, employees are unable to get in.

Above all, you should ensure that your approach is consistent. Ideally, tell staff in advance (in written format, e.g. memo or email) what your approach is going to be or, even better, have an “Extreme Weather Policy”.

Consider whether employees are able to work from home, whether alternative travel arrangements can be made or whether there are other ways around the issues – e.g. travelling outside of peak times to avoid the worst of the heat. Otherwise, clearly explain to employees that either: (a) any time off will be unpaid; (b) time off will be paid but that they are expected to make up the time later; or (c) they can request the time off as paid annual leave or unpaid time off for dependant’s leave (see below). Prior notification is particularly important if you have made payments in the past in such circumstances.

As an aside, be careful if you are trying to insist on employees taking annual holiday retrospectively. Employees will need to agree to this unless the contract specifically allows for you to do this.

 

I have an employee who says they cannot come in because their child’s school has closed due to the heat. What shall I do?

Employees with responsibility for a dependant are entitled to emergency time off in circumstances in which there is an unexpected disruption to childcare. Unless the school closure was announced a reasonable time in advance, such that the employee had sufficient time to arrange alternative childcare, this would probably be an emergency situation and employees are entitled to take time off and not suffer any detriment for doing so.

Strictly speaking, the time off is unpaid (unless the contract of employment says otherwise) but employers may again want to consider the impact on morale that this approach would have. Again, it is important to be consistent in your approach. You should be especially careful where other employees who are unable to make it into the office due to travel are being paid.

 

One of my employees failed to come into work today, blaming the heatwave and travel issues. I think he is using it as an excuse and could have easily come in. Where do I stand?

If you believe that an employee is falsely using the weather conditions as an excuse for absence or lateness, this can be treated as a disciplinary matter. If you consider the matter to be serious enough (e.g. if it is a persistent or blatant case), you should investigate in line with your disciplinary policy and take action as appropriate.

However, in less serious or one-off cases, you may be better placed simply having a quiet word with the employee and letting them know that any further time off will have to be taken as holiday or will be unpaid. Bear in mind that it can often be difficult to prove or disprove an employee’s ability to come into work in these circumstances.

 

Our air conditioning isn’t great. Is there a maximum temperature above which I am obliged to shut the workplace?

In short, no, there is technically no maximum temperature above which people aren’t allowed to work. In offices or similar environments, the temperature should be “reasonable”. You should have thermometers around the workplace so that you can check the temperature – although temperature itself is not the sole issue, since humidity, radiant heat sources and clothing are also factors.

The TUC has lobbied for an upper limit on workplace temperature to be introduced – suggesting that employers be forced to take steps when the temperature inside hits 24˚C. Under the TUC’s proposals, staff could be sent home and employers prosecuted if temperatures reach 30˚C (or 27˚C for those whose work is physically demanding).  However, these proposals are currently not reflective of the law.

If your working environment is getting too hot to be considered “reasonable” then you could be putting your staff’s health and safety at risk. If, having taken steps to try to control those risks, the temperature is becoming dangerous enough to endanger health (e.g. through heatstroke etc) then you would be best advised to shut the workplace.

 

The above provides a general guide to issues that might arise. However, each situation is unique and different considerations may apply in your case. We would therefore recommend that you consult a solicitor, or another suitably qualified person, about your specific circumstances.

To find out more about employers responsibilities during a heatwave, click here to speak Employment Partner Mark Fellows. 

The team issued High Court proceedings with an injunction hearing which was successful.

Barney Laurence and his team were able to secure default judgment avoiding significant expenditure for ongoing legal proceedings for our client which they would have stood little to no prospects of recovering from the former employee.

TOCA Social is the first of its kind interactive football and dining experience which combines immersive gaming and world-class food and drink.

The Sherrards Employment team was lucky enough to experience the game for themselves after a training session with Team TOCA just before the venue opened to the public.

Mark Fellows said: “TOCA Social is an amazing venue and it really was such a pleasure to be able to support the team as they start on this exciting venture – we’ve already booked to go back with several clients in Summer 2022!”

Since 16 August 2021, people who are double-jabbed and are without symptoms or a positive test do not need to self-isolate if they come into contact with someone who has tested positive for coronavirus. This was a major step to help ease the serious supply chain shortages that followed the “pingdemic” during the summer of 2021 which saw up to 700,000 per week self-isolating in England and Wales as contacts of positive cases.

Whilst many people are unable to get the vaccination for medical issues, all adults in the UK have now been offered the vaccine. This means that the people who are unvaccinated are either due to medical reasons, or have chosen not to be.

Ikea has argued that employees who refuse to get the vaccine are causing disproportionate financial losses to businesses. Whilst Ikea’s 10,000 plus workers receive an average of £400 a week salary, the furniture retailer said unvaccinated workers will only receive statutory sick pay of £96.35 a week where they are absent for a Covid-related reason (but full-pay if they test positive, as with vaccinated staff).

Given that Ikea is such a high-profile company, it is almost inevitable that other employers will follow suit and many will be monitoring the fall-out of this new policy. In fact, Next is the latest employer to announce it intends to adopt the same approach.

Some have argued that this policy is potentially discriminatory against employees refusing to be vaccinated on the grounds of religion or belief under the Equality Act 2010. Whilst this argument is generally considered unlikely to be successful, to avoid claims employers will need to consider each circumstance on “a case-by-case basis”, which Ikea has also confirmed it will do. This is necessary as applying similar policies without exemptions could be discriminatory against employees are unable to be vaccinated (e.g. those with disability-related medical reasons or pregnant employees).

