Can you sack someone for voting the 'wrong' way?

As shockwave after shockwave hits this morning, Brexit and a resignation by the Prime Minister, tensions are running high on social media. Never in our modern history of the UK has a political decision caused such ripples through our society. Britain truly is cut in half.

 

So if your business was steadfast Remain and you have an employee celebrating this morning, or if you were Exit and someone is sulking around the business, can you dismiss? Are they the people you thought they were? Do you feel that your trust in them has been betrayed?

 

Dismissal on the grounds of a political belief is most likely to be unfair. If you have an employee who has been with you more than 2 years, dismissal for a political reason is likely to result in a tribunal. There have been hard fought extreme cases surrounding BNP supporters being sacked from positions working with minorities which engaged real legal debate about trust and confidence, but the Brexit debate is unlikely to grant such arguments.

 

Is it discrimination? There has been previously a tribunal decision (non-binding) in Scotland which has given pause for thought and in Northern Ireland the situation differs substantially, but at present employees cannot generally rely on the Equality Act for protection from discrimination for their political beliefs.

 

So what are the implications for Employment Law? A million bloggers will tell you they know the answer, the real answer….no one knows.

Flexibility for Football?

"But Sir, it's WALES?"

"Even my kids are watching it at school"

"My wife won't let me watch it home later"

"Sir, I don't feel well, I think I need to go home at lunchtime....."

As the Euros grips England and Wales today for an epic showdown between two historic rivals, thousands of employees arrived at work this morning hoping their boss will let them watch the game. Those that turned up, that is.

ACAS suggested employers might want to take a flexible approach and avoid people 'pulling sickies' or trying to watch the game under the desk which will be inherently more disruptive. Some are taking a very flexible approach, providing televisions and refreshments in return for charitable donations whilst others issue a blanket ban.

Whilst unlikely to be grounds for an instant dismissal, employees either faking illness or covertly watching the game could find themselves in trouble. Employers are reminded to follow procedure and avoid knee jerk reactions.

Is it discriminatory to make an exception for the football? Will you be expected to allow employees to watch Wimbledon, the Grand National and the 6 Nations Final? Be clear (if it is the case), it is a one off, because it is England v Wales. Though perhaps if you are struggling for your charity ideas this year, tying in with a sporting event will not only raise money, but also lift morale!

 

 

Elissa Thursfield, one of our Employment Solicitors was interviewed by BBC Radio Wales on the topic:

You can listen here at time point 0:24:00:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b07f6tnd

Woman wins Sex Discrimination Tribunal: A Cautionary Tale

Woman wins Sex Discrimination Tribunal: A Cautionary Tale

 

I read about Lucy Pagliarone this morning, a woman who worked for a pharmaceutical company for 6 months before leaving and claiming sex discrimination. She won at Tribunal, in that the Judge found in her favour and awarded her £10,500.

 

£10,500 she may never receive due to the financial status of the company and even if she does get the money, she has admitted all of it will be going to pay her legal fees. Living on Guernsey she states solicitors cost £800 an hour.

 

She says she doesn’t care about the money, stating ‘she had to take a stand’. She insists even without her pay out she has no regrets, ‘harbouring feelings of bitterness and anger wasn’t going to get me anywhere’. Suing a company with frozen assets however was never going to get her much further than a hollow victory.

 

To some degree  I see her point, she has been treated dreadfully, however to take her claim all the way to a final hearing and come away with a judgement against a company with frozen assets and a large legal bill to boot, suggests either unmanaged expectations or naivety.

 

Look at it this way, Eva Carnerio has agreed to be effectively gagged for a rumoured £2-4million. That settlement is definitely as good as the gold plated paper it is written on, coming from a solvent and high value company. Her legal fees no doubt will be enormous but the settlement will be more than commercial enough for her not to have to think about working again for a considerable time.

 

Pagliarone did not want to be gagged, she wanted to tell the world how dreadfully she has been treated, her Daily Mail story today will be tomorrow’s fish and chip wrapper and I would be surprised if anyone remembers the name of the man involved or the company (I read the article 10 minutes ago and can’t recall it!).

 

Whilst Carnerio’s rumoured settlement amount is astounding, the principles around resolving matters before a final hearing and before fees mount remains consistent. The true value of getting your judgement and potentially your face in the paper is a poor return. Pagliarone has labelled herself as, now publically, ‘litigious’, something which scares employers to death. She has now retrained as a holistic therapist after being out of work for months.