Employment Update 📰
Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023
This act received Royal Assent on 19 September 2023 BUT isn’t expected to come into force until September 2024. It will introduce a new statutory right for workers to allow them to request a more predictable working pattern. There are various elements to this and we will keep you updated on how this unfolds but a few points to note:
- The request may be in relation to hours of work, days of work or period of engagement.
- A maximum of two applications can be made within a twelve month period.
- It is likely workers will need 26 weeks’ service to make a request.
- Employers will need to notify workers of their decision within one month.
- Requests can be refused under the specified grounds. There are currently 6 listed within the act but the Secretary of State reserves the right to add more so this may be amended.
- If the request is accepted, then employers are unable to make detrimental changes to other contractual terms at the same time.
This law is likely to be of importance to companies and industries where shift patterns vary and where work is offered on a ‘casual’ basis.
Case Law Update 📢
Holiday Pay - important case (Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew)
There has been an important case in relation to the calculation of holiday pay which overrules what was previously known as the ‘three month break rule’’. This essentially means that a gap of 3 months between underpayments will not automatically break the series of deductions and employees can potentially claim for further periods (subject to the two year cap on unlawful deductions in the United Kingdom). For more information on this, please see our blog here.
Riley v Direct Line Insurance Group PLC – the question of Unfair Dismissal or Mutual Termination.
This case was in relation to whether an employee’s termination on the grounds of ill health could be regarded as termination by mutual consent, as opposed to dismissal. The EAT held it could.
- The Claimant had autistic spectrum condition and was considered disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.
- The Claimant had a series of absences from work due to various health issues. In 2018, the Defendant obtained a medical report which outlined that it would be unlikely that the Claimant would be able to return to work.
- The parties had a discussion in relation to the termination of the Claimant’s employment, and it was confirmed that he would still receive insurance payments of 80% of his normal salary, up until state pension age. Importantly, the Claimant agreed to this.
- In error, the Defendant wrote to the Claimant to record that he had been dismissed on capability grounds.
- The Claimant then brought a number of complaints, including discriminatory dismissal and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The Employment Tribunal held that the termination of his employment was in fact a consensual termination and not a dismissal. There was therefore no claim for unfair dismissal as there was not found to be a dismissal at all.
It is important therefore to consider how a contract is terminated and note that there is a distinction between an employee consenting to the termination of their employment and consenting to be dismissed by their employer.
Thank you to our contributors: Phil Cookson, Desley Sherwin, Laura Hill and George Miller.