Police officers are not employees, and their office will only terminate (unless found guilty of misconduct or capability) upon retirement.
Regulation A19 of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 allows for retirement of officers who meet certain criteria, if doing so is in the general interest of efficiency.
Following the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review in 2010, police forces were required to make 20% cuts in their budgets over four years. Since 80% of their costs related to staffing Forces across the country looked to reduce staff numbers. Using A19 clearly disadvantaged officers over the age of 48 and those affected argued indirect age discrimination. Indirect age discrimination is not unlawful if justified as being a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim. Overturning the employment tribunal's judgment, the EAT found the only way the forces could be certain of a reduction in officer numbers was by use of A19, since there was no power to make a police officer redundant, and their actions were therefore justified.
Agency Workers Regulations 5 August 2015
Does EU law require that an agency worker in a temporary job be given a right to apply for that job, and/or get preference ahead of an employer's permanent employees?
No, held the EAT in Coles v Ministry of Defence , dismissing the Claimant's appeal and a request for a reference to the European Court of Justice.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin which provides the details of the case.
The Claimant was an agency worker for the MoD. After redeploying redundant permanent employees, the MoD filled the Claimant's role, without offering him an interview for 'his' job. Whilst the Claimant had been informed of the vacancy, as required by the Agency Workers Regulations 2010, he maintained that the failure to allow him to apply for the post, and/or to give him preference ahead of permanent employees breached his right to 'equal treatment' in basic working and employment conditions under the Temporary Agency Worker Directive. The EAT held that for agency workers, "the principle of equal treatment is confined to working time and pay", unlike the general right to no less favourable treatment of fixed-term employees. The right of agency workers to be informed of vacancies was a valuable right in itself. To refuse agency workers interviews would not breach any duty under the Directive.
The EAT refused to make a reference to the ECJ on whether the Directive required employers to provide opportunities for agency workers to find alternative employment beyond giving them information on vacancies.
Social Media - EAT ruling provides a cautionary tale 11 August 2015
Was it unfair to dismiss an employee for comments made on Facebook which he claimed were untrue? Not according to the EAT so long as the employer carried out a reasonable investigation and that a fair procedure was followed.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin for the following summary of British Waterways Board v Smith .
The Claimant had made derogatory comments on Facebook about his managers and work, and a claim that two years earlier he had been drinking whilst on standby. During a standby period, workers were not permitted to consume alcohol. Whilst the Claimant denied that he had in fact been drinking, and claimed that the comments were banter, he was summarily dismissed on the grounds of gross misconduct as his comments had undermined the confidence his employer or the public could have in him. Despite finding that the employer had carried out a reasonable investigation and had a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds that the Claimant had made the comments, the employment tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair as the employer had failed to consider the Claimant's mitigation, including the point that some claims made on Facebook are exaggerated or not true.
CIPP Policy News Journal
25/04/2016, Page 74 of 453
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker