UK: A Month In UK Employment Law - November 2016

NEWS & LEGISLATION UPDATE

Taxation of termination payments draft legislation published

At present, in certain circumstances the first £30,000 of a termination payment is exempt from income tax and national insurance ("NIC"). However, there have been concerns for many years about a lack of certainty as to the circumstances when this exemption applies. One key area of confusion is the circumstances under which any part of termination payments relating to notice periods attract the tax exemption. There have been various calls to simplify the rules, and the Government's response to their 2015 consultation on this topic has now been published, including proposed draft legislation.

The key changes the Government plans to make include:

  • Align the rules for income tax and employer NICs on compensatory payments so that employer NICs will now be payable on the excess of any compensatory payment above £30,000 (in contrast to the current position where the full amount of a compensatory payment is not subject to any employer NICs). This will increase the overall cost of termination payments.
  • Tax and make subject to NICs any payment that the employee would have received if he or she had worked his or her notice period (creating certainty in relation to the tax treatment of payment referable to notice periods but also removing any scope for such payments to attract the tax exemption).

However, despite the fact that the £30,000 limit has been in place since 1988, the Government has rejected calls to increase it.

The Government has proposed that the changes come into place in April 2018.

Privacy shield now in force

The long-awaited EU-US Privacy Shield came into force on 1 August 2016. The UK Data Protection Authority (the "ICO") has published a blogpost on the position in relation to EU-US data transfers. Importantly, the ICO warns against relying on the Safe Harbor Framework to ensure the lawful transfer of personal data from the UK to the U.S. Rather, in order to lawfully transfer personal data to the U.S., it advises businesses either to:

  1. use data transfer agreements based on standard contractual clauses;
  2. use binding corporate rules; or
  3. participate in the Privacy Shield.

However, the ICO has caveated this advice by referring to pending ECJ decisions which may impact the validity of standard contractual clauses and binding corporate rules, stating that there is still uncertainty about the Privacy Shield in light of the Article 29 Working Party's various concerns (the Article 29 group contains representatives from each of the EU member states' data protection authorities). While this uncertainty remains, there is still no "risk-free" method for data transfers to the U.S.

The Privacy Shield will be reviewed in May 2017 and the Article 29 Working Party has stated that data protection authorities in the EU will not challenge the adequacy of the Privacy Shield until at least after this review.

In addition, an Irish privacy advocacy group, Digital Rights Ireland, has filed a legal challenge against the Privacy Shield, stating that it provides inadequate protections. A hearing on the challenge is not expected for at least another year.

Corporate Governance inquiry launched

Following recent high profile investigations into the management and businesses of BHS and Sports Direct, the Business, Innovation, and Skills ("BIS") Committee has launched an inquiry on "corporate governance" covering directors' duties, executive pay and the composition of boards (including diversity, worker representation and gender). We will keep you abreast of any updates.

CASE UPDATE

Disability discrimination and reasonable adjustments – G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd v Powell

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the "EAT") has held that not reducing an employee's salary (even when moving that employee to a lower-paid job) could be a reasonable adjustment, within the meaning of disability discrimination legislation contained in the Equality Act 2010, in appropriate circumstances. In addition, an employee needs to consent to a change in their terms and conditions for a change to take effect, even where that change constitutes a reasonable adjustment.

Background

Under UK disability discrimination legislation, an employer has a duty to make reasonable adjustments where it knows or ought reasonably to know that a person has a disability and there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with those who are not disabled. An employer must take such steps as are reasonable to avoid the disadvantage. A failure to make a reasonable adjustment amounts to unlawful discrimination.

Facts

Mr Powell worked as an engineer on ATMs until he became disabled through a back injury that meant he was no longer fit for jobs involving heavy lifting or working in confined spaces. G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd ("G4S") gave him a new and alternative role as "key runner" at his original salary. Mr Powell was led to believe that this role was long term; however, G4S later considered discontinuing the key runner role for organizational reasons. G4S provided Mr Powell with a list of alternative vacancies, but stated to him that if nothing was available he would be dismissed on medical grounds. After Mr Powell involved solicitors, G4S decided to make the key runner role permanent but at a reduced rate of pay (£207 per month less before tax, a roughly 10% reduction in his salary) because the role did not require engineering skills. Mr Powell refused to accept the lower rate of pay, as a result of this refusal and because no other suitable vacancy could be identified, he was dismissed.

The Employment Tribunal (the "ET") found that:

  • G4S was fulfilling its statutory duty by making reasonable adjustments and it was entitled to make that adjustment without the consent of the employee.
  • The duration of a reasonable adjustment is not indefinite and can be subject to change in certain circumstances.
  • However, G4S failed to make a reasonable adjustment because it should have allowed Mr Powell to work as a runner without reducing his salary. Accordingly, his dismissal amounted to discrimination arising from disability and was unfair.

EAT Decision

The EAT held that the ET had made an error of law on the variation of contract issue. A change to terms and conditions of employment, even if made pursuant to the statutory obligation to make reasonable adjustments, still requires employee consent.

The EAT further found that pay protection could be a reasonable adjustment in appropriate cases. The EAT found no reason why pay protection could not be a reasonable adjustment – it was just another potential form of cost that an employer might need to incur in order to comply with its duty to make reasonable adjustments.

Comment

  • This case provides useful guidance that pay protection can be a reasonable adjustment in appropriate cases. It also makes clear that reasonable adjustments that vary an employee's employment contract must be consented to by an employee like any other variation of terms.
  • All offers made and changes to terms and conditions should be made clear and documented so that there is a paper trail.

Whistleblowing and who has to know about a protected disclosure – Royal Mail v Jhuti

The EAT found that a dismissal was automatically unfair in circumstances where the Claimant's line manager (to whom the Claimant had made a protected disclosure) had engineered her dismissal by misleading the person who decided to dismiss the employee.

Facts

Ms Jhuti started work in the sales division at Royal Mail as a media specialist. Shortly after, Ms Jhuti witnessed and believed that another employee was offering incentives to clients contrary to Royal Mail's internal regulations and regulatory requirements. Ms Jhuti later notified her concerns to her line manager, Mr Widmer, who told her that she should admit that she had made a mistake about the irregularities and advised her to send an email retracting the allegations made. She reluctantly sent the retraction email.

Following a series of events, including Ms Jhuti expressing concern to Mr Widmer that she had been unfairly allocated customer accounts, Mr Widmer began to monitor Ms Jhuti's progress through weekly meetings and set her an "ever changing unattainable list of requirements". Mr Widmer remained critical of Ms Jhuti and told HR that "if things don't change, we will need to look at exiting this individual". This was in contrast to another team member who complimented Ms Jhuti on her fulfilment of Mr Widmer's latest requirements.

Ms Jhuti raised the issues about Mr Widmer's treatment of her with HR, but no action was taken. She raised a grievance (which was not dealt with until 18 months later), and soon after was signed off sick. She was offered three months' salary and then one year's salary to not return to work, which she refused.

Subsequently, Ms Vickers was appointed to review Ms Jhuti's case (excluding her grievance). The ET found that Mr Widmer had withheld material information from Ms Vickers. Based on the information provided to her, Ms Vickers terminated Ms Jhuti for poor performance.

The ET found the fact that Ms Jhuti had been offered a termination payment of one year's salary in circumstances where she was deemed to be a poor performer raised suspicions that Ms Jhuti had made protected disclosures. However, applying CLFIS (UK) v Reynolds [2015] ICR 101 (a case about direct discrimination), which held that the focus should be on the decision-maker, rather than those who provided information to the decision-maker, Ms Vickers herself needed to have been motivated to terminate Ms Jhuti because of the protected disclosures. However, there was no basis to suggest Ms Vickers was so motivated and, accordingly, the ET held that Ms Jhuti was not automatically unfairly dismissed because she had made protected disclosures.

