Menu

When should you provide a written statement of employment terms and conditions?

A revolutionary case could alter the rules surrounding the timescale employers have in providing their employees with a written statement of their terms and conditions of work.  It is believed that the impact will be more for those with a high turnover of staff and will require greater organisation from HR departments.

When you are employing an individual you have certain legal obligations to comply with, take a look at the information we have available on our website in relation to employment contracts and terms and conditions, here

The current legal stance on providing a statement of terms and conditions to employees.

The Employment Rights Act 1996 states that employers must provide a written statement on the terms and conditions of an employee’s work within two months of the work commencing.  A recent case has challenged this and the tribunal ruled that hotel staff were in fact entitled to a statement of rights after the first month of work.

Background details of the Statement of Terms and Conditions Case

The three employees were recruited as waiting staff for a hotel. They were each employed in close succession to one other and a few months later, in July 2016, were all dismissed when they objected to persistent shortfalls in their wages, late payment and falsification of their wage slips.

As a result of their dismissal the three individuals brought the hotel before an Employment Tribunal claiming that they were not given terms and conditions of employment at any time during or after their employment with the hotel.

The tribunal ruled that the hotel had indeed failed to provide this statement for two of the three claimants and that these two had been unfairly dismissed, as a result of this ruling they were awarded an amount equal to four weeks’ pay.

The third individual was not deemed eligible because she had only been employed by the hotel for six weeks and this is where the rules become blurred.

Two months is the amount of time given by section 1(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for an employer to provide a statement on the terms and conditions of an employee’s work. However, section 2(6) of the Employment Rights Act says the right to a statement of employment particulars exists even if a person’s employment ends before the two months period is up.

With this in mind, the third claimant was in fact entitled to a statement and her claim was awarded.

A reinterpretation of the rules surrounding the provision of a statement of terms and conditions

This reinterpretation of the law is deemed revolutionary and essentially says that employees are entitled to have a statement of their employment particulars after one month, and the further month is a grace period for employers to provide this. The consequences of this for employers and HR departments generally are minimal however the impact may be more significant for industries such a hospitality and retail who are subjected to much higher staff turnover. It would simply require employers to be more adept in getting statements to employee’s in timely manner which will initially require changes to processes and procedures.

Employers should be careful about dismissing an employer for ‘exercising or trying to exercise their statutory right to a written statement of particulars’ as it is automatically unfair dismissal, with no minimum service required.

Employment Law support from Lawson West Solicitors

If you have any questions in relation to the issues raised in this article or would like to know more about the rules surrounding employment terms and conditions, do not hesitate to contact us.  Our employment team is highly skilled and qualified, with years of experience in dealing with the legal requirements set out for employers.  For more information and to arrange an appointment with a member of our employment law team, simply complete our online form or call us on 0116 212 100.

With offices in Market Harborough, Leicester and Wigston, you can arrange to meet us at any of these locations. We look forward to hearing from you and being of assistance.

 

This document is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is recommended that specific professional advice is sought before action on any of the information given.

 

 

Divorce Law in 2018 – What did we learn?

2019 is well under way so I thought I would reflect on some of the important events that occurred in Divorce law during the course of 2018.

The Divorce Day Myth

The year began with ‘Divorce Day’ in January, a myth perpetuated by the media. Although many family lawyers have busy times where demand is a little higher than normal (usually January and September) there is no mad rush to get divorced in the New Year. Most of the clients I advise do not decide to get divorced because it’s a Monday or because it’s the New Year.  They have usually been considering their situation for some time and have simply delayed taking action before Christmas to avoid spoiling an otherwise happy time.

Divorce Statistics

Later in January came the release of the latest statistics concerning Divorce.  Some of the key findings were:

  • About 42% of marriages will end in divorce and around half of those divorces will be in the first 10 years of marriage.
  • The average age at divorce was 46.1 years for men and 43.7 years for women.
  • Divorce rates were highest among men aged 45 to 49 and among women aged 30 to 39. This reflects the fact that women generally marry men older than themselves.
  • The majority of divorces in 2016 were petitioned by the wife (61%).
  • The most common ground for divorce was unreasonable behavior, with 36% of all husbands and 51% of all wives petitioning for divorce on these grounds.

These figures do not include divorce of same sex marriages.

Defining ‘Unreasonable Behaviour’ on grounds for Divorce

In May the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, heard an appeal in the Divorce case of Owens v Owenswhere a wife was attempting to divorce her husband on the basis of his unreasonable behaviour in circumstances where the lower court had refused to allow the divorce to go ahead. Mr Owens opposed the divorce and the court was asked to decide what amounts to unreasonable behaviour for the purposes of proving the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage. When the judgement was decided, the court declined the wife’s appeal, meaning the parties must remain married. The court appeared to reach their decision somewhat reluctantly and invited Parliament to consider changing the law.

Civil Partnerships for Heterosexual Couples

In June, Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan won their legal bid for the right to have a civil partnership instead of a marriage.  The court decided that the current law is “incompatible” with human rights laws on discrimination and the right to a private and family life.   Same-sex couples have two options, civil partnerships and civil marriages, whereas heterosexual partners have only one option, marriage. Prime Minister Theresa May officially announced on 2 October 2018 that civil partnerships will be extended to heterosexual couples.

