New rights for agency workers
Employers are warned to review their use of and arrangements with agency workers, following an EU deal to give agency workers new rights.
EU agreement was reached in June following a deal in the UK between the CBI and the TUC. It means that after a 12-week period of engagement, UK agency workers will have the same pay, holidays and other working conditions, such as overtime and breaks, as directly recruited staff. It is estimated that these plans to extend equal rights will affect approximately 1.4 million agency staff currently employed in the UK. It is likely that legislation implementing these changes will take force next year.
Employers who use agency workers need to keep a close eye on this development, as it is likely to have a significant impact on costs and may greatly affect the decision to use agency workers.
Employment tribunal claims on the up
The Tribunals Service has issued its Annual Report which shows that:
- The number of ET applications received in 2007-08 were 189,300- 42% higher than expected due to the large number of multiple claims
- 86,237 claims were disposed of
- 79% of ET cases were heard within six months of receipt
- 88% of written decisions were issued within four weeks of the hearing.
Restaurateurs hit by new National Minimum Wage plans
Employers are to be outlawed from using tips and service charges to “top up” workers wages in order to meet the National Minimum Wage under proposals announced by the Government.
The changes to the minimum wage rules, which are expected to take force in 2009, will mainly affect the restaurant industry in which tipping is commonplace. Many employers in the industry currently divert service charges and tips into their “takings” and use the takings to pay the workers the minimum wage.
As expected the plans have met with the approval of the trade unions who have called for years for the tipping loophole in the minimum wage laws to be closed. The impact of the new rules will be that there will be greater transparency for the customer as to how the tip or service charge they pay has been distributed and arguably a fairer deal for workers in what is a low paid industry. However, hard hit restaurateurs are likely to argue a different case, claiming that they have already been hit considerably by the current economic climate and the high price of food and raw materials, and that this plan provides yet another hammer blow to their attempts to survive the so-called credit crunch.
The current minimum wage is £5.52, and this will increase to £5.73 on 1 October this year.
Illegal Firms named and shamed
Employers are warned that if they are caught employing illegal immigrants they will be named and shamed in an attempt to crack down on “people smuggling”.
The Home Office will start publishing details of Companies and directors who have been fined for hiring illegal employees. The UK Border Agency Website will publish details relating to the number of illegal immigrants employed by the Company and the fine imposed.
It is estimated that there are currently 500,000 illegal residents in the UK. Therefore, employers should be aware that the Home Office is making a concerted effort to focus their effort to crack down on larger organised enterprises rather than smaller establishments.
Further, offending employers can face criminal prosecution and fines of up to £10,000 per illegal worker.
Employers should make efforts to ensure that when recruiting they carry out all the necessary checks and obtain copies of all documentary evidence proving the worker’s right to reside and work in the UK.
Baldness not a disability
On a lighter note those of you who are follically challenged may be saddened to hear that baldness is not considered to be a disability under the DDA 1995! In a slightly bizarre case, a retired school teacher who claimed that he had suffered harassment as a result of his alleged disability lost his claim of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The teacher who is bald believed that his baldness was an impairment which had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to do his job!
The teacher complained that the disability had a detrimental effect on his ability to carry out his job as he was teased and bullied by pupils.
The tribunal judge dismissed the claim on the following basis, "if baldness was to be regarded as an impairment then perhaps a physical feature such as a big nose, Sbig ears or being smaller than average height might of themselves be regarded as an impairment under the DDA. That, to me, cannot be right looking to the DDA, the guidance and relevant case law."
Oh well, better luck next time!!