In the recent case of Holmes v Qinetiq Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) considered for the first time whether the power to increase or decrease an award of compensation for a failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice extends to dismissals on the grounds of ill health. The EAT concluded that the
Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act (MSA) requires certain businesses to publish an annual statement explaining what steps they are taking to ensure there is no modern slavery within their own business and their supply chains. During consultation on this measure, businesses repeatedly called for effective and practical guidance on what a modern slavery statement should look like. That long awaited guidance was published today. Below, we look through the typos and duplications contained in the guidance to report on the good bits and the bad, and consider what businesses should be doing now.
For background on the reporting requirement in the MSA, please see our blog posts of 22 July and 29 July, and listen to our podcast.
Continue Reading Government publishes guidance on the reporting obligation in the Modern Slavery Act
This morning the Prime Minister made an important announcement regarding the new reporting requirement in the Modern Slavery Act. David Cameron confirmed that businesses with a turnover of £36 million or more will be caught by the Act and will therefore be required to produce an annual slavery and human trafficking statement from October 2015.
The Modern Slavery Act was passed in March 2015. When section 54 of the Act comes into force, large businesses will be required to report annually on their efforts to ensure the business and its supply chains are free of slavery and human trafficking. Below, we consider what businesses need to do to comply.
Section 54 of the Act requires businesses over a certain size to publish an annual slavery and human trafficking statement. The statement must confirm either:
- the steps the organisation has taken to ensure that slavery and human trafficking are not taking place in any of its supply chains or in any part of its own business; or
- that no such steps have been taken.
A link to the statement must be published in a prominent position on the business’ website homepage and the statement must be approved and signed by a director. So, although businesses could opt to take no action as a result of the Act and simply produce a statement under option (b), the Government hopes that public pressure and scrutiny from shareholders and the media, together with the risk of reputational damage, will encourage businesses to take real steps to investigate their supply chains and publish details of their efforts. Experience in California, with similar legislation, suggests businesses will not go for option (b).
This week the Government confirmed it will issue regulations requiring employers who have 250 or more employees to publish gender pay information. This blog explores the impact for employers.
The Government has now confirmed its intention to legislate under section 78 of the Equality Act 2010 which gives the Government power to issue regulations requiring…
Reductions in force – also known as collective redundancies – can be daunting for employers, both in dealing with employee issues and protecting the company from liability. On Thursday, 29 January 2015, my partners and I will present a primer on what employers need to know about redundancies in four key jurisdictions: the UK…
Yesterday’s decision by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) in Bear Scotland Ltd v Fulton and ors (and conjoined cases) on holiday pay has the potential to affect any employer that requires its workers to work overtime. The EAT held that both guaranteed and non-guaranteed compulsory overtime worked by a worker should be included when…
As more terrible news of the on-going Ebola epidemic continues to reach us each day, and with the disease showing no sign of slowing, employers around the world are asking what steps they should be taking regarding their employees, both now and in the future, if the disease spreads closer to home.
We take a…
Time after time, businesses are faced with (and use themselves) the classic argument in TUPE negotiations: “Of course the employee must transfer under TUPE – he spends more than 50% of his time on the transferring service”.
It is a very convenient and much rolled-out line of reasoning, which can work in both directions (“Of…
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