TUC Report Claims Tribunal Fees Prevent Workers Seeking Justice

/in /by

An announcement by The Trade Unions Congress (TUC) has detailed how the number of UK workers actively reporting acts of discrimination and unfair dismissal in the workplace has dropped by a large margin since it was ruled in 2013 that claimants must pay mandatory tribunal fees. The statistics produced by TUC shows the total number of claimants has dropped to an average of 7,000 a month compared to the monthly average of 16,000 recorded beforehand the change just three years ago.

Although many legal observers fully expected to see a large drop in claims occurring, the scale of the decrease is far larger than was generally expected and has led to further calls by TUC to axe the fee system.

Ahead of the Autumn Statement, TUC’s General Secretary Frances O’Grady has derided how the need for payment has shortchanged workers. She remarked that workers are “being priced out of justice” and she is encouraging Theresa May to follow through on her promise to govern Britain under a fair employment law system that will continue throughout her timr as Prime Minister. O’Grady was quoted as calling the fee system May’s: “first real practical test’ and that she should ‘scrap those fees and ensure that all workers have access to justice.”

The TUC is not the only organisation expressing outrage at the current fee system. As recently as June 2016 the Justice Select Committee spoke of how negotiation is desperately needed to establish a fair financial solution to the employment tribunals fee situation . Finding such a solution is long overdue, and in response to the committee, TUC issued a reminder that the Justice Select Committee were due to has still not issued their report into the effect of tribunal fees which was due by the end of 2015. The committee responded by stating that the report will be produced soon.

 The current fee system dictates that all claimants, even those on minimum wage, have to pay the required costs as long as close family member of theirs possesses a savings account totaling at least £3,000. This payment is a mandatory requirement regardless of the required regardless of the Help with Fees plan that the government put in place in 2015 in a bid to reduce the cost for claimants with lower incomes.

Frances O’Grady asserts that the fee system constitutes clear evidence that UK workers are being oppressed: “These fees of up to £1,200, even if you’re on the minimum wage, are pricing out thousands each month from pursuing cases.”

The Ministry of Justice has challenged TUC’s report, reminding them that the fee system was implemented as a response against the £71 costs that tribunal cases were costing the UK taxpayer each year, many of which were regularly proven to be fraudulent.

The figures from TUC detail the extent of the decline since fees were originally introduced in 2013. Tribunal cases involving acts of sex discrimination have dropped 71%, and race discrimination reports have gone down 58%. Additionally, reports of disability discrimination have dropped 54%, and cases on the grounds of unfair dismissal have seen a 73% drop at tribunal.

These declines are certainly not due to improvements in the UK workplace. It’s the result of victims lacking the financial support to speak out; an issue that urgently needs addressing.

Concession Against Discrimination Granted to Social Care Whistleblowers

/in /by

Following a recent government concession, whistleblowers who work in child social care roles will be granted protection against whistleblowing.

The goal of establishing a protection scheme for whistleblowers who seek employment within child social services was initially proposed by the Labour peer Lord Wills, and the plan was quickly sanctioned as part of the Children and Social Work Bill by ministers at its report stage.

This change is the result of ongoing concerns over the existence of a “critical gap” in current legislation that allows workers seeking employment in the sector to not be protected against blacklisting tactics should they have previously undertaken an act of whistleblowing.

Speaking in favour of the plan, Labour peer Baroness Wheeler explained that the importance of this bill is reflected in the fact that job seekers are not technically classed as workers under UK law, and are therefore not defended by existing UK whistleblowing laws.

Wheeler issued a statement as follows: “If an individual is labelled as a whistleblower, it can be difficult for them to get work because they can find themselves blacklisted, not through a formal centralised database but informally.”

Viscount James Younger of Leckie, who voted in favour of the bill, has also voiced support for creating this action for workers: “I agree that those working with the most vulnerable children in society need to be able to report concerns about what is happening in their organization […] Those safeguards would apply to the whole of Great Britain in line with other employment legislation”.

