Reviews and Ratings for solicitor Elissa Thursfield, Llandudno

Tuesday, 14 March 2017

Employers can ban headscarves at work

Employers will be able to ban Muslim staff from wearing headscarves at work, the European Court of Justice has ruled.
 
According to reports, the Court said that companies are able to ban the 'visible' wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign.
 
Employers need to however apply any ban with caution, if a ban was only applied to Muslim members of staff and no other staff members wearing 'visible' signs, it could constitute direct discrimination. This would mean therefore that if a company were to ban the headscarf, a similar stance would need to be taken for example with a Christian cross, if visible.
 
Employers would also need to have a policy in place prohibiting the wearing of religious symbols, prior to asking any member of staff to remove an item. Such a request could not therefore be reactive, for example to a customer complaint.
 
The case follows a ruling in a case brought by two women from France and Belgium who were dismissed for failing to remove their headscarves.
 

Thursday, 12 January 2017

Complex challenges for employers in the year ahead


Complex challenges for employers in the year ahead

 

Constant changes and increasing complexity have helped make employment law a frontline challenge for business and this year looks set to continue the trend. 

The first weeks of January saw Maggie Dewhurst, a bike courier with City Sprint, winning her case to be treated as a worker, rather than a self-employed contractor. The high-profile case follows hard on the heels of the similar ruling given late last year in the action brought by Uber drivers, which the company has said it will appeal.

A worker may be entitled to certain rights such as the national living wage, paid holiday and sick leave, where a contractor would not.  An employee may also be a ‘worker’, but with extra employment rights and responsibilities. 

“The decision in the case of Maggie Dewhurst vs City Sprint will apply only to her personally, but it puts such working practices under the spotlight, especially in the so-called ‘gig economy’, where people are employed by companies on a job-by-job basis,” explained employment law expert  Elissa Thursfield of Gamlins Law.  “But the issues involved can equally apply in many other sectors where companies may be trying to optimise their staffing, if they do not realise the distinctions between an employee, a worker and a self-employed contractor. A number of cases are now working their way through the courts and I expect we’ll see this topic in the headlines throughout 2017.” 

Alongside, the Government is moving to crack down on unscrupulous employers to stamp out exploitation in the workplace, after several companies hit the headlines for poor practices in recent months, including reports that workers at Sports Direct were receiving less than the national minimum wage and being subjected to humiliating working practices.  The new Labour Market Enforcement body will take the lead in this, headed by Prof Sir David Metcalf, a founder of the Low Pay Commission. 

Together with other employment legislation already announced for introduction this year, bringing further significant changes and new requirements, businesses need to make sure they are up to date with their practices and terms of employment.  The up and coming legislation includes:

Gender pay gap reporting:   The Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations are set to come into force on 6 April 2017 meaning all private sector organisations with at least 250 employees must publish details of their gender pay gap, for both basic pay and any bonus payments.  The first reporting will be due no later than 4 April 2018, and annually after that.  This could be a raw topic for supermarket employer Asda who recently lost an equal pay claim brought by women workers, who claimed their work was equal to male warehouse workers.  In the preliminary judgement, the women won their case but Asda are expected to appeal.  

Apprentice levy:  Also due on 6 April is the annual apprenticeship levy, under the Finance Act 2016 (part 6).  In a Robin Hood style approach, the levy must be paid by all private and public sector employers in the UK with a pay bill of £3m and above. It will be charged at the rate of 0.5% on their total pay bill, with an annual allowance of 15% to offset against the levy payment. The income will be used to fund a new system of post-16 apprenticeships, which will be available to those employers falling below the £3m threshold. 

Salary sacrifice schemes:  As announced in the Autumn Statement, the Finance Bill 2017 will set out changes to the tax status of salary sacrifice benefits with effect from April 2017.  The changes will see an end to the tax saving benefits of most salary sacrifice schemes, which will become subject to the same taxation as cash income. Any arrangements in place before 6 April 2017 will be protected for one year, or four years in the case of cars, accommodation or school fees.  The extension will apply until the arrangement ends, is renewed or otherwise modified.  Remaining exempt from tax will be pensions and related advice, cycle-to-work and ultra-low emission cars. 

Tax-free childcare:  Also retaining its taxation benefits will be existing employer-supported childcare voucher schemes.  These can remain open to new entrants until April 2018 with childcare vouchers and all associated tax savings available for the life of the scheme.  However, the Government is expected to launch a new, alternative tax-free childcare scheme, which will allow working families satisfying a minimum/maximum income requirement to claim 20% of childcare costs for children under 12, or under 17 where children have a disability, capped at £2,000 per year.  The two schemes can run in tandem, but once a new scheme has been established no new employees will be allowed to join an old-style childcare voucher scheme and still receive the tax benefits. 

