The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry stated, "the changes announced in the Budget today will have a real impact on millions of people's lives benefiting business, parents and above all children".

BEARDS ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR A COFFEE SHOP

An Employment Tribunal has ruled that a food retailer was fully justified in refusing to employ a man who wore a beard. Mr. Watson, who has chin and cheek whiskers, applied for a catering assistant position in a Waitrose coffee shop. He was informed that he would have to shave before the company offered him the position. He refused and made an application to the tribunal claiming sex discrimination.

The tribunal chairman stated, "the respondent did discriminate against Mr. Watson but the discrimination was not unlawful. The tribunal accepted that hair both from the head and face poses a significant food safety risk. The discovery of hair in food can constitute a breach of the Food Safety Act 1990 and, since it hosts bacteria, can cause food poisoning".

A spokesman for Waitrose said: "the ground of sexual discrimination was always a bit moot. After all, if a bearded lady had applied we might have had to refuse her as well".

NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE

On 5 March 2001, the government announced that it had accepted the Low Pay Commission's recommendation to increase the adult rate of the national minimum wage (NMW) from £3.70 to £4.10 in October 2001 and to £4.20 in October 2002. The government did not announce any increase in the NMW for workers aged 18-21, which is currently £3.20 per hour.

John Monks, TUC General Secretary, said:

'This is clearly another significant step towards a decent minimum wage. It will mean a very welcome 11 per cent rise for up to 1.4 million workers. I welcome the government's decision to implement the Low Pay Commission's report in full. In the longer term we will continue to press for the adult rate to be extended to over 18 year olds and for the minimum wage to do even more to secure justice for the low paid. We look forward to the Low Pay Commission taking further steps towards a fair settlement for Britain's lowest paid workers.'

The EOC has issued a press release welcoming these increases. The same cannot be said of the CBI or similar bodies, who objected to the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission and lobbied against the proposed increases.

PROPOSED EXTENSION OF DDA

Also on 5 March 2001, the Minister for Disabled people, Margaret Hodge, announced the government would be extending the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to include:

- increased protection for people with cancer (the quoted example being people in remission from cancer, who may not fall within the definition of a disabled person);

- removing some of the excluded sectors from the Act, such as police, firemen and prison officers, barristers, employees on board ships, aeroplanes or hovercrafts;

-a legal duty on public bodies to provide equal opportunities for disabled persons;

- persons registered as partially sighted being DEEMED to be disabled (and not having to come within the normal definition);

- abolition of the 'small employer' exemption by October 2004 (employers with less than 15 employees are currently excluded from the DDA). Note that the EC Equal Treatment Framework Directive requires the small-employer exemption to be abolished by December 2006.

These new measures are in response to the Disability Rights Task Force Report - "From Exclusion to Inclusion" and will extend the rights of over 600,000 disabled people already in jobs and cover nearly seven million jobs previously excluded from the Act.

THE PITFALLS OF ENTERING INTO COMPROMISE AGREEMENTS

A troubling decision has been handed down by the House of Lords on 1 March 2001 in the case of BCCI (In compulsory liquidation) v (1) Munawar Ali (2) Sultana Runi Khan and Ors this is another case concerning "stigma damages" in relation to the bank's demise.

The decision is concerned with the scope and interpretation of COT3 agreements signed by ex-staff of the bank, via ACAS.

Just to recap, by section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (the 'Act'), any provision in an agreement is void insofar as it purports to exclude or limit the operation of any of the provisions of the Act or to preclude a person from bringing any proceedings under the Act before an employment tribunal unless;

a conciliation officer designated by ACAS has taken action and a settlement has been reached resulting in a COT3 agreement.

or a written agreement (a 'compromise agreement') is entered into.

One of the important provisions of a compromise agreement is that it must relate to the particular complaint in that it cannot seek to exclude potential complaints that have not yet arisen.

In consideration for one month's salary offered by the bank and after an interview with an ACAS official, the employees signed a COT3 agreement stating that the payment was:

"......in full and final settlement of all or any claims whether under statute, Common law or in Equity of whatsoever nature that exist or may exist and in particular, all or any claims, rights or applications of whatsoever nature that the Applicant has or may have or has made or could make in or to the Industrial Tribunal, except the Applicant's rights under the Respondent's pension scheme".

Despite this wording the House of Lords stated the wording of this clause did not preclude the employees from proceedings with claims for stigma damages arising from the collapse of the bank and their dismissal.

Lord Bingham concluded by stating, "On a fair construction of this document I cannot conclude that the parties intended to provide for the release of rights and surrender of claims which they could never have had in contemplation at all. If the parties had sought to achieve so extravagant a result they should in my opinion have used language which left no room for doubt ...."

It is difficult to envisage what wording would have sufficed in these circumstances.

This case illustrates that care must be taken when drafting a compromise agreement or negotiating a COT3 with ACAS. Clearly, all possible claims, which relate to the particular employee, must be covered within the compromise agreement but a blanket exclusion is not permitted by the Act.

WE CAN HELP YOU:

Please use the buttons above if you:

* Want to receive more information/advice on any of the matters in this edition (please give details of which matter you require advice on).
* Want further details of our forthcoming seminars.
* Want us to revise your current policies or procedures or provide a quote.
* Want advice on any employment matters.

If you would like further information about this or anything else please e-mail lonemp@steeleslaw.co.uk or visit our web site www.steeleslaw.co.uk

This article copyright © 2001 Steeles Law. All rights reserved.