UK: Employment Update - February 2013

Last Updated: 28 February 2013
Article by Michael Powner

Welcome to our latest employment update. This month we reflect on the impact of the recent ECHR decision on an individual's right to manifest their religious beliefs, focus on some recent conduct cases and look ahead to changes in 2013.

European Court of Human Rights provides guidance on competing discrimination rights

In the recent cases of Eweida & Others v The United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) had to examine whether the UK Government had taken sufficient steps to protect the Article 9 rights (to manifest their religious beliefs) of four individuals employed in the UK. All four claimants had lost their cases in the UK Courts against their employers for breach of the religious discrimination provisions. All four were Christians: Ms Eweida and Ms Chaplin were not permitted to wear crosses at work, Ms Ladele was a Registrar who did not want to perform same sex civil partnerships and Mr McFarlane was a counsellor for Relate who did not want to provide counselling for same sex couples.

The ECHR ruled that BA worker, Nadia Eweida's rights were infringed by the ban on her wearing a cross at work. In a majority Judgment, the ECHR decided her wearing of a cross did not impact on the interests of others and there was no evidence of the damage to the corporate image (which was the interest BA were seeking to protect) as Ms Eweida maintained a professional image at all times. The ECHR found therefore that the domestic courts gave too much sway to BA's aim, and did not do enough to protect Ms Eweida's rights. The Court noted that BA subsequently amended its uniform policy to allow for the visible wearing of religious symbolic jewellery and found that this "demonstrates that the earlier prohibition was not of crucial importance".

In the three other cases, the Christian applicants lost their claims. The ECHR found that as a nurse, Ms Chaplin's desire to wear a cross had to be balanced with the clinical judgment of her employer that it posed a potential risk (patients could grab it, spread germs etc). The ECHR agreed that hospital managers were well placed to make decisions about clinical safety and so the UK Courts had weighed the health and safety issue here correctly. Both Ms Ladele and Mr MacFarlane's interests had to be balanced with the convention rights of others (relating to sexual orientation) and the UK Courts had a wide margin to do this. The ECHR found that they acted within the discretion available.

The Judgment was a sensible one highlighting the balancing act that has to take place when different convention rights compete in different factual scenarios. One right does not automatically trump others.

Opinion Piece - David Green

A measured approach to religious Discrimination

Following the recent decisions in the European Court of Human Rights ("ECHR"), there has been much speculation in the press about what those decisions mean to the Christian faith. Views range from continued persecution of Christians as against other faiths to Christianity Fights Back. The subject of religious discrimination is always emotive. However, one needs to look behind that emotion and actually analyse what the ECHR decided. When analysed, good old fashion common sense prevails.

The ECHR were hearing four appeals, but only one of those appeals was successful. The press obviously focused on the successful case, Eweida. Why was that case successful? It was successful because British Airways' response was disproportionate. The only consequence for Nadia Eweida wishing to wear her cross was that she was in breach of the uniform code. However, if you look at the decisions relating to the other three claims, then there were good reasons why the employers had reached these. In the Chaplin case, she failed because there were health and safety reasons why a nurse should not wear a cross with a chain which, when thought about, are obvious. The employer had also sought to offer alternatives. In the other two cases, the ECHR again considered that the employers had justified their responses.

What is therefore clear is that each case will depend on its facts and will need to balance the religious views of the Claimant against the proportionate response of the employer.

Shortly after the ECHR cases, there was a UK Judgment which found that a Christian care worker had no right to take a Sunday off. This case was again very fact specific and the Judge made clear he was not laying down a principle that taking Sunday off was not core to Christianity. Those who cry foul on the legislation, need always to look behind the headlines. All employers face a difficult balancing act and the ECHR cases confirm that employers just need to ensure that they use common sense.

Focus: 2013 - a year of change

February 2013

  • Increase in compensatory limit for unfair dismissal to £74,200
  • Increase in a week's pay for the purpose of calculating a basic award and statutory redundancy pay to £450.

March 2013

  • Repeal of the third party harassment provisions and discrimination questionnaires in the Equality Act 2010.

April 2013

  • It is anticipated that the new concept of "employee owner" will be introduced whereby employees give up certain employment rights (such as unfair dismissal and redundancy pay) in return for £2,000 or more of shares in the business which will be exempt from CGT (the CGT exemption applies up to £50,000).
  • Whistleblowing provisions change to require a "public interest requirement". This prevents claims relating to personal employment contracts.
  • New Employment Tribunal Rules to come into force.
  • Collective redundancy consultation period involving 100 or more employees reduced from 90 to 45 days and employees whose fixed term contracts are due to expire will be excluded from consultation requirements.

Summer 2013

  • Fees to be introduced into the Employment Tribunals.
  • The unfair dismissal compensatory award will be capped at the lower of one year's gross pay and the existing limit.
  • Pre-termination negotiations to be inadmissible in unfair dismissal proceedings.
  • It is anticipated that model Settlement Agreements will be introduced along with standard letters and a new ACAS Code of Practice on settlement.
  • Financial penalties for breach by an employer which has "one or more aggravating features" to be introduced. Minimum of £100 up to £5,000. The penalty will be reduced by 50% if paid within 21 days.