Financial mis-management consequences

In July Supreme Court ruled that a divorced husband should not have to increase payments to his ex-wife after she mismanaged her finances following their split.

Mrs Mills had applied to the court to increase the periodical payments (maintenance) her husband had been ordered to pay her. Although she had a big enough settlement to buy a property she ended up living in rented property which she could no longer afford without increased maintenance from Mr Mills.  This result followed recent judicial thinking that divorce should not constitute a meal ticket for life.  It also highlighted the importance of getting a financial clean break to avoid becoming involved in lengthy and expensive court proceedings.

Divorce Law Reforms

The government launched a consultation on reforming the legal requirements for divorce. The purpose of the government’sproposed reforms was to remove “fault” and focus on supporting spouses to make arrangements for the future. The consultation ran from 15 September 2018 to 10 December 2018.  The outcome and a possible change in the law are eagerly awaited.

Cohabiting Couples

The myth of common law marriage was very much on the agenda in 2018.  Following a campaign by Resolution, the national association of family lawyers, pressure has been maintained on government to reform the law on cohabiting couples to address the lack of rights for couples who live together outside of marriage.  A change in the law is still awaited but the campaign will continue.

Divorce Law and Brexit

Brexit was a highly debated topic throughout 2018 and in  December the Ministry of Justice published the draft Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which will come into force if there is no Brexit deal. The Regulations ensure there is a functioning statute book if the UK exits the EU without agreement on civil judicial co-operation in family law.

Looking Ahead at 2019

….  And finally, it has been announced this month that Jeff Bezos, boss of Amazon and reputedly the world’s richest man and his wife of 25 years, Mackenzie are to divorce. Will she get 50% of his assets? Watch this space.

2019 is set to be a landmark year for Divorce Law, so I’ll be keeping up to date with all of the latest news and developments with regards to the divorce law reforms, the legal rights for cohabiting couples and introduction of Civil Partnerships for heterosexual couples and will keep you posted!

If you require any legal advice with regards to divorce and separation, contact Lawson West Solicitors today on 0116 212 1000 and arrange an appointment with a member of my team today, alternatively email me directly via jhaworth@lawson-west.co.uk.

 

This document is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is recommended that specific professional advice is sought before acting on any of the information given.

The complexity of Banter in the Workplace

‘It was just a bit of banter’ is a phrase often banded around the workplace, but when does a bit of banter become something more serious? Many people consider the term to imply that something offensive has been said or done whilst others consider it to be playful and jokey. Something said in gest by one person can be taken in an entirely different way by another, there is a fine line between the two and it can be difficult to distinguish right from wrong.

Our latest article looks into the complexity of ‘banter’ in the workplace.

Whilst it is important to have a healthy amount of workplace fun and interaction it is important that the balance is correct for a professional environment. When ‘banter’ is taken too far, there can be far reaching consequences and for employers it is important to make employees aware of these.

What does the law say about banter in the workplace?

The Equality Act 2010 states that employees can bring claims of discrimination and harassment against their employer in circumstances where they have been on the receiving end of, or even have simply overheard instances of ‘banter’ that they consider having overstepped the mark and is offensive.

If a claim is successful it can be costly for the employer both economically and reputationally.  

It is advisable therefore that employers set out guidance with regards to the way behaviour of this nature will be tolerated and if abused how it will be dealt with. Providing employees with this information from the outset means everyone is informed of the same rules and no one can claim ignorance.

A recent example demonstrating the complexity of banter in the workplace

A claim that was recently brought to the Employment Appeal Tribunal highlighted the true complexity of ‘banter’ in the workplace. It was a very interesting case because it contained a number of varying factors that affected the outcome of the case.

Unlike other claims brought to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, this incident required the wider working environment to be considered in relation to the claim rather than solely the individuals involved. Background context is key, and a culture of ‘banter’ can, in the right circumstances help to explain potentially discriminatory conduct.

In this case the claimant was a sales representative for the respondent working in an open plan office space where ‘banter’ formed part of the culture.  The claimant was a male who suffered from a number of health complaints including Type 1 Diabetes, he had links to the travelling community although only one colleague was aware of this and was a member of a sales team that collectively failed to hit target month on month.  There were a number of instances where he was name called and was involved with the name calling of others too.

He was dismissed for poor performance. Although the claimant did not have the length of service to claim for unfair dismissal, he did bring claims relating to discrimination on the basis of disability and/or race, including claims for discrimination arising from disability, direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation. These claims arose from several name-calling instances he was on the receiving of. He alleged that he was disciplined and eventually dismissed for raising such treatment as an issue. 

The tribunal dealt simply with the claims for discrimination as there was insufficient evidence to proceed with any of the other allegations. The legal guidance states that in order to succeed in such a claim, the claimant must be able to demonstrate that they have been subjected to unwanted conduct relating to a protected characteristic (such as race, gender, age, etc.), and that the unwanted conduct had the purpose or effect of violating the individual’s dignity; or creating an intimidating or hostile working environment.

In considering this test, the tribunal determined that the respondent’s office culture was one where teasing and banter was common. It was also considered relevant that the claimant only reported the name calling after the performance process had begun.  This combination of finding lead to the claimant losing his case.

What can we learn from this case?

There are several learnings to be taken from this example. Firstly, is the notion that an individual must meet the eligibility criteria set out in order to be able to make a claim. Recording and reporting instances of harassment and discrimination should be done in a timely manner after the incident has taken place, if it is historic like in this case it might not be looked on as favourably. Evidence is key. Making a claim with regards to a disability can be difficult to prove, in this case the claimant was unable to prove that his health conditions were linked to his weight gain and this meant his disability discrimination claim was dropped.  Finally there is the wider context to consider, if this culture is widely accepted in the workplace and the individual has been party to instances of ‘banter’ in the past, it is difficult to rule that the employer is wrongful because the whole team contribute to the overall culture.

Banter in the workplace from an employer’s perspective

Of course Employers should not feel that such an office culture is acceptable or that the decision in the case above gives the go ahead to offensive behaviour in the workplace. The factual background of this example, with only very tenuous potential links made to protected characteristics and clear evidence that the claimant was a willing participant in similar behaviour, will certainly not always be possible to duplicate in future cases.

It is still, by far, the safest route for employers to ensure that their workplace environment is professional, respectful and free of offensive behaviour in order to limit any such instances themselves.

Employment Law advice from Lawson West Solicitors      

Whether you are an employee or employer and have any concerns relating to any of the issues raised in this article, our employment team is more than willing to help and can allay any fears you may have in connection to this topic or anything else relating to employment law.

It is important for individuals to remember you only have three months from the date of dismissal to make a claim. Our employment team can discuss the individual circumstances surrounding your case and advise you on the best actions to take.

The team offers employment drop-in appointments throughout the week.  With offices in Market Harborough, Leicester and Wigston, you can arrange an appointment at a location to suit you. Simply call 0116 212 1000 or complete our online contact form today.

This document is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is recommended that specific professional advice is sought before acting on any of the information given.

 

New Year, New Will?

A survey done around this time last year showed that around 66% of adults do not have a Will, and another undertaken by Macmillan showed that around 42% of over 55 year olds don’t have Wills. The new year is full of resolutions and is a great time to get finances in order, home improvements sorted and the important jobs you keep putting off, done. If you haven’t got around to writing your Will make it your job for the new year!

Whatever the reason, it cannot be disputed that dying “intestate” (without a Will), is extremely risky. Your estate is left to the people designated by law, which is not always the people you would suspect or personally choose. At Lawson West Solicitors we come across an array of circumstances in relation to Wills and below are a selection of case studies (names have been changed) we have experienced, where intestacy would seem to be a completely illogical solution.

How does having a will protect my disabled child?

Mr and Mrs Smith have 3 children, Amy, 43, Bea, 41, and Charles, 39. Amy and Bea are married and are independently wealthy. Charles suffers from severe autism and is unable to live independently. He has always lived and been cared for by Mr & Mrs Smith. If Mr and Mrs Smith die without a Will Amy, Bea and Charles each inherit 1/3 of the estate however Charles would loses his means tested benefits and is not guaranteed a home. With a Will, Mr & Mrs Smith could provide Charles with the right to live in the house for life and make provisions that would mean he would not lose his entitlement to benefits.

What does it mean for my unmarried partner if I don’t have a write a will?

Mr Grey & Miss Doe have lived together for 15 years. Mr Grey bought the property before he met Miss Doe, and it is in his name. Miss Doe has always paid towards the mortgage. Mr Grey dies without a Will. Miss Doe does not inherit, nor has any right to remain in the property. With a Will, Mr Grey could have left the house to Miss Doe.

What happens to my will if my parents are divorced?

Mr Brown’s parents divorced when he was 10, after a long disagreement about finances. Mr Brown lived with his father and became estranged from his mother. Mr Brown and his father die in a car accident a few years later. As Mr Brown is younger than his father, he inherits his father’s money, and then it passes to Mr Brown’s mother. With a Will, Mr Brown (and his father) could have protected against this.

I want to leave my estate to my chosen Charity.

Mrs Jones dies, a widow, at the age of 86. Since she was 18, she has donated on a monthly basis to Cancer Research UK. Mrs Jones has no children. She wanted her entire estate to pass to Cancer Research on her death, but never got round to making a Will. As Mrs Jones has no family, her wealth passes to the Crown.

Writing your will with Lawson West Solicitors

If having read these real-life examples and been able to identify with any of the scenarios, it is time to stop putting off writing your will.  If you are unsure about where to begin or what it needs to include, call Lawson West Solicitor’s Wills and Probate Team and arrange to meet one of our specialist lawyers on 0116 212 1000 or by contacting us here for free, “no strings attached” advice.  

This document is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is recommended that specific professional advice is sought before acting on any of the information given.