Employment Law & HR News & Updates.

Employment Law Updates

The latest employment law news & updates from Kalra Legal Group

Zero Hours' Contract - Exclusivity Clauses

Zero Hours' Contract - Exclusivity Clauses

The Coalition Government made great play of its banning the use of exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts, ensuring that employees with no guaranteed hours are free to do work for other employers. We could debate how meaningful that restriction is, but a recent news story has identified a more fundamental problem with regulating zero-hours contracts. Santander is reported by the Financial Times as employing 371 ‘on-call customer services assistants’ - each with a guarantee of just one hour’s work every month. There is no evidence that the employer is doing this to avoid the ban on exclusivity clauses - they say that it is to allow for appropriate training – but the fact is that such an arrangement does mean that the employees are not classed as employed on zero-hours contracts. It goes to show that regulating ultra-flexible work is no easy task.

Continue reading
83 Hits

Unlawful Deduction of Wages - Contractual Disputes: Agarwal v Cardiff University and another

Unlawful Deduction of Wages - Contractual Disputes: Agarwal v Cardiff University and another

A worker who suffers a deduction from wages may bring a claim in the employment tribunal to recover the shortfall if it was not made in accordance with a written agreement with the employer or provided for in writing within the contract of employment itself. In Agarwal v Cardiff University and another, the EAT held that a claim for unlawful deduction of wages cannot be made where the employment tribunal would have to engage in an exercise of interpreting the terms of the contract in order to decide whether or not there has been a deduction.

Continue reading
81 Hits

Employers Urged to Tackle Discrimination

The Government’s gender pay reporting regulations came into force in April this year and require companies with 250 or more employees to publish details on what they pay male and female staff.

Continue reading
110 Hits

Transfer of Undertakings - Service Provision Charge

Transfer of Undertakings - Service Provision Charge

The key requirement for a service provision change to be covered by TUPE is that there is – immediately before the transfer – an organised grouping of employees whose principal purpose is carrying out the activity that is being transferred. That is not simply a matter of adding up what percentage of an employee’s time is spent on a particular activity – it is the employees’ principal purpose that matters. Key to that is the way in which the employees have been organised. In Tess Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust v Harland and others however, the EAT accepted that it might be necessary to look beyond how the group is organised and consider the work that they were actually doing by the time of the transfer. The case involved the specialist care provided for a patient with severe learning disabilities. The South Tees Care Commission Group (CCG) contracted with Tess Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) to provide for this patient’s care by a dedicated team of NHS nurses. As his care progressed, however, he gained more independence and the staff working with him spent more of their time working with other patients instead. In 2014 the care of the patient was put out to tender and the new contract was won by Danshell Healthcare Ltd. The question arose as to whether this was a TUPE transfer which meant that some NHS employees would transfer to Danshell. The NHS Trust at first suggested that 11 employees were employed for the principal purpose of looking after the patient and argued that they should all be transferred under TUPE. They subsequently softened their position and said that there were seven members of staff who spent more than 75 per cent of their shifts working with the patient and that therefore these seven staff should transfer. An employment tribunal held that in fact there was no organised grouping of employees whose principal purpose was providing care for the patient. There was an organised grouping of 11 employees who were assigned to his care, but by the time of the transfer it could no longer be said that providing care for this particular patient was their principal purpose. It was artificial and arbitrary for the Trust to try to create a group of seven employees by adding up their number of shifts working with the patient. The truth was that by the time of the transfer all of the employees provided care for a range of patients and none of them could be said to have caring for this patient as their principal purpose. The EAT upheld this finding. While the actual activities being performed at the time of the transfer did not necessarily determine the purpose of a group of employees, it was a relevant factor to consider in deciding what the purpose was. Where, as here, work was being done by far more employees than was needed to fulfil a particular purpose, that was good evidence that the purpose in question was not the ‘principal’ one for which they continued to be employed. The tribunal had been entitled to find that the principal purpose of the group in question had changed and was no longer to provide care for this particular patient. It followed that there had been no TUPE transfer.

Continue reading
88 Hits

Religious Dress in the Workplace - Achbita v G4S Secure Solutions NV

Religious Dress in the Workplace - Achbita v G4S Secure Solutions NV

Whatever you might have read elsewhere, the Court of Justice for the European Union has categorically not ruled that employers are allowed to ban the wearing of Islamic headscarves in the workplace. But what the Court does say in the case of Achbita v G4S Secure Solutions NV is controversial enough. The employer was a contracting company operating in Belgium and Ms Achbita was employed as a receptionist working for its clients. She is a Muslim, but for three years complied with an unwritten rule that employees should not wear visible signs of their religious, philosophical or political beliefs in the workplace. Back in 2006, however, she informed her employer that she would be coming into work wearing a headscarf. The employer adopted the formerly unwritten rule into its workplace regulations and dismissed her.

Continue reading
118 Hits

Make an enquiry

Contact Kalra Legal Group

Please let us know your name.
Invalid Input
Please let us know your email address.
Please write a subject for your message.
Invalid Input
Please let us know your message.
Please tick the box
Invalid Input

Call us 0808 1685860

 

What our clients say

Contact us

KLG
Head Office
Suite 1
110 High Street
Maidenhead
Berkshire
SL6 1PT

KLG
4th Floor
86-90 Paul Street
London
EC2A 4NE

Tel: 0808 1685860
Email: info@klglaw.co.uk