Electronic guidance from ACAS
ACAS, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, has produced new guidance for the use of the internet and e-mail at work. It says that clearly formulated policies - drawn up in consultation with trade unions - help organisations to prevent unauthorised or careless use by workers.
It recommends that organisations have written policies to:Â
- help protect themselves against liability for the actions of their workersÂ
- help educate system users about the legal risks they may inadvertently be takingÂ
- make clear to users who they should contact about any particular aspect of the policyÂ
- notify users of any privacy expectations in their communicationsÂ
- prevent damage to systemsÂ
- avoid or reduce unnecessary time being spent on non-work related activities.
Document checklist for illegal workers
The Home Office has made changes to the list of documents that employers have to request from prospective employees to verify their work status. Under the new system, employers can rely on one 'secure' document such as a UK or EEA passport, a national identity card or a UK residence permit.
In the absence of one of these, employers have to check two documents. These include an official document with the person's NI number, along with a birth certificate, a letter from the Home Office or an Immigration Status Document.
Alternatively, they can rely on a work permit along with a passport or letter from the Home Office. These must confirm that the person has permission to be in the UK and to work there.
Click here for guidance to the new rules:Â
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/filestore/new_a5_guidance.pdf.
Of equal value
The Department of Trade and Industry has just issued a consultation document on how to reform the way in which employment tribunals deal with equal value cases.
The main point of the consultation is to make the system work more efficiently and to cut down the time that the cases take to be processed. In future, cases should take just six to nine months, with straightforward ones resolved even quicker. You can access a copy of the consultation document on www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk.
The Equal Opportunities Commission has produced its first report into an investigation about discrimination faced by pregnant women at work. It has also produced a short summary with findings from the review, as well as anecdotal stories from women and employers about their experiences.
Just over 3% of women aged 16 to 49 in Britain are pregnant at any one time. Given that just over half of them are employees, that equates to about 250,000 women.Â
Although women have rights under the Employment Rights Act, the Sex Discrimination Act and European law, the EOC says they still experience discrimination at work simply because they're pregnant (see LELR 87, March 2004).
But some employers still seem to think that pregnant women should have no rights. According to one: 'Everything is weighted in favour of the employee. Small employers should have the right to terminate pregnant women's employment.'
Clearly we still have a long way to go.Â
To view the report go to www.eoc.org.uk.Â
Put it out
Under the Minimum Wage Act 1998, there are four different types of work - time work, salaried hours work, output work and unmeasured work.
The Department of Trade and Industry has just published draft regulations - the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2004 - dealing with the calculation of fair piece rates for output workers, such as homeworkers who do piecework. Most of these will become effective in October 2004.
Employers pay these workers according to the number of pieces they produce, but those figures then have to be converted to an hourly rate for the NMW. Up until now, this has been done by coming to a 'fair estimate' agreement of the number of hours someone is likely to work in a day, week or month.
Under the new regulations, a new system called 'rated output work' will operate. Employers will have to test their workers to determine the average speed at which they work to make the goods (or perform the task), or make a satisfactory estimate based on a sample of workers. This becomes the 'mean hourly output rate'.Â
The number of hours that the workers are paid for the pieces they produce (or tasks they perform) are then calculated on the basis of the 'mean hourly output rate.' In this way, the amount of work produced by the output workers is 'converted' into pay for the NMW.
The employer also has to provide these workers with a statement explaining all this, plus the telephone number of the NMW helpline.
The draft regulations can be found at www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2004/draft/20048731.htm.
Sick leave during holidays
The EAT has decided in Inland Revenue v Ainsworth that the case of Kigass Aero Components v Brown (2002, IRLR 312) was correct to conclude that workers on long-term sick leave are entitled to four weeks' paid holiday under the working time regulations, even if all their contractual entitlement has been exhausted.
The decision has been appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Inland Revenue say they are pursuing this matter as a test case. PCS, the employees' trade union, has instructed Thompsons to represent them.
Employment tribunal jurisdiction
The EAT in Taylor Gordon & Co Ltd v Timmons (2004, IRLR 180) has said that statutory sick pay as well as statutory maternity, paternity and adoption pay do not come within the jurisdiction of the employment tribunal. Instead, the board of the Inland Revenue (and on appeal, the Commissioners) is responsible.
The only jurisdiction for the tribunal is when an employer admits an employee is entitled to a payment, but withholds all or part of it. This may prove to be inconvenient for employees who have to go to tribunal to enforce some rights, but to the Inland Revenue for others.
No money for loss of opportunity
The Court of Appeal has decided in Harper v Virgin Net Ltd (see LELR Issue 84 for EAT decision) that if an employee is summarily dismissed, she isn't entitled to compensation for missing out on a claim for unfair dismissal.
Ms Harper had claimed that had she been given the notice to which she was entitled under her contract, she would have had enough service to bring a claim of unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal agreed and gave her what she would have received if she'd been able to claim unfair dismissal.
But the EAT and Court of Appeal said that the decision in Johnson v Unisys Ltd (2001, ICR 480) is clear that employees cannot recover damages that arise from the manner of their dismissal.