The Supreme Court has today found in favour of the trade union UNISON in its judicial review of the UK Employment Tribunal fees regime, unanimously holding that the legislation implementing the current regime is unlawful both under domestic and EU law. The immediate consequence is that the Tribunal fees regime is quashed with effect from
The FCA and PRA have announced a new package of rules aimed at formalising whistleblowing procedures within certain financial institutions. The rules will be implemented on 7 September 2016; however firms covered by the new regime must comply with the requirement to appoint a ‘whistleblowers’ champion’ by the earlier date of 7 March 2016.
Following the LIBOR scandal in 2013, whistleblowing has fast risen up the regulatory agenda. In June 2013, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards recommended that banks should put in place mechanisms to allow workers to raise concerns internally and appoint a senior person to take responsibility for the effectiveness of these arrangements. Earlier this year, the PRA and FCA consulted with firms on whether such measures should be introduced. The new rules, which are contained in a package of publications from the PRA and FCA, are intended to be applied alongside the Senior Managers Regime (SMR) and the Senior Insurance Managers Regime (SIMR).
The FCA recognises that many of the firms covered by the new rules already have rigorous internal whistleblowing procedures in place. The new regime aims to build on and formalise those good practices and encourage individuals to raise concerns and challenge poor behaviours in the industry.
Continue Reading New rules on whistleblowing for UK financial institutions
In Seawell Ltd v Ceva Freight (UK) Ltd and another UKEATS/0034/11, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) held that an employee who spent 100% of his time working for a single client was not an “organised grouping of employees” for the purposes of regulation 3(3)(a)(i) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”). Therefore when the client brought in-house work previously carried out by the Claimant’s employer, there was no service provision change.
Continue Reading Service provision changes: Is an employee who works only for one client an “organised grouping of employees”?
The London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics Games are just around the corner! The Olympic Games take place from 27 July to 12 August 2012 and the Paralympic Games from 29 August to 9 September 2012.
This briefing contains guidance on the issues employers are likely to face as a result of employees who have volunteered at the Games, and those wishing to attend events as spectators or follow the Games at work. Due to the unique circumstances of the event it is important for employers to have clear policies in place well before the Games, and for the policies to be communicated effectively to all staff.Continue Reading London Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012: Employee Considerations
In Abellio London Ltd (Formerly Travel London Ltd) v Musse and others UKEAT 0283/11 and 0631/11, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) ruled that a relocation of six miles within central London which resulted in the employees having to travel an extra one to two hours to work following a service provision change amounted to a substantial change to employees’ working conditions to their material detriment entitling them to resign under regulation 4(9) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”). As regulation 4(9) of TUPE deems an employee’s resignation to be a “dismissal” where it is in response to such a change, the employees concerned were entitled to claim automatic unfair dismissal and liability for their dismissals passed to the transferee. Since it would not have mattered had the contracts of employment contained valid mobility clauses, the decision is not good news for transferees in TUPE transfer situations. The decision sets a very low hurdle for employees to overcome in order to be able to resign in reliance on regulation 4(9) of TUPE. Transferees will need to consider the extent of this risk when negotiating transfer provisions with the transferor, and, if necessary, seek indemnity protection.
Continue Reading Service provision changes: Relocation because of TUPE transfer was a substantial change to employees’ material detriment
In the case of Eddie Stobart v Moreman & Others the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has provided welcome guidance on the meaning of “organised grouping of employees” for the purposes of a “service provision change” under regulation 3(3)(a)(i) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”). A group of employees who happened to work mainly for a particular client because they worked the day shift were found not to comprise an “organised grouping of employees” for “service provision change” purposes under TUPE. The EAT held that, when assessing whether employees will transfer to a new contractor following a service provision change, it is necessary to identify the existence of an “organised grouping of employees” the principal purpose of which is to carry out the relevant activities on behalf of the client, before analysing whether employees are assigned to that group. There will only be an “organised grouping” where the employees in question are “organised” for the purposes of the provision of services to the relevant client.
Continue Reading Service provision changes: UK EAT gives guidance on the meaning of an “organised grouping of employees”