Policy News Journal - 2011-2012

Nadine Quashie, 28, worked as a 'lap dancer' at Stringfellows between June 2007 and December 2008, and was treated by the club for tax purposes as self-employed and in one tax year earned over £100,000. She had earlier brought a claim to an Employment Tribunal which was unsuccessful as the judge ruled she was not an employee. Now, she has been allowed to proceed with an appeal arguing that she was an employee and not self-employed. Peter Stringfellow has said he will challenge this recent decision. If Quashie's appeal succeeds it will have ramifications for Stringfellows and the nightclub sector in relation to their legal obligations to dancers and other entertainers and potentially to all businesses using self employed workers. Irrespective of the final outcome, the case serves as a reminder to all businesses of the important differences between employed and self-employed status and the financial consequences which result. If someone is employed they have a multitude of legal rights including: minimum wage levels; minimum periods of paid holiday; minimum periods of paid notice and maternity pay. Self-employed individuals however have none of these rights. Importantly, neither do they have the right not to be unfairly dismissed. Read the full story from HR Magazine 7 December 2011 Does an employer act unlawfully if he treats an employee less favourably, not because she is married, but because she is married to a particular man? Yes says the Employment Appeal Tribunal (HHJ McMullen) in Dunn v Insititute of Cemetry and Crematorium Management . Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin reports: Mrs Dunn was employed as a technical services manager. Following a dispute over her employment terms she resigned and claimed constructive unfair dismissal. But she also claimed breach of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 because she