Despite such support the proposed change is not yet being taken any further as suggested by some. Viscount Younger, a Conservative peer in the House of Lords, did not agree to ratify the suggestion of a statutory code of practice for whistleblowing in childcare services to be created. Lord Younger claims such a move is “premature” and not required by the government as of now.

Business minister Margot James expressed approval at the outcome: “I am pleased to have been able to work with Lord Wills and take action to extend employment protections for these workers […] This will put more emphasis on employers to follow best practice and provides greater protection for their workers.”

This beneficial decision for social workers is not the only change to the Children and Social Work bill  to be brought for revision recently in the House of Lords. The suggestion of deleting a Clause 29, a part of the bill that grants ministers the power to maintain current social care legislation for at minimum period of three years, was successfully reviewed earlier this year.

The removal of Clause 29 of the bill was an idea put forwards following complaints that the rigid council social service rules currently in place are too restrictive and deny innovative ideas from being made possible. However, there is much opposition to this change as the ability to make such a change could result in the possibility of further changes that may cause changes to the rights that have been in place to protect children for years.

The cross-party Commons education select committee gave a negative verdict of the bill when presented with it over the summer of 2016, but peers did vote to approve the changes and removed the clause by a 245-213 margin, despite acknowledging that there was not make a persuasive case put forward for why such an alteration is needed.

A revision of whether the clause should be reinstated will now need to be referred to the House of Commons which could result in a decision that could cause tension with the House of Lords should the reversal be decided on.

 

Sacked Director’s Novel Wrongful Dismissal Claim Can Proceed to Trial

/in /by

In a case that broke new legal ground, a former company director has been granted permission to pursue a wrongful dismissal claim in conjunction with unfair prejudice proceedings under Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006.

The man was sole director of a restaurant bookings company that merged with another. He entered into a service agreement with the merged company and agreed to serve as its chief executive officer. He was, however, subsequently dismissed and removed as a director of the company.

He issued a petition under Section 994, claiming that his removal as a director and the issuance of further shares after his departure unfairly prejudiced his position as a minority shareholder. Included in the petition was a claim for lost salary based on an assertion that his dismissal was wrongful.

The company and its majority shareholders applied to have the latter claim struck out on the basis that it was misconceived. The High Court acknowledged that the issue was a novel one and that there was no precedent for a wrongful dismissal claim to be issued in the context of an unfair prejudice petition. However, the Court could identify no objection in principle to that course and allowed the claim to proceed to trial.

Tesco Accused Of Pay Discrimination By Workers

/in /by

Seventeen Tesco employees are taking legal action against the supermarket giant on grounds that the corporation has committed pay discrimination by reducing the pay of workers contracted to work unconventional shifts, such as weekends, bank holidays and nights. This change began in February 2016 following the introduction of a new pay deal that was arranged for Tesco workers based on an agreement with the Shopworkers Trade Union’.

This means that since last July workers of unconventional hours are no longer eligible for the double-time pay they are long accustomed to. The seventeen claimants are all long-term workers employed by the retailer since at least the late 1990s.

The new pay deal of last February provides new benefits for Tesco workers, with a 3.1% pay-rise existing for all employees. Such an alteration means that the average Tesco wage is now £7.62; a change that makes the business one of the most financially lucrative employers in the retail industry.

As many as thirty-eight thousand workers are believed to have seen their pay affected in some way since the change; a figure that Tesco disputes. Although the higher number of Tesco workers with more recent contracts will benefit from the alteration, the issue is that long-serving employees will experience a decrease for this to happen.

Many of them have based their lifestyle and work arrangements to maintain the expectations of their existing pay and a change to this system could bring hardships to these workers, thus causing workplace discrimination. Others simply feel they have earned their favourable pay arrangements due to the long service they have provided, and that their loyalty and dedication is disregarded as a result.

