HR Articles

It is a frequent issue for HR that a decision is made to carry out some organisational change that impacts all or any of working hours, shift arrangements, rates of pay, duties to be carried out, and other similar matters that not surprisingly make employees feel unsettled or, in some cases, militantly opposed to the employer's plans.

The recent case of Lincolnshire County Council v Lupton has highlighted the need for Tribunals to consider the practical implications of re-engagement and ensure that any terms of re-engagement are expressed with a suitable degree of detail and precision.

In the recent case of Garamukanwa v Solent NHS Trust an employer was held not to have breached an employee’s right to a private and family life (under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights) when it reviewed private material belonging to the employee on the basis that the information related to work issues and had a potential impact on work.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has released a consultation outlining Government proposals to increase immigration appeal fees with the aim of making the immigration tribunal entirely self-funded by fees.

Convergence of various developments will pull over stretched HR more towards how to manage and monitor supply chain issues, especially when contracting with overseas countries that have a high risk profile for workforce practices that offend international standards and UK corporate values.

April 2016 marks a change in the law that is designed to further encourage employers to take on more apprentices. Since 6 April 2016 employers no longer have to pay National Insurance contributions for apprentices under the age of 25 for earnings below £827 per week (£43,000 per year).

The recent case of Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth has demonstrated that when assessing if there has been a disclosure of information, for whistle-blowing purposes, ‘information’ and ‘allegations’ are often intertwined and Tribunals should not fall into the trap of treating disclosures as either one or the other.

The Court of Appeal has recently upheld the High Court’s decision that particular provisions in a staff handbook had been incorporated into an employee’s contract of employment.

The EAT has held in Wasteney v East London NHS Foundation Trust that a Christian senior manager was not discriminated against when she was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for imposing her religious views on a Muslim junior employee.

In Nayak v Royal Mail Group, the EAT upheld the tribunal’s decision that an employer’s genuine and reasonable belief that an employee was no longer permitted to work in the UK was sufficient to show that he had been dismissed for some other substantial reason (SOSR).