HR Articles

Although the UK’s Leave vote has had no immediate impact on free movement rights, businesses which employ EEA nationals and their family members may wish to start thinking about the implications of BREXIT now.

More than 7,000 Asda employees have brought equal pay claims in the Employment Tribunal, alleging that in-store work such as shelf-stacking and checkout roles (predominantly carried out by female employees) is of equal value to warehouse work (predominantly carried out by men).

In the case of Buchanan v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the EAT gave useful guidance on the objective justification defence available to employers in certain discrimination claims

In the case of Snell v Network Rail, the tribunal awarded a father just over £28,000 in compensation after he was refused the same pay as his wife while on shared parental leave.

Back in February we reported that the EAT had dismissed an appeal from British Gas against the finding that the Working Time Regulations can be interpreted so as to be compatible with the EU Working Time Directive, with the effect that results-based commission payments should be included in the calculation of holiday pay.

The start point from what our new Prime Minister Theresa May has been saying is no apparent reason to expect reduced rights for workers, indeed current expectations are possibly for added worker protection.

In McCann v Snozone Ltd, a verbal offer of employment made via a recruitment agency was sufficient to create a legally binding agreement between the individual and the employer, the subsequent withdrawal of which amounted to a breach of contract.

Long gone are the days when the postman delivered every parcel. Nowadays, we don’t bat an eyelid when the person knocking at the door is a courier in an unfamiliar uniform.

Over the years, the government has made many changes to the Entrepreneur visa route in an attempt to counter abuse under the Tier 1 Entrepreneur visa category.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has decided that two elected workplace union officials, despite not being the union’s employees, were its agents and therefore the union could be held liable for their acts of discrimination against an employee.