News & Updates

Employment Law June Briefing

In this edition of our monthly employment law e-briefing we cover

  

  • Religious Discrimination
  • Agency Workers
  • Compromise Agreements
  • Gender Reassignment

  

 

Religious Discrimination

  

A Christian charity has been held to be in contravention of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. These Regulations prohibit religious discrimination but allow an exception where an employer can show that being of a particular religion is a genuine occupational requirement.  Prospects, a charity for people with learning disabilities, had changed its recruitment policy so that only Christians would be taken on. The requirement to be Christian was applied to almost all posts.  Existing non-Christian staff were told they were no longer eligible for promotion. The charity claimed that being Christian was a genuine occupational requirement and that it could therefore employ and promote only Christians.

 

The Employment Tribunal disagreed. It held that it was not proportionate to require that all employees be Christian. Each job should have been individually assessed. Even if an employer is an organisation with a religious ethos, it must still take great care when seeking to rely on the genuine occupational requirement under the Regulations. The employer must consider the nature of each job and be able to show that the requirement relates to each individual job.

 

More Religious Discrimination?

  

A civil registrar has claimed that she is the victim of religious discrimination. Her claim rests on the fact that her employer asked her to perform civil partnerships for same-sex couples. She says she cannot perform civil partnerships "as a matter of religious conscience". While the registrar believes civil partnerships are "contrary to God's law", her superior allegedly told her that her stance was akin to a registrar refusing to marry a black person.

 

The employer, Islington Council, denies discrimination and claims that the refusal to perform civil partnerships breaches its dignity-for-all policy and its employee code of conduct. The case is currently being considered by an employment tribunal in London.

 

Agency Workers

  

A deal on the rights of agency workers has been agreed between the Government, unions and employers. This will see agency workers receiving equal treatment after 12 weeks employment. Temporary and agency workers in the UK will be entitled to the same pay as permanent workers though not necessarily sick pay or pension rights. 

 

The Government supports fairer treatment of agency workers yet also recognises employers' need for flexibility, for example, to employ agency workers to cover staff absence or to deal with peaks and troughs in demand. The CBI accepts that the proposals are "the least worst outcome available" for employers.   

 

The next stage is to reach a deal at European level. If the UK's proposals are reflected in the EU Agency Workers Directive, the new laws can then be brought into force in the UK. 

 

Compromise Agreements in the Court of Appeal

  

An employee suspected of gross misconduct signed a Compromise Agreement only to find that the employer refused to pay out. He had signed up to a clause stating that he had not committed any breach of contract which would have allowed his employer to terminate his employment. The employer continued to investigate the alleged misconduct and concluded that he was in breach of this clause as his employment could have been terminated.

 

In a recent judgement the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision that the employer's liability to perform its obligations under the Compromise Agreement was conditional on the employee not being in breach of this term. The employer was not required to pay the compensation payment to the employee. 

 

Gender Reassignment

  

It has been reported that the Ministry of Defence has paid out around £250,000 in an out-of-court settlement. The compensation was not for a war injury but to settle a discrimination claim from a former paratrooper who had undergone gender reassignment surgery. Amongst other complaints, the employee alleged that her job as head of army media relations was withdrawn as a result of her sex change.

 

Fallen Petals Cost Florist

 

A florist at a busy London train station was found to be negligent and ordered to pay damages after a London commuter slipped on fallen petals.  The florist was deemed negligent having failed to have a reasonably effective and safe system for dealing with this danger.

 

This case is a gentle reminder to businesses and organisations that a duty of care is owed to the public and they should take care to ensure health and safety issues are rectified quickly and a reminder to all to watch for stray petals on their dash to the train station!  

 

  

For advice or further information please contact

 

Karen Harvie                                  kjh@tcyoung.co.uk  

  

This e-briefing is intended as a guide and does not provide a comprehensive statement of the law.  Legal advice should be sought on individual circumstances.