Tesco believes the changes made are fully justified as they were arranged with the involvement of the shopworkers’ trade union. A spokesman for the company released the following statement in response to the recent legal action:

“Earlier this year we announced a pay increase of up to 3.1% for colleagues working in our stores across the UK, in addition to a 5% turnaround bonus. As part of the pay negotiations we also agreed to simplify premium payments to ensure a fair and consistent approach for all colleagues. The minority of colleagues who were negatively impacted by this change were supported with an agreed lump sum transition payment.”

Legal action from employees over fair pay is a burning issue in retail employment right now. Marks & Spencer is currently undergoing a similar form of legal action to Tesco from its employees after the company was accused of causing a reduction in the wages of shop-floor staff who work anti-social hours.

Tattoo Discrimination: Forcing Employees To Cover Up

/in /by

In modern Britain body art is largely viewed as part of mainstream fashion and a lifestyle choice people of all backgrounds choose. The days of tattoos being confined to specific subcultures have long since past. It’s now believed that that 20% of Britons have a tattoo.

However, despite this change in attitude, many employers still have a negative view of body art and prefer their employees to cover up tattoos where possible. Other employers will simply not hire someone with tattoos. This has resulted in a lot of skilled workers, usually of the younger generation, missing out on the employment opportunities they could otherwise achieve.

Margaret Mountford, the revered lawyer and businesswoman known for her appearances on The Apprentice, views employer attitudes towards body art as “a real problem” for young people. This concern is supported by the sheer number of younger people with tattoos, which is now a third of Britons aged below 30.

The exact nature of this employer concern is rooted in the belief that body art is somehow unruly and people with tattoos are somehow less responsible, which in turn reflects badly on a company’s image and shakes client faith in the brand, leading many businesses to request their employees wear clothing concealing their body art.

Employer advice group Acas is currently campaigning to encourage firms to reassess their view of body art and the employee dress codes involved, as well as encouraging employer and employees alike to consider whether forcing body art to be covered is actually a form of workplace discrimination.

Stephen Williams, the Head of Equality at Acas, recognises employer concern over tattoos but feels a fair balance for what is deemed acceptable needs to be undertaken: “Businesses are perfectly within their right to have rules around appearance at work but these rules should be based on the law where appropriate, and the needs of the business, not managers’ personal preferences.”

Williams also believes businesses experience a loss when skilled staff with tattoos are not employed as a result of this so called ‘ink discrimination‘: “A dress code that restricts people with tattoos might mean companies are missing out on talented workers.”

A dismissive attitude towards tattoos in the workplace is by no means a recent occurrence, but it is only now coming under the microscope due to so many British citizens embracing body art and a number of well publicised employment law cases. In 2015 a trainee was sent home on her first day of work because the Catholic School she was teaching at objected to her tattoos.

Many may agree that such employer attitudes are justified if the tattoos in question are an example of extreme body art, but there have been cases where an overreaction is abundantly clear, such as when a business consultant was recently dismissed from her job for having a butterfly tattoo measuring 4cm on her foot.

If tattoos are to be considered a personal form of self-expression, any effort to censor them in the workplace may actually be an act of discrimination. However, this stance leads to further questions of whether there are certain types of tattoos that should be acceptable over others. Is it okay if controversial phrases or symbols are allowed to be displayed if an employee believes in them? Examples of this could include imagery of religious significance to an individual. But what happens if such potentially conversational expression then causes offence to other workers?

Should tattoos perhaps be considered a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010? The rules on body modification as a characteristic are not clearly defined, but if a single set of rules were enforced for all businesses there would certainly be some industries seeking stricter criteria while others prefer a more relaxed approach. A lot of discussion on the subject is yet needed.

Will The Gender Pay Gap Last Until 2069?

