The Agency Workers Regulations 2010 entitle an agency worker to the same conditions of work as a permanent employee, but this does not extend to an entitlement to be offered the same number of hours of work as those performed by a permanent employee. The Court of Appeal held the purpose of The Agency Workers Regulations 2010 was to ensure the equal treatment of agency workers and permanent employees while at work, and in respect of rights arising from their work.. The Regulations did not regulate the amount of work which agency workers were entitled to be given.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin for providing this update.
Back to Contents
Supreme court ruling to apply to all public sector pension schemes 30 July 2019
On 27 June 2019 the Supreme Court denied the government permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s judgment that transitional provisions introduced to the reformed judges and firefighters pension schemes in 2015 gave rise to unlawful age discrimination. Background The pension scheme changed on 1 April 2015 from a Final Salary Scheme to a Career Average Revalued Earnings Scheme (CARE) where members starting after 1 April 2015 would join the 2015 Scheme. Unprotected members of the 1992 and 2006 Final Salary Schemes moved into the 2015 Scheme on 1 April 2015. Protected members of the 1992 and 2006 schemes, depending on the level of protection, either stayed in their existing scheme or moved into the 2015 Scheme when their protection ceased. In December 2018, the Court of Appeal held that transitional protections that sheltered older judges and firefighters from the significant reductions in pensions entitlements which the claimants suffered as a result of the public sector pensions changes in 2015, were unlawfully discriminatory. It also held that the desire to protect older judges/firefighters when they would have been least affected by the 2015 changes was ‘irrational’ and that the absence of evidence supporting this aim meant that there was no basis on which it could have been found to be legitimate. The Court of Appeal also found that the age protection was indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of sex and race. Permission to appeal denied On 27 June 2019 the Supreme Court denied the government permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s judgment that transitional provisions introduced to the reformed judges and firefighters pension schemes in 2015 gave rise to unlawful age discrimination. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Elizabeth Truss responded to the decision in a written statement saying that the Government respects the Court’s decision and will engage fully with the Employment Tribunal to agree how the discrimination will be remedied. The ruling relates to the ‘transitional protection’ offered to some members when the reformed schemes were introduced. In order to ensure people close to retirement age were treated fairly, the government agreed to ‘transitional protection’, which broadly permitted those members who were closest to retirement at the time new pension schemes were introduced to remain members of their respective old schemes. The court has found that those too far away from retirement age to qualify for ‘transitional protection’ have been unfairly discriminated against. As ‘transitional protection’ was offered to members of all the main public service pension schemes, the government believes that the difference in treatment will need to be remedied across all those schemes. This includes schemes for the:
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Payroll: need to know
cipp.org.uk
Page 111 of 629
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker