Obesity in the Workplace: Legislate or Discriminate?

Following comments by Employment Judge Philip Rostant this week there has been a debate surrounding whether legislation is required to prevent discrimination in the workplace against those who are considered to be a 'non normal' size.

Elissa Thursfield was interviewed on BBC Radio Wales this morning to discuss the issue. She noted that whilst proving discrimination is extremely difficult and in reality there will be occasions when it happens, legislating is not the answer.

There is always public controversy when dealing with this issue, partly due to the perception (rightly or wrongly) that the Equality Act should not extend to a person who has a 'lifestyle choice' which puts them at a disadvantage.

Legislating against something isn't necessarily likely to have the desired effect in these circumstances, in fact it is more likely to be counterproductive, feeding resentment within the workforce and produce 'low risk' workforce recruiting practices.

Where should the line be drawn? Waist circumference? BMI? Weight? Whether someone's size affects their health? Common sense dictates it is the latter, which is already covered by disability legislation. Employees should be incentivised to be healthy, legislating on the grounds of a person's size could produce scenarios where people on the cusp of discrimination protection actually gain weight to reap 'reasonable adjustments' such as larger more comfortable working areas, parking spaces, more breaks and other benefits not afforded to employees of a healthy size.

Bullying is wrong. No one should be subjected to any form of detrimental treatment simply because of the way they look. Legislation is not however the answer on this front, employer's attitudes, disciplinary processes and management of employee relations should be utilised to protect employees. A bully is bad for a workplace's productivity, moral and staff retention and that is where the real problem lies.

Panama Papers fall-out will impact every business

Media reporting on the so-called Panama Papers has focused on the tax affairs of wealthy individuals and international organisations, but the hacking of client files at Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca has implications for every business.   

The largest leak in history, with some 2.6 terabytes of data involved, the shockwaves of the Panama incident have been felt around the globe, and the hacking is a wake-up call to companies that don’t already treat their cyber-security with the same stringency as their legal, regulatory, financial or operational risks. 

“This was a major world-wide incident, involving many high profile individuals and global organisations, but the lesson is one that any business should relate to, however small they may be,” said commercial expert expert Glyn Morrice Evans of Gamlins Law;

“Protecting company data from attack is not just about keeping client data safe, it’s just as much about protecting your reputation, your employees and your future competitive edge, as well as keeping inside the law.  And it’s not just protection from outside criminals, the risk is just as likely to come from current or previous employees or competitors.” 

Last year a UK manufacturing company had design blueprints stolen and shared with a competitor.  They launched an investigation when the competitor released equipment which was extremely similar to their own, and established that they had been subject to a targeted cyber-attack, and that the stolen blueprints had been sold to Chinese-owned companies.  The infiltration was achieved when hackers targeted a job-seeking chief design engineer, who unwittingly downloaded malware through an email, after responding to a fake online recruitment profile designed specifically to trap him. 

And Morrisons supermarket is being sued under a group litigation order involving more than 5000 of its employees, after personal and financial details were posted online by a disgruntled ex-employee. 

“It’s a really big issue for every business, large or small,” added Glyn.   “Electronic data is a hugely valuable commodity and that value can be encashed when it falls into the wrong hands, so business leaders must make it a top priority.”  

Company directors need to ensure they are meeting the requirements of the Data Protection Act and the Communications Act in the UK, and those will shortly be joined by the EU Data Protection Regulation and EU Cybersecurity Directive. Alongside, directors have a duty to be informed on any issues that are relevant to the proper running of the company under the Companies Act 2006.

A new London-headquartered National Cyber Security Centre is expected to begin operations in October 2016, bringing all the UK's cyber expertise into one place to address current problems with the digital defences of companies and organisations.

 

 

Web site content note: 

This is not legal advice; it is intended to provide information of general interest about current legal issues.

 

                                   

Tricky to pull a sickie

Tricky to pull a sickie

 

Sickness absence costs UK businesses billions each year. According to PWC, £29 billion.

 

A recent ruling has confirmed that an employee who is dishonest about their sickness can amount to a fundamental breach of contract which entitled the employer to dismiss.

 

In Metroline West v Ajaj 2015, A had been employed by M as a bus driver. He was off sick after he slipped on water and was injured. M, after becoming concerned about the alleged injuries arranged surveillance of A when he attended an onsite sickness absence meeting.

 

From the footage M were able to see that A’s mobility was inconsistent with his sickness claims. A was disciplined and dismissed, he then sued M for unfair dismissal. A won at tribunal but M appealed and the Employment Appeal Tribunal found in their favour stating that when an employee claims they are too sick to work, yet they are not actually sick or as sick as they claim, this amounts to dishonesty.

 

Employees should be careful that they do not jump to conclusions or dismiss employees on merely suspicion. A reasonable investigation must be carried out and the business must be able to show that the employee had been dishonest about their condition. It doesn’t necessarily mean employees need to be subject to surveillance, but medical evidence, social media activity or evidence given in a back to work interview could be extremely useful.