/in /by

A shocking new report produced by the accountancy firm Deloitte has revealed that the gender pay gap between men and women could last until 2069 due to the gap continually widening yet only decreasing at a rate of 2.5p per year. This means the current £1.30 average difference in hourly rates will not close until the year 2069. This will be almost a century after the 1970 the Equal Pay Act was first introduced to assist equal pay between the genders.

Although the pay gap is now at a record low, the current gap finds female employees paid at a rate of 9.4% behind their male colleagues. This discrepancy in pay is often in place from the moment women enter the workplace, as nine out of ten of the most popular graduate careers see men paid a higher starting salary over women.

Deloitte bases its analysis on official figures and data sourced from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, which records that the health sector ranks as a large pay gap offender as female employees experience a 14% pay gap of around £4,000. Female graduates receive an £24,000 average wage as a starting salary for health care positions while men get £28,000.

The report produced no evidence to support the notion that a pay gap exits in regards to graduate salaries for careers within STEM industries (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). These industries generally offer a balanced salary between men and women, although women make up only 14.4% of the workforce in these sectors.

There are a significantly lower number of female graduates seeking work in these sectors, and disappointingly 70% of female graduates who possess a STEM qualification are not actively working in industries that correspond to subject of their degree. The Deloitte report is urging UK schools and businesses to encourage young women to study for degrees that can lead to a career in which the pay gap is lower, especially within STEM related roles.

The Fawcett Society’s Head of Policy, Jemima Olchawski, feels the continuing low level of skilled female workers employed in STEM roles is having a negative effect on the whole UK workforce: “At the current rate of progress young women starting work today will have retired by the time we close the gender pay gap. None of us can afford to wait that long”.

The report’s findings have already provoked strong reactions from leading Trade Union members. Frances O’ Grady, the General Secretary of TUC, sees the Deloitte analysis as part of wide-reaching government mistakes that fail to correctly assist women in the workplace: “We need action on the pay and quality of part-time work, flexible work opportunities, affordable childcare, and more independent paid leave for fathers”.

Pro-remain MPs Seek To Continue EU Employment Law In Britain

/in /by

A new cross-party group named ‘Vote Leave Watch’ has been set up by pro-EU MPs in an effort to convince Theresa May to sanction employment law legislation that gives UK workers to maintain certain rights they’ve enjoyed under EU law regardless of the potential change that Brexit may bring.

Labour MP Chuka Umunna, Chair of the Vote Leave Watch group, has expressed his fear that worker rights will ‘fall away’ should effective support not be implemented prior to Britain formally leaving the European Union. Umunna wrote to the PM arguing that she should continue supporting EU employment law: “You owe it to the working people of Britain to make clear that the pledges made by your cabinet colleagues to retain EU legislation on workers’ rights will be delivered”.

Vote Leave Watch wants to prioritise certain aspects of EU Law, namely those laws that relate to employee annual leave and break times. The party firmly believes that worker rights can be preserved if new UK legislation incorporating current EU laws is officially passed into law, such as the working time directive.

The party also plans to convince the government to undertake an audit of every occasion when the European Court of Justice passed a decision in support of legal employment rights for UK workers. This data will be reviewed with the possibility of making such past rulings an official part of UK law beyond EU regulations.

In addition to the efforts of Vote leave Watch, other organisations have spoken of their concern at UK workers losing certain working rights after Brexit. USDAW union General Secretary, John Hannett, spoke of his support for EU legislation which he believes has helped British workers against “discrimination, unscrupulous bosses, and the worst excesses of Tory governments”.

Hannett has made an appeal directly to Theresa May, in which he states: “The prime minister came to office talking a good game about standing up for working people. She should guarantee that every single right for workers delivered by the European Union will stay in place.”

Employment Opportunities Unfairly Denied To Muslim Women

/in /by

A report issued by the Commons Women and Equalities Committee has revealed how Muslim women in Britain regularly suffer discrimination in the workplace by seeing their opportunities limited as a result of assumptions being made about their lifestyle and character.

