Stressed out
Stress is still the biggest problem facing UK workplaces, with excessive workloads, job cuts and rapid change the most common triggers for rising stress levels among employees, according to new research published by the TUC.
The figures show that six out of ten union safety reps (61 per cent), questioned by the TUC for its 2006 biennial safety reps survey, found that stress was their most pressing concern at work. Two years ago, the figure was 58 per cent of reps; in 2002, this figure was just 56 per cent.
London is the most stressed out part of the UK (67 per cent of safety reps in the capital placed it top of their workplace hazards list), closely followed by the north west where 65 per cent said it was their biggest problem.
When asked to cite the factors most likely to lead to problems with stress at work, over three-quarters of the reps (76 per cent) said that excessive workloads were to blame. Others mentioned cuts in staffing levels (57 per cent), rapid change (53 per cent), long working hours (34 per cent) and bullying (33 per cent).
Almost 3,400 union safety reps responded to the TUC questionnaire between the spring and summer of 2006. To access the chapter on stress from the 2006 biennial safety reps survey, e-mail: media@tuc.org.uk
Equal but diverse
In just over seven years, only a fifth of the workforce will be white, able-bodied, male and under 45. This demographic time-bomb has inspired ACAS, the Government’s advisory and conciliation service, to develop a set of equality and diversity online learning tools.
The e-learning tools are designed to help both employers and employees recognize and address situations in the workplace that result in people feeling undervalued and ineffective.
ACAS is also offering a free consultation on equality and diversity in the workplace as part of the Government's drive to promote good practice to underpin the sexual orientation and religion and belief regulations 2003.
For more information, go to: www.acas.org.uk/elearning
Busted flush
The TUC has published a report busting 14 false or exaggerated health and safety myths, saying that they undermine the important role that health and safety regulation plays in protecting people's health and well-being at work.
The report, Health and safety myths shows that employers often use health and safety as an excuse for not doing something that they didn't want to do anyway or to save money.
Myths busted in the report include:
- Myth: health and safety regulations ban the use of ladders.
- Truth: there is no ban on ladders but there are regulations aimed at ensuring that people use them safely to reduce the number of workers seriously injured or killed falling off them every year.
- Myth: there are now more regulations and red tape than ever.
- Truth: there were more than twice as many health and safety regulations and laws 35 years ago than there are today. The legislation that remains is now generally simpler and easier to understand.
To download the report, go to: www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/tuc-12556-f0.cfm
Moving on up
According to a recent, interim report by the Equal Opportunities Commission, ambitious young Pakistani, Bangladeshi and black Caribbean women face continued discrimination in the workplace.
The report, Moving On Up?, paints a picture of poor labour market prospects for young minority ethnic women, despite increasing attainment at school and ambitious aspirations.
Key findings include:
- Pakistani, Bangladeshi and black Caribbean girls age 16 have the same aspirations as white girls to combine work and family life and are even more ambitious about their education and future careers
- in GCSE 5A*-C performance, Pakistani and Bangladeshi girls have overtaken white boys, are are quickly catching up to white girls – and black Caribbean girls are not far behind. These girls have already overtaken boys in their ethnic groups
- Pakistani, Bangladeshi and black Caribbean women employees under 35 experience higher unemployment, a lower glass ceiling than white women, and – for Pakistani and Bangladeshi women – lower pay. Most work in a restricted range of sectors and jobs.
To download key findings from the report, go to: www.eoc.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=19421
Extension of time
Breach of contract claims dealing with a failure to pay notice after summary dismissal, fall within the “dismissal” provisions of the dispute resolution regulations, according to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) in London Borough of Lambeth -v- Corlett.
That gave Mr Corlett an extra three months to bring his claim of wrongful dismissal, which would otherwise have been time barred as he lodged the claim just under six months after the dismissal took effect.
The council argued that regulation 15(2) of the regulations (extending the time limit by three months where the dismissal and disciplinary procedure is ongoing) did not apply to a breach of contract claim.
The EAT held that the time limit could be extended because the ongoing dismissal and disciplinary hearing included the substance of his wrongful dismissal complaint to the tribunal.
The EAT also cast doubt on the recent decision of Martins -v- Castlehill and Bisset (In the news, LELR 115) when it decided that the statutory grievance procedure did not apply between employees. The EAT said that the decision in Bisset is “plainly arguable and of some importance. It must wait to be decided in a case in which it necessarily arises for determination”.
Without prejudice
The law says that parties to disputes can have "without prejudice" discussions so that any proposals they make cannot ultimately be used against them if the dispute ends up in court.
However, that principle can be set aside in certain circumstances, such as in the case of Brunel University & another -v- Vaseghi & Webster – a race discrimination victimisation claim (in which Thompsons represented Ms Webster). The Employment Appeals Tribunal said that, as the University had already made the settlement discussions public by using them as evidence at a grievance hearing, it would be an abuse of privilege not to allow the claimants to refer to the original discussions as part of their victimisation claim.
It concluded that, in discrimination cases, the need to get at the truth of what happened may be more important than settling the claim.
Enhancing redundancy
According to the Court of Appeal in Keeley -v- Fosroc International Ltd, if employers put details of enhanced redundancy payments in staff handbooks rather than individual contracts of employment, the law will presume that they have contractual status. If the employer breaches them, employees can bring a breach of contract claim.
Holiday case heads for Europe
Following a brief hearing at the House of Lords, the case of Ainsworth -v- Commissioners of the Inland Revenue has been referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
The Public and Commercial Services union instructed Thompsons to take the case to the House of Lords after the Court of Appeal ruled that a worker on long-term sick leave did not have a right to holiday entitlement.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the Inland Revenue that workers on long-term sick leave forfeit the right to compensation for holiday not taken if that worker’s employment is terminated during the leave year.
The Law Lords referred the case to the ECJ after a German court decided to refer Schultz-Hoff -v- Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund, asking whether article 7 of the Working Time Directive means that workers must receive minimum annual paid leave of four weeks during a long period of incapacity for work.
Although the German reference to the ECJ is concerned with German case law and the relevant collective agreement there, the Law Lords decided that there was value in joining Ainsworth with it.
The reference to the ECJ means that all other employment tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal cases currently stayed, waiting for the outcome of the appeal to the House of Lords, will have to wait until the ECJ has ruled.
Incomplete claim form
Common sense has prevailed in the case of Hamling -v- Coxlease School in which the claimant, Ms Hamling, omitted her address from the claim form but gave that of her solicitors.
The tribunal chair refused to hear her claim because the rules of procedure required her name and address be given.
The Employment Appeals Tribunal allowed her appeal, criticising the legalistic approach of the tribunal chair. It said that the error was neither "relevant" nor "material" and ordered her claim form to be accepted.