As well as considering the implications on staff who are unable to be vaccinated, employers considering varying their sick pay entitlements also need to be careful to ensure that they won’t fall foul of any contractual responsibilities, where sick pay forms part of an employee’s contract of employment. It will be important to check the terms before any such measures are introduced.

Perhaps most significantly, employers will need to consider the public response to any policy change in such a highly divisive area before taking any steps.

Finally, if an employer is considering introducing a similar measure in respect of sick pay, a key issue will be the communication to the staff, setting out the reasons for the change and the exceptions that might apply. It may well be that the approach may give rise to some complaints from those employees who are directly affected.

Any employers considering introducing policies which target unvaccinated staff should act with caution and take legal advice in advance to ensure that savings in sickness payments now don’t turn into much larger costs defending claims from unvaccinated staff down the line.  

Please contact Emma or the team for more information. 

As the rapid rollout of the UK’s COVID-19 vaccine provides hope of returning to normality, preparations are being made for staff to return to the workplace. Unsurprisingly the vaccine has divided opinion, with a survey by HR Locker suggesting that one quarter of UK employers are intending to introduce a ‘No Jab, No Job’ policy of making vaccination of staff a compulsory requirement.

Is that permissible I hear you ask?

Can I compel staff to have the Covid-19 Vaccine?

In short, this is fraught with a myriad of issues.

There is currently no legislation permitting an employer to require staff to undergo mandatory medical treatment, including vaccinations, and to do so could amount to a breach of the employee’s human right to respect for their private life.

In addition, any disciplinary action imposed against an employee for refusing to be vaccinated could give rise to discrimination claims (see below).

There will of course be some sectors where you can see a greater justification for requiring staff to be vaccinated, such as healthcare or care home settings, where non-vaccinated employees could present a threat to patients, residents, other staff and themselves. As Boris Johnson recently pointed out, healthcare professionals are already required to be vaccinated against hepatitis B, so requiring a COVID-19 vaccination for those “entrusted with the care of a patient” is a possibility, although the Government is yet to give formal guidance on this issue.

However, in most sectors, a blanket policy of requiring staff to be vaccinated is unlikely to be justified.

If I want to protect the wellbeing of my staff, why is that potentially discriminatory?

It firstly depends upon whether the employee’s refusal to be vaccinated relates to a protected characteristic. This could arise on several grounds:

• religion/belief, as some religions do not condone vaccinations and there is evidence that pig gelatine can be found in certain vaccines;
• age, the vaccine is being rolled out on a sliding age scale such that some members of staff will not yet be eligible;
• maternity/sex, as current guidance is that pregnant women should not have the vaccine; and
• disability, as the vaccine may not be recommended for individuals with certain medical conditions or allergies.

Secondly, it depends upon whether those with the protection afforded above are treated less favourably or penalised for not being able to comply with a vaccination requirement. That might be refusing to allow the employee to return to the workplace, or even disciplining them for a refusal to have the vaccine.

In respect of some types of discrimination, you can seek to justify a discriminatory policy and whilst in some (limited) cases there might be a justification argument for insisting on the vaccine, this will be a very high threshold to surmount, particularly given the existence of less intrusive measures, such as regular testing, PPE and social distancing.

Can I make vaccination a requirement of hiring new employees?

Again, this is fraught with risk.

There are actually restrictions in place that are designed to prevent an employer from asking applicants about their medical history until such time as an offer of employment has been made, and there are also privacy and data protection obligations that will apply in respect of any such information.

When being considered for a vacant role, applicants have the same protection from discrimination as employed staff, so the above concerns will arise. If an applicant is not offered a role because of their refusal to have the vaccine, and their reason relates to one of the protected characteristics mentioned above, then this is likely to amount to discrimination.

What measures can an employer take?

Aside from some very limited exceptions, a compulsory vaccination requirement is not something we would endorse. Instead, we believe employers will need to careful consider a range of measures that can still be an effective way to ensure a safe working environment, whilst balancing individual circumstances and sensitivities:

• Encourage employees to have the vaccine

You can encourage your employees to have the vaccine. Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, employers are obliged to take steps to reduce workplace risks. Consider the extent to which you encourage employees to be vaccinated, as it is a personal choice for everyone.

• Introduce other COVID safe measures

These could include asking staff to wear masks (subject to exemptions), implement social distancing and/or installing plastic screens as appropriate, setting up hand sanitiser stations, arranging for regular testing of staff, and deep cleaning the office.

• Flexible working

Allow employees to work from home where feasible or consider temporary changes to minimise the risk as far as possible. For instance, employees may request to change their working hours to avoid commuting on public transport during rush hour.

• Vaccine policy

Consider implementing a vaccine policy to handle potential workplace disputes which may arise regarding vaccination, for example, how to manage a vaccinated employee refusing to work alongside a non-vaccinated employee or requiring staff to not ask others about their vaccination status.

There is talk of a 3^rd vaccination to be rolled out later in the year, so this is a situation that is not going away anytime soon. Taking some of the measures above will hopefully enable you to minimise any disputes on this issue and enable the business to get back to the normality that we have all been craving.

To find out more, click here to speak to Mark Fellows or click here for a link to the Governments guidance.