The report records how MPs believe UK employers regard their behaviour as an “acceptable form of discrimination” after such assumptions have gone unchallenged for so long. The report conducted its enquiry with the help of race relation experts and included input by Muslim students in London.

The chair of the Commons Women and Equalities Committee, Maria Miller, states how the findings of the report reflect a larger attitude in which it is “seen as acceptable to discriminate against Muslim women”. She finds this attitude troubling and asserts how “you can’t have some women more equal than others”.

The result of this investigation is expected to begin a more detailed discussion regarding the working experiences of Islamic women. Miller elaborates: “There is a distinct level of institutional racism that is being endured by Muslim women and we must be open about that.”

Another finding of the report is that in order to increase workplace promotion, some women have ceased wearing traditional Islamic dress despite very much wanting to do so. Many women also report that on some occasions they have felt a duty to reveal information about their personal lives, such as whether they are married or have children. The reason behind the need for such information is largely reflected by the stereotype of Muslim women being expected to act subordinately to their husbands and consider the duty of raising children before focusing on their career.

Another discriminatory circumstance found by the report is that employed Muslim women are denied work assignments that require them to travel. Unfair treatment like this is often considered justified by employers because such work involves a degree of independence that Muslim culture is incorrectly seen to not “allow” for women.

Previous attempts to prevent job application discrimination against minorities resulted in the proposal of ‘name blind’ applications in which candidate identity is not revealed. This is done in the hope that the whole process will prevent lifestyle assumptions being made when the name of a candidate is seen.

The report also highlights wider issues of employment affecting the British Muslim community in a more general way, including how Muslim unemployment has reached a level that is more than double the rate of other UK workers. MPs consider these results to be a reflection of a long held societal division between British Muslims and wider society. This is partly due to a fear of Muslim radicalisation in British society, which the report records as having “exacerbated” the inequality experienced, and thus increased tensions.

Shock Study Reveals 50% of Women Suffer Workplace Sexual Harassment

/in /by

A shock recent study researched jointly between the TUC (Trade Unions Congress) and the Everyday Sexism Project has discovered that 52% of women in the UK workplace have experienced an incident of sexual harassment. A third of the women polled for this study also experienced uninvited sexual comments, and a quarter of them spoke of an instance which involved an act of unwanted touching. The study also revealed that most women did not report the episode to a administrative body at their place of work.

Woman-abuse2

The TUC is calling the report the biggest sexual harassment study for a generation. Laura Bates, the founder of the Everyday Sexism project, has expressed how serious the findings are:

This research shows there’s a huge gap between that perception and the reality of what women are facing. […] Many people would like to think that workplace sexual harassment was a thing of the past, in reality it is alive and well, and having a huge impact on tens of thousands of women’s lives.”

One of the causes of sexual harassment incidents going unreported to relevant authorities is that women are not confident they will be taken seriously. 24% of the women interviewed who have personally experienced this disclosing a lack of confidence as their reason. Furthermore, 15% of women spoke of feeling scared at the possibility that speaking out would have repercussions for their future career prospects, and 28% fear a disclosure might hurt their relationship with fellow colleagues. For 20% of women, the reason for staying silent is the embarrassment that a disclosure would cause.

The nature of sexual harassment goes far beyond an actual physical attack, which 1% of women said they experienced. An act of sexual harassment constitutes subtler behaviour that other members of staff may not detect, including comments of a sexual nature and inappropriate hugging, both directly or indirectly.

The TUC report has also brought to light reveals some of the employment scenarios through which sexual harassment is allowed to take place. It is especially prevalent in situations where women receive career benefits like flexible working and training opportunities, as this could lead to women being taken advantage of in exchange for such bonuses.

Woman-abuse3The statistics of the survey also found that 17% of cases were perpetrated by the victim’s line manager or equivalent authority. Such behaviour is detailed as being possible due to hidden ‘power dynamics at play’ between bosses and employees.

