1 London Street,
+44 (0)118 951 6200
Reminder: FSP Breakfast Briefing Tuesday 29 April 2014
Do you use zero hours contracts or casual workers? Join us to discuss the key issues. (Read more to book your place)
In addition, employers should ensure that they are using the 2009 Health and Safety Law posters (not the 1999 poster) by 5 April (further details are on the HSE website).
As discussed at our January breakfast briefing, later on this Spring there will be further changes.
Louise Smyth explains how the new Early Conciliation scheme will work in practice. Read more.
There was considerable publicity when fees for bringing tribunal claims were introduced last July and they remain controversial. While some employees may benefit from remission of fees, most people bringing a claim in an ET now pay a fee of up to £250 to issue a claim and a further fee of up to £950 if the claim proceeds to a hearing (the level of fees depends on the type of claim brought). Are those fees recoverable if the employee wins?
The basic position under the Tribunal Rules is that the Tribunal has discretion to order the employer to pay the employee’s fees but only if the claim is successful. HM Courts and Tribunal Services’ guidance on fees in the ET goes further and says that the general position is that, if an employee is successful, the employer will be ordered to reimburse the fees. The Tribunal Rules may be amended to bring them in line with the guidance.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) followed this approach in a recent case relating to EAT fees. The employer was ordered to pay the employee’s fees as it had the means to pay and had substantially lost. This was despite the fact that the employee had conducted the case himself in an unhelpful and unco-operative manner. The order was subject to the employee’s application for remission being refused.
Therefore, employers should assume that if they are unsuccessful in their defence of tribunal claims they are likely to be ordered to pay the employee’s fees as well as any compensation. Doubtless this approach will mean that employees will seek to recover fees as part of any settlement negotiations.
Reasonable adjustments – is the clock still running?
Under the Equality Act 2010, an employer has a duty to make reasonable adjustments where it imposes a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled employee at a substantial disadvantage when compared with non-disabled employees. Failure to make a reasonable adjustment is discrimination. An employee who has suffered discrimination can bring a tribunal claim but has to do so within three months of the discriminatory act or within 3 months of the end of conduct which extends over a period of time (which is commonly referred to as “a continuing act”).
In a recent case, the EAT considered Ms Jamil’s situation. She was a Job Centre Plus worker with rheumatoid arthritis which made her frequently late for work after an 80 minute journey to Ealing. She repeatedly asked to be transferred to Uxbridge, nearer her home. Her employer ignored her initial requests and finally refused to transfer her on the basis that there was no vacancy but stated it would continue to review the situation. More than three months after the refusal, Ms Jamil brought a claim for failure to make a reasonable adjustment. Her employer argued that her claim was out of time.
The EAT found that the duty to make reasonable adjustments was a continuing duty that applied on each day of Ms Jamil’s employment. The fact that the employer had agreed to review the position meant that there was no end date from which the 3 months period should run. Rather, there was a continuing act which meant that the claim was in time.
The decision sits uneasily with the leading Court of Appeal judgment in this area, which found that a failure to make reasonable adjustments is an omission triggering the start of the three month time limit, and not a continuing act. However, it is arguable that the Court of Appeal judgment can be distinguished on the grounds that Ms Jamil’s employer had specifically committed to keeping its decision under review.
This case might encourage employers not to agree to review a refusal to implement a requested adjustment. However, care needs to be taken in each case. While that may mean that an employer has certainty as to when a time limit will expire, it may make the actual decision unreasonable in the first place.