Assessing the risk

Employers have to carry out a risk assessment if they employ someone of "childbearing age". But they then have to do another assessment once the woman has told her employer that she is pregnant. Unfortunately, according to surveys by the TUC and the Equal Opportunities Commission, not many employers seem to realise this.

So the TUC has produced a useful briefing for workplace safety representatives to make sure that employers do what the law requires of them. It provides a useful step-by-step explanation and suggests the sort of risks that need to be included.

No more opting out

The European Parliament has voted in favour of removing the UK's right to opt out of the 48-hour maximum working week under the Working Time Directive.

However, before the change can become law, both the Parliament and the Council of Ministers have to give their approval. This is by no means guaranteed.

Nevertheless, TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber welcomed the move, saying: "If implemented it would mean that employers would have to accept that staff could no longer work more than 48 hours a week on average, but unions would have to concede that the average would be calculated over 12 months, not the current 17 weeks."

Race to train

Workplace training - a race for opportunity, a TUC report, shows that, even though job related training is more likely to be offered to qualified workers, those from black and minority ethnic (BME) backgrounds receive fewer opportunities.

The report says that 28 per cent of BMEs are graduates, compared to just 20 per cent of white workers. And, although having a degree significantly increased access to job related training, only 17 per cent of white graduates had never been offered training, compared to 20 per cent of black workers.

But BME employees who work in the public sector, or in workplaces with trade union recognition, have much more chance of receiving training. The positive action taken by unions, and reinforced by the Race Relations Amendment Act (2000), has had the effect of limiting workplace racism.

Union membership pays off

Trade union members earn over 17 per cent more than non-union employees, according to a recent report by the Department of Trade & Industry. Yet the number of trade union members in the UK fell by 36,000 compared to the year before. The report, Trade Union Membership 2004, found:

  • Just under one in five private sector employees in the UK were union members in autumn 2004
  • Almost three in five public sector employees were union members
  • The number of male union members fell by approximately 54,000 in 2004, while female employees in trade unions rose by approximately 42,000
  • The hourly earnings of union members averaged £11.38 in autumn 2004, 17.1 per cent more than the earnings of non-union employees.

Turning point for part-time pilots

Jessica Starmer, a woman pilot working for British Airways who wanted to work part time, won her employment tribunal claim last month. She was supported by her union, the British Airline Pilots' Association (BALPA) who instructed Thompsons.

The tribunal rejected BA's argument that their refusal was due to a shortage of resources. Instead, it noted the airline's £135 million profit in the year in question.

In addition, the tribunal did not find that BA had produced any compelling evidence that there was a threat to safety by granting part time working.

It said that the BA rule on "hours needed before consideration of part time working" had been introduced after Jessica had submitted her claim.

BALPA believes the Starmer case could mark an important turning point for all pilots wanting to work part time - whether as a parent, to look after an elderly relative or to reduce their hours as they near retirement.

Nicola Dandridge, the Thompsons solicitor who took the case said "This case is a warning to employers to change their mindset if they automatically assume that some jobs are not suited to reduced hours working. They also need to realise that relying on a health and safety justification for refusing part time work will not always be accepted by tribunals."

BALPA General Secretary Jim McAuslan said: "British Airways should show the same flexibility in employment practices as they demand of their pilots."

Civil partnerships

When it comes into force in December this year, the Civil Partnership Act will give same-sex couples many of the rights and benefits that have historically been enjoyed by opposite-sex couples.

The TUC has produced a briefing note to make sure that trades unionists are aware of the important implications of the Act for their members. It looks at the implications for the benefits system, tax credits and co-habitation.

Gay worker wins protection

A tribunal has said that Durham City Council discriminated against gay theatre worker, Fausto Gismondi, and that they unfairly constructively dismissed him. His manager was also found to have discriminated against Mr. Gismondi. The case was backed by Bectu who instructed Thompsons.

Mr Gismondi, who was Group Bookings coordinator at Durham's Gala Theatre, was repeatedly referred to as "gay boy" by his manager Ed Tutty, a press officer for Durham City Council.

The tribunal said that the council's failure to protect Mr Gismondi "ought to cause them considerable shame", and added that the process adopted by the council was "an utter shambles" and "they have signally failed in their duty to an employee who has been bullied and harassed, contrary to their own express policies". It also commented: "it is hard to envisage conduct more likely to shatter the trust and confidence of an employee in his employer."

Durham City Council and the harasser were both found by the tribunal to have breached the Sexual Orientation Regulations. This is one of the first cases to have succeeded under the regulations since they became law in December 2003.s not honoured and the tribunal will not re-open the case, the claimant can instigate county court action for breach of contract. The county court cannot re-open the original tribunal claim.

Claim forms

Under new procedural rules for tribunal cases, claimants must ensure their forms contain adequate "details of their claim".

In Grimmer v KML Cityhopper UK, Ms Grimmer simply put "flexible working" in the box asking her to identify the type of complaint she was making. In the box asking for details she wrote that "the company's business argument for refusing my application is based upon their assumption that, if they concede to my request, others would be requesting similar/same working arrangements."

The tribunal said her claim could not be accepted because she had not provided details. The EAT overturned the tribunal's refusal, saying the test should be "whether it can be discerned from the claim as presented that the claimant is complaining of an alleged breach of an employment right which falls within the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal."

It also made clear that "details of the claim" is not the same thing as "particulars of the claim". But if the claim does not have enough particulars, the EAT said the correct approach was to ask for more, not to refuse to admit it.