EAT Decision

The EAT held that even though the person who was responsible for dismissing Ms Jhuti was not aware of the protected disclosures, Ms Jhuti was still automatically unfairly dismissed because of the protected disclosures.

Importantly, the EAT held that CLFIS (UK) v Reynolds did not apply because that case focused on direct discrimination rather than protected disclosures, which are subject to different rules of causation. The EAT was satisfied that even though Ms Vickers made the decision in ignorance of true facts, because her decision was manipulated by someone in a managerial position responsible for an employee and who was in possession of the true facts, a causal link could be made between Ms Jhuti's protected disclosures and the decision to dismiss her, such that her dismissal was deemed to be because of her having made protected disclosures.

In reaching this decision, important factors here included that (i) Mr Widmer was
Ms Jhuti's line manager, (ii) Ms Jhuti made protected disclosures to Mr Widmer and Mr Widmer appreciated the significance of those disclosures, (iii) Ms Jhuti was deliberately subjected to detriments by Mr Widmer following the protected disclosures, (iv) Mr Widmer lied to Ms Vickers about the disclosures, and (v) Ms Vickers was not given access to all information. This meant that the reason and motivation of Mr Widmer also needed to be taken into account.

Comment

  • In certain circumstances, especially where there has been willful concealment of relevant facts, a decision-maker can be fixed with knowledge of a protected disclosure about which they are unaware.

Whistleblowing and the definition of "Worker" – McTigue v University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust

The EAT decided that an agency worker can bring a whistleblowing claim against the entity for whom they provide services (the "end user") even if the end user does not employ that agency worker, if the end user substantially determines the terms of an agency worker's engagements and even where the agency that engages the agency worker also substantially determines the terms of engagement.

Background

Section 43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (the "ERA 1996") provides an extended definition to the term "worker" in the context of protected disclosures and whistleblowing. This provision was enacted primarily to protect agency workers provided to an end user in circumstances where the worker would not fall under s.230 ERA 1996, which sets out definitions for "employees" and a limited definition for "workers". The dispute in this case centered on s.43K(1)(a)(ii) ERA 1996, which requires that the terms on which the worker is engaged to do the work are or were in practice substantially determined not by the individual but the person for whom the individual works, by a third party or both of them.

Facts

Ms McTigue was an agency worker employed by Tascor Medical Service Limited ("Tascor") under a contract of employment to perform work for University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust (the "Trust"). She was removed from this engagement and raised claims alleging that she was subject to detriments by the Trust. Ms McTigue's employment contract with Tascor dealt with remuneration, holiday entitlement, sick pay, pension, maternity leave, disciplinary and grievance procedures and notice to terminate. Ms McTigue also had an "honorary contract" from the Trust. The honorary contract authorised her to carry out her duties for the Trust, it identified her supervisor and it reserved the right to terminate the honorary contract in certain circumstances. There were significant amounts of cooperation between Tascor and the Trust in relation to her employment/engagements including in relation to holiday, time off and uniform requirements.

The ET held that it was Tascor who substantially determined Ms McTigue's terms, rather than the Trust, so that Ms McTigue's claims against the Trust failed.

EAT Decision

The EAT held that the ET erred in law in its approach to section 43K(1)(a)(ii) ERA 1996 in deciding that because Tascor substantially determined the terms of Ms McTigue's contract, the Trust could not. It was not a question of either/or: both Tascor and the Trust could be said to substantially determine Ms McTigue's terms. The ET should have focused on the Trust and Ms McTigue's relationship, rather than conduct a comparison exercise between the Trust and Tascor. The EAT's decision is consistent with the fact that the overall purpose of s.43K ERA 1996 is to extend protection to agency workers in relation to victimisation for protected disclosures made while working at the end user (indeed it was specifically designed to protect health workers).

Comment

  • The case sets out the questions to be addressed in determining whether an individual is a worker within the meaning of s.43K(1)(a) ERA 1996.
  • Businesses can be liable for whistleblowing claims brought by agency workers they do not employ and whom they engage through third parties.

A Month In UK Employment Law - November 2016

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions