News 📰
There have been a number of key changes implemented in March/April 2024, including:
Statutory paternity leave – 8 March 2024
- Leave can now be taken in separate one week blocks.
- Leave can be taken any time in the 52 weeks after the birth or adoption of the child.
- The notice period required for each period of leave has been shortened to 28 days, (instead of 15 weeks as previously) before the expected week of childbirth.
Changes to flexible working – 6 April 2024
- This is now a ‘day one’ right (i.e. the employee can make a request on or after their first day of employment).
- Employees will be able to make two flexible working requests every 12 months.
- Employers must consult with an employee before they can refuse a request.
- There is no longer a need for employees to explain or justify the impact of the proposed change to their working arrangements.
Carer's Leave Act 2023 – 6 April 2024
- This is a ‘day one’ right.
- Employees will be entitled to one week’s unpaid leave in any 12-month period to provide or arrange care for a dependant with a long-term care need.
A person is a dependant of an employee if they—
- are a spouse, civil partner, child or parent of the employee,
- live in the same household as the employee, otherwise than by reason of being the employee’s boarder, employee, lodger or tenant, or
- reasonably rely on the employee to provide or arrange care.
A dependant has a long-term care need if—
- they have an illness or injury (whether physical or mental) that requires, or is likely to require, care for more than three months,
- they have a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, or
- they require care for a reason connected with their old age.
- Requests can be in consecutive or non-consecutive half-days or full days.
- The employee’s employment rights (e.g. accrual of holiday, returning to their old job) are preserved during carer’s leave.
Redundancy protection
Protection is being extended for employees who (1) are pregnant from when they inform their employer about their pregnancy, or (2) are on maternity, adoption or shared parental leave, so that the protected period will end on (as applicable):
- 18 months after expected week of childbirth, or date of childbirth (if that date is given to the employer)
- 18 months after the adopted child’s placement or the date they enter Great Britain (for overseas adoptions)
- 18 months after the child’s birth or placement/entry to Great Britain (for those taking at least 6 consecutive weeks of shared parental leave but not maternity or adoption leave).
If you need any policy documents drafting, updating or amending to cover these changes, then please do not hesitate to contact the employment team at Roythornes.
Updated Vento banding
The 2024 annual update to the Vento guidelines for compensation for injury to feelings in discrimination or whistleblowing cases now provide that, in respect of claims presented on or after 6 April 2024, the Vento bands are:
- a lower band of £1,200 to £11,700 (less serious cases);
- a middle band of £11,700 to £35,200 (cases that do not merit an award in the upper band); and,
- an upper band of £35,200 to £58,700 (the most serious cases), with the most exceptional cases capable of exceeding £58,700.
National Minimum Wage increase
Just by way of reminder, on 1 April 2024, all rates of the National Minimum Wage, including the National Living Wage, increased as follows:
NMW rate from 1 April 2024 - Increase in pence
National Living Wage (21 and over) - £11.44
18 - 20 Year Old Rate - £8.60
16 - 17 Year Old Rate - £6.40
Apprentice Rate - £6.40
Accommodation Offset - £9.99
Case Law Update 📢
Wicked Vision v Rice - Can a dismissal be a detrimental act (and claim) in relation to whistleblowing claims against employers?
The simple answer is no. The Claimant was dismissed in February 2021. The reason given for the dismissal was ‘redundancy’ but the Claimant claimed that he was dismissed for making protected disclosures (i.e. whistleblowing). He brought an automatic unfair dismissal claim against the Respondent. He later tried to make amendments to his claim and alleged that his dismissal was detrimental on the grounds of whistleblowing and that the employer was vicariously liable. The Tribunal allowed the amendment.
The EAT disagreed with the Tribunal. They ruled that where an employee is dismissed for whistleblowing, the claim to be brought is an automatic unfair dismissal claim. The act of dismissal itself cannot be brought as a separate detriment claim against an employer (although it is noted that this claim can be brought against the individual dismissing officer).
Allen v Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust – what is required to show continuing acts of discriminatory conduct?
The Respondent went through a restructuring process. The Claimant was offered an alternative role which would result in a lower pay grade, which she refused. She was signed off sick and was subsequently dismissed for long-term sickness absence. She brought claims for unfair dismissal, and age and disability discrimination. She claimed that she had been made to feel old, marginalised and worthless.
The Claimant succeeded in her claim before the Employment Tribunal in that the outcome to her grievance was predetermined and constituted age related discrimination. The Respondent appealed the decision. Part of the appeal was that the Respondent disputed that the dismissal of the Claimant was part of conduct which extended over a period of time, which was also linked to her age/disability discrimination complaints.
In the Employment Appeal Tribunal, they stated “for there to be conduct extending over a period, there must have been ongoing discriminatory conduct. It is not enough that incidents are linked, and later events would not have occurred but for the earlier events, there must be something in the conduct that involves continuing discrimination”. The conduct involved a substantial gap between events, two different types of prohibited conduct, two different protected characteristics and decisions by different people. There was nothing to suggest a continuing discriminatory state of affairs; they therefore found against the Claimant (although they remitted the case back to the Employment Tribunal to consider whether the time limit should be extended on just and equitable grounds).
Thank you to our contributors: Phil Cookson, Desley Sherwin, Laura Hill and George Miller.