20 March 2006 Employment Law Enews

Welcome to the latest edition of employment law enews.

Final Age Discrimination Regulations Published

The DTI last week published the final draft of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 ("the Regulations") and laid them before Parliament ahead of their introduction in October this year.

The core provisions of the earlier draft regulations remain the same with less favourable treatment or prejudice because of an individual's age outlawed at all stages of the employment cycle, from recruitment to dismissal or retirement.

Amongst other things the Regulations:

• Prevent discrimination in employment and vocational training, including access to help and guidance, recruitment, promotion, development, termination, benefits and pay;
• Remove the upper age limit for unfair dismissal and redundancy claims by employees;
• Set a national default retirement age of 65; and
• Introduce a 'Duty to Consider' for all employers when employees request to work beyond the default retirement age of 65.

Age Audit

All employers should now consider undertaking an 'Age Audit', as recommended by both the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development and the DTI. The Age Audit should check that the company complies with the Regulations at all stages of the employment cycle. The Employment Team at steeles are currently offering a fixed price Age Audit. For more information or for further information on the Age Discrimination Regulations generally, please contact the team at lonemp@steeleslaw.co.uk.

steeles Age Discrimination Workshop - 17 May 2006

steeles' London office, Bedford House, 21a John Street WC1N 2BF, is hosting a two and a half hour workshop on the impact of the Regulations. The workshop is aimed at HR Managers and those with responsibility for personnel issues. The workshop aims to be as interactive and practical as possible with group exercises and case studies.

The cost of the workshop is £ 40.00 plus VAT. A light buffet style continental breakfast will be included. Registration will be at 8.45am and the workshop will start at 9.00am. We expect the workshop to end by 11:30am. To reserve your place please book online

Statutory Grievance Letters - Must set out nature of Tribunal complaint

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has this week handed down another important decision on whether a letter of complaint from an employee qualifies as a statutory grievance letter for the purposes of being able to bring a Tribunal claim in respect of a complaint not set out in the letter.

The following test was set out by Elias P in the case of Canary Wharf Management v Edebi (2006)- "It seems to me that the objective of the statute can be fairly met if the employers, on a true reading of the statement and having regard to the particular context in which it is made, can be expected to appreciate that the relevant complaint is being raised."

On the facts of the Canary Wharf case above, Elias P. held that the grievance letter did not raise a complaint with regards a (potential) claim under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Whilst the letter contained a number of lengthy complaints about the employee's health, it did not raise an issue which an employer could reasonably understand to have legal implications for itself under the DDA 1995. Thus his disability discrimination claim was not allowed to proceed.

This latest case follows on from the 2005 case of Noskiw v Royal Mail Group where a Tribunal held that Mr Noskiw had failed to comply with the statutory grievance procedure in relation to his disability discrimination claim as he had not raised such complaints in his earlier grievance letter to the company.

Both cases should be welcomed by employers, especially in light of the surge of recent cases confirming that a grievance letter need not be identified as such and need only be a complaint in writing, taking whatever form, even to the extent that a letter of resignation is sufficient to meet the wide definition of a grievance set out in the Employment Act 2002. The Canary Wharf and Noskiw cases seem to move the position closer to that originally intended by the legislation - that the employee must set out in writing complaints it has against their employer before raising such as claims at the Tribunal.

Homosexual Banker sues HSBC for £5 million

In a case that has attracted a high level of interest from all sectors, Peter Lewis, a former senior investment banker at HSBC, has brought a claim against his former employer, for 'unfair dismissal' on grounds of 'sexual orientation' after he was dismissed for 'gross personal misconduct'.

The dismissal by HSBC was allegedly as a result of a complaint of sexual harassment made by a male colleague, who claimed to have been subjected to "sexually inappropriate behaviour" in the bank's changing room by Mr Lewis.

It is maintained that the complaint of sexual harassment against Mr Lewis was treated in accordance with the bank's sexual harassment policy, which applies equally to all staff.

However, Mr Lewis's legal representatives maintain that he was discriminated against "because of his sexual orientation as a gay man". It is estimated that Mr Lewis is claiming £5 million in compensation for his dismissal.

Under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 it was only unlawful to discriminate against a person on grounds of their gender not their sexual orientation. However, by virtue of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, it became unlawful from 1 December 2003 to discriminate against people in the workplace on grounds of their sexual orientation.

Employment lawyers and HR professionals alike wait to see the approach adopted by the Tribunal in determining the case. If the Tribunal find in favour of Mr Lewis and concludes that he was unfairly dismissed on the grounds of his sexual orientation, the likely result is that many more claims will be presented in both the City and across other industry sectors as people become more aware of their rights under the legislation in light of what would certainly be a potentially high profile success and substantial award.

This article copyright © 2006 Steeles Law llp. All rights reserved.