UK Employment Law Updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
HRM Guide publishes articles and news releases about HR surveys, employment law, human resource research, HR books and careers that bridge the gap between theory and practice. |
| Home Page > Employment Law Updates > June 12 2006 Employment Law Enews > Employment Law Books |
|
E-mail lonemp@steeleslaw.co.uk Web Site: www.steeleslaw.co.uk This bulletin is intended for general guidance only and should not be relied upon without detailed legal advice on your specific circumstances. |
June 12 2006 Employment Law EnewsWelcome to the latest edition of employment law enews. Dismissal of BNP Bus Driver did not breach Race Discrimination ActIn what was a high profile decision at the end of May, the Court of Appeal has overturned the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") in finding that bus company Serco was not guilty of breaching the Race Discrimination Act when it dismissed a driver who was a British National Party ("BNP") councillor. Arthur Redfearn had been elected as a BNP Councillor for Bradford City Council in 2004. At the time of his election he was employed by Serco as a driver responsible for the transportation of vulnerable adults and children to schools and day-centres. Following his election, Mr Redfearn was dismissed on health and safety grounds, Serco arguing that his dismissal was part of their duty of care to passengers, fellow employees and Redfearn himself. An earlier EAT decision had controversially referred the case back to a new tribunal (the original tribunal had found no discrimination) to re-hear Redfearn's allegations of discrimination on racial grounds. Chief Executive of Serco, Chris Hyman commented that "Mr Redfearn was dismissed because of the potential threat his public support for BNP policies posed to the wellbeing of our clients and our employees. "The idea that we breached the Race Discrimination Act by dismissing Mr Redfearn was, frankly, ridiculous. We are grateful to the judges for their clear and unambiguous ruling." The ruling was widely welcomed, with fears that any other decision may have undermined the best efforts of Parliament, the tribunal system and employers to stamp out and fight racism and discrimination in the workplace. It is worth noting that Mr Redfearn did not have the required one year service to bring a claim for unfair dismissal, and that the decision was limited to a finding that no discrimination had taken place. If Mr Redfearn did have the service required, Serco would have needed to demonstrate that their fears regarding health and safety posed by his continued employment was sufficient to justify his dismissal, that they acted reasonably and followed fair procedures in dismissing him. Notification of Redundancy Bill Introduced to ParliamentThe "Notification of Redundancy Bill 2006" was recently introduced as a private members Bill by Jim Cunningham, a Labour MP in an effort to deter companies from arbitrarily announcing redundancies. The Bill which will receive its second reading in the House of Commons on 16 June 2006, deals with the requirement of notification of redundancy by companies in administration. The Bill proposes that the appointed administrator must consult with the company's employees about the management of the company's affairs, business and property at a meeting prior to any redundancy notices being handed to the employees. In addition, it would not be permissible for the administrator to furnish employees with redundancy notices unless a period of one month had lapsed since the date of the above employee consultation. Failure to follow this procedure would be deemed to be a criminal offence and would result in liability of a fine not exceeding one-fifth of the statutory minimum. Mr Cunningham stated that by amending UK legislation to be brought more in line with other European countries "standards of information and consultation" would ensure greater protection of employee's rights. Subsequently, he was of the opinion that the current process of post-liquidation consultation was ineffective in protecting the position of employees and that by actively encouraging employees to become more involved in the decision making process in the period leading up to liquidation, the administrator would have to take into account the opinions and views of the employees affected. The proposed Bill has not on the whole been well received with commentators questioning the actual intention and effectiveness of such a proposal, especially given that under current UK legislation, employees are protected by virtue of the requirement of collective consultation. Subsequently, although it has been suggested that the Bill will not be passed, the outcome of the second reading is eagerly awaited. Pensions Law Workshop 13 June 2006The Impact on Pensions of the New Age Discrimination Regulations - Breakfast Briefing 8.45am for 9:00am start and 10:30am finish
Today more than ever before pensions are featuring at the centre of concerns about employment. Together with barrister Fenner Moeran we are offering a one and a half hour workshop focusing on the pensions impact of the Regulations. The workshop is aimed at HR Managers and those with responsibility for pension issues in the workplace. In particular the workshop will focus on the Regulations' impact on:
The cost of the workshop is £25.00 plus VAT. To book your place please call 01603 598000 or book online. Practical Implications of the new Age Discrimination Regulations Workshop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|