Expected 2013

  • Mandatory pre-claim ACAS conciliation to be introduced.
  • Enhanced shareholder rights regarding directors' remuneration.
  • EAT judges to sit alone.

Case Update

Misconduct Issues in the Spotlight

If employee's honesty at stake - a higher standard of investigation may be required

In Stuart v London City Airport the dismissal of an employee for theft was held to be unfair where the employer had failed to carry out a full investigation which might have proved the employee was innocent.

Mr Stuart, who worked at London City Airport and had an unblemished record, was accused of stealing goods from a duty free shop. In deciding to dismiss, his employer took into account a written statement by the member of staff who claimed to have witnessed him leaving the shop with items concealed beneath his coat. However, it only heard oral evidence from the employee's manager who had not actually seen what had happened, and it did not examine the available CCTV footage. The employer concluded he had left the shop boundary without paying for the items. Mr Stuart explained he had gone to speak to a colleague who had called him over while he was queuing, he had not hidden the items and he thought he was still within the general shop area. The EAT held that the gravity of the allegation and the failure by the employer to look into Mr Stuart's explanation, check the CCTV footage or hear the evidence of the actual witnesses, meant the employer could not be said to have conducted a reasonable investigation and the dismissal was unfair.

Key Points

  • Where an employee's integrity is in question, a higher level of investigation is required to establish their guilt in order for a fair dismissal to be proved
  • Where the employee raises a plausible defence, ensure that this is investigated properly.

Approach to previous warnings when deciding whether to dismiss

In Wincanton v Stone and anor the EAT gave some useful guidance to tribunals on what they should take into account in respect of previous warnings where the employee is subsequently dismissed for further misconduct, which is not gross misconduct.

Key Points

  • Where there is a valid warning in place i.e. it was not given in bad faith and is not inappropriate, the tribunal should take account of the fact of the warning.
  • It should take account of any proceedings which might affect the validity of the warning such as an internal appeal.
  • A tribunal is not permitted to go behind a valid warning and hold that a lesser sanction should have been applied.
  • The tribunal should take into account how the employer has treated other employees in similar circumstances - therefore ensure consistency in treatment unless there are good reasons for departing from this.
  • The tribunal should take into account the factual circumstances giving rise to the first warning, for example, the degree of similarity or dissimilarity with the later disciplinary issue.
  • A final written warning always implies that further misconduct will be met with dismissal unless there are exceptional reasons or the terms of the contract provide otherwise.

If dismissing for misconduct ensure it is clear what has been taken into account

In Nejjary v Aramark , Mr Nejjary was dismissed for gross misconduct. He worked in hospitality and his dismissal was for failing to check a booking event sheet as a result of which he did not run the event properly. A Tribunal found his dismissal was fair because although it was not reasonable to dismiss for this one incident, he had a poor employment record.

On appeal, the EAT found that the Tribunal had applied the wrong test. It could only look at the actual reason for dismissal. If the employer had not taken his wider employment record into account, then neither should the Tribunal. His unfair dismissal claim was therefore successful.

Key Point

  • When considering dismissing for misconduct, ensure that all the relevant factors in the decision-making process are expressly taken into account.

Is it fair to discipline an employee twice for the same offence?

The Court of Appeal will be considering this question this month in Christou and anor v London Borough of Haringey . This case involved the fairly unusual facts surrounding the death of Baby P and the subsequent dismissal of two social workers involved. These employees were originally given written warnings but a new management team took a different view and instigated further disciplinary hearings as a result of which they were dismissed. The EAT held the dismissals were fair as the Tribunal had taken into account the first disciplinary proceedings and written warnings when considering whether, in the overall fairness of the dismissal, it fell within the range of reasonable responses open to the employer.

Key Point

  • Even if the Court of Appeal upholds the EAT decision, cases where it is fair to discipline an employee twice for the same offence will be rare and an employer should only do so with extreme caution and good reason.

Immigration Focus

Immigration law is constantly changing and the cost to businesses of getting it wrong can be significant. Our new Head of Immigration, Shahram Taghavi will be producing regular client updates on forthcoming changes. Please contact Cheryl Stone on or 020 7203 5317 if you would like to be added to our immigration focused updates.

Latest News

On 17 January, the Government made a number of announcements on its ongoing employment law reform programme. Three new consultation papers and two responses were published:

  • A consultation paper was issued relating to TUPE. Proposals include repealing the service provisions change provisions.
  • There are proposals to simplify the regulation of the recruitment sector by repealing the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2003 and replacing them with a new regulatory framework.
  • Long term sickness absence is to be tackled with the introduction of a health and work assessment and advisory service from 2014.
  • The Children and Families Bill has been published which will introduce a new system of shared parental leave and pay.

Key points to take away

  • When considering requests to accommodate religious beliefs, ensure you consider a reasonable balance between the business and the individual.
  • Where an employee's integity is in question, a higher level of investigation is required. l Ensure consistency in treatment for similar disciplinary offences.
  • Ensure all the relevant factors are taken into account when deciding to dismiss.

Dates for the Diary

TUPE proposals for change: round-table event - 12 March 2013 - London

Mock Employment Tribunal - 19 April 2013 - London

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Michael Powner
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.