The report also concluded that younger women aged between 18-24 are most likely to experience harassment. A total of 63% of the 130 women in this age bracket interviewed for the report claimed an experience of harassment.

Younger women are more likely to be on zero hour contracts, employed in junior roles, and working through temp agencies. The TUC believes these types of employment scenarios are factors that contribute towards harassing behaviour.

Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the TUC, spoke to Radio 4’s The Today Show about her concern at the findings. She explained that many women decline to report harassment due to being ‘ashamed and frightened’ by the experience: “It makes us miserable at work where we just want to do our job and be respected.”

She also challenged the weak response that inappropriate comments are just ‘a bit of banter’ which female workers should not let affect them personally:
“How many times do we still hear that sexual harassment in the workplace is just a bit of ‘banter’? Let’s be clear – sexual harassment is undermining, humiliating and can have a huge effect on mental health … It has no place in a modern workplace, or in wider society.”

The results of the report have already influenced Labour Party MPs to back TUC agenda arguing for the reinstatement of parts of the Equality Act that would force employers to greater liability in harassment cases. Moreover, the TUC is also campaigning for the government to end the employment tribunal fees that employees must pay before a hearing can be granted, as it is believed the charges are discouraging women from seeking legal action. Some of these fees can be as high as £1,200.

The government has made a statement giving it’s own reaction to the report: “No one should experience harassment or abuse of any kind in the workplace [..] Section 40 has not been scrapped and any employee who experiences harassment is protected by the Equality Act – regardless of who the perpetrator is.”

 

 

 

Deliveroo Workers Must Pay All Employment Tribunal Costs

/in /by

A recent investigation into the employment criteria of the popular restaurant food delivery service Deliveroo revealed there is a shocking clause in the company’s contracts for self employed workers which prevents them from receiving the same employment rights of other employees.

The Guardian is reporting that the company’s cyclist employees are not legally entitled to bring Deliveroo to employment tribunal unless they they pay for all the expenses the company occurs in the process.

The Deliveroo contract reportedly words this rule as follows: “You further warrant that neither you nor anyone acting on your behalf will present any claim in the employment tribunal or any civil court in which it is contended that you are either an employee or a worker.”

Deliveroo wages are also under the microscope as they are considered barely satisfactory as each employee earns just £7 an hour, with an additional £1 for each delivery they make. This barely reaches minimum wage.

Moreover, it appears there are few other benefits available for self-employed Deliveroo workers who are also expected to pay their own national insurance. The business has been very successful since its founding in 2010 and is estimated to have generated around £158 million in revenue thus far.

The legality of making workers pay for tribunal costs has its roots in 2013 alterations that resulted in employees being held responsible for all costs accrued at tribunal should their claim prove unsuccessful. However, many legal professionals are claiming that Deliveroo’s current position is unlawful and is actually just an effort to to intimidate workers and deter them from legal action.

Deliveroo is already experiencing a backlash for these rules. The company has released the following statement: “We provide a platform for people to work with us on a freelance basis. This allows riders to work flexibly around another commitment, like studying or other work. We’ve worked with legal experts to design our contracts to reflect that and we’re proud to be creating opportunities for over 5,000 riders across the UK.”

Deliveroo is not the only service-based company currently being analysed. There has also been much focus on how drivers of the taxi-hailing mobile app Uber are currently locked in a court case against the company in the hope of adding greater employment rights to their contract, such as a standard living wage, sick payments and a pension scheme.

Delivery firm contracts were scrutinised earlier this year when The Guardian investigated Hermes courier service, which was revealed to be paying many of its workers below national minimum wage despite the company’s claim to the contrary.

The Hermes analysis recently became a political affair after Birkenhead MP Frank Field officially requested for Theresa May to launch a review of existing legislation for self-employment contracts so that British workers easily understand the legality of self employment contracts, thus preventing exploitive conduct occurring.

Whether the situation involving Deliveroo and Uber will turn into a investigation like that of Hermes remains to be seen.