Holiday pay:  An appeal by British Gas to the Supreme Court will challenge last year’s ruling by the Court of Appeal that holiday pay should be ‘normal pay’ and include contractual results-based commission. The appeal is expected to be heard in March 2017 but in the meantime the ruling stands and employers need to look at irregular payments made to employees and establish which are to be included within ‘normal’ pay and so be included in any calculation for holiday pay. 

She added: “The complexity around holiday pay calculations means employers are likely to need advice to get it right.  It’s just one example of how employment law continues to pose challenges for business, and the year ahead is certainly no exception.  It’s important to get ahead of the deadlines and make sure you’re addressing the changes across all aspects of the business. 

“And while European law is behind some of the upcoming legislation or court rulings, it cannot be ignored on the basis that we are starting the process of withdrawing from the European Union, whatever style of Brexit is adopted by the Government.  For now, everything stands.” 

 

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

Wednesday, 16 November 2016

Hot air and bra sizes all add to the discrimination mix


The news that Airbnb has adopted a new anti-discrimination code, following accusations of racism by hosts on the home-sharing site, highlights the growing challenge in managing this increasingly sensitive issue.

Other recent headlines have ranged from EasyJet flight attendants fighting for family-friendly working practices that support them as new mothers, to uproar after the Matching Models recruitment agency specified a bra size and requirement for ‘attractive’ applicants in its recruiting material. 

The Supreme Court is due to decide whether a bus company discriminated when a disabled user was unable to travel, because the wheelchair space was already occupied by a passenger travelling with a buggy, in Paulley v First Group Plc.

And thousands of female shop floor workers with Asda have brought equal pay claims against the supermarket, in a claim for equality with their male counterparts in the company’s distribution centres.  

It highlights the need for businesses to keep their recruitment and working practices under constant review, if they are to be in step with the continuing developments in this area of the law. 

The Equality Act 2010 prevents direct and indirect discrimination based on protected characteristics, which include gender, age, disability, race, sexual orientation, personal relationship status, and religion or belief.  The protection of the Act extends to consumers, the workplace, education, public services, private clubs or associations and when buying or renting property.  

Questions can be asked about health or disability only in certain circumstances, such as whether someone may need help to take part in an interview, and disability covers both mental or physical impairments and an employer should make ‘reasonable’ adjustments to accommodate disabled applicants and employees.  

In addition, the Act makes it unlawful to discriminate, or treat employees unfavourably because of their pregnancy, or because they have given birth recently, are breastfeeding or on maternity leave.  It was on this basis that staff at EasyJet brought an employment tribunal claim against their employer for failing to offer arrangements that would enable them to continue breastfeeding when they returned to work after maternity leave. An employment judge ruled that EasyJet’s actions were unlawful indirect sex discrimination and it is likely to mean that employers will have to be more accommodating in their working arrangements for female staff who are breastfeeding. 

On the Airbnb website, hosts can see headshots and have chats before approving a guest, who may be staying in the home together with the host.  It’s a screening process that far exceeds what is available to a hotel and a number of African-Americans in the USA reported they were having bookings rejected, leading to accusations of racism and pressure on Airbnb to take action to demonstrate good practice in the matching process it enables between hosts and users.

Said employment law expert  Elissa Thursfield of Gamlins Law:  “As the facilitators of the bookings, rather than decision makers, Airbnb held themselves apart from the problem for a while, but now have had to respond to public pressure and take a stance.  It reflects the growing pressure on companies to keep up with the far-reaching developments in this area, and it demands a new mind-set for many.  For example, it’s important not to use language that may imply age discrimination, such as talking about young, old, Millennials or Baby Boomers, or to ask about retirement plans now the default retirement age has been abolished. 

“Similarly, you may be breaking the law if any discrimination happens during recruitment, even if you use a recruitment agency.  The recent advertisement for so-called ‘attractive’ applicants by Matching Models drew a stinging rebuke for being ‘appalling, unlawful and demeaning to women’ from the Chief Executive of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.”

She  added:  “Next on the horizon for employers is the requirement to publish gender pay gap data and businesses need to prepare now, with their pay audits and communication plans, to be ready to publish against the anticipated April 2018 deadline. 

“Embracing equality and diversity needs to be at the top of the agenda, whatever the company size.”

Tuesday, 25 October 2016

Winners!

Apologies for the short hiatus, our blogger has been on a well deserved holiday to  get married and go on honeymoon!

On her return, we were extremely pleased to see that Elissa Thursfield had been shortlisted for the Junior Lawyer of the Year Award at this year's Law Society Awards.

We at Gamlins Law are all very proud to announce that Elissa was awarded the Law Society Junior Lawyer of the year award for 2016.  The ceremony was held in London last Friday and Elissa was awarded the trophy on stage.

The Law Society’s panel found that Elissa’s great legal work and her dedication to the RNLI were decisive factors in awarding her the prize.


Friday, 24 June 2016

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.

Thursday, 16 June 2016

Flexibility for Football?

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:

Thursday, 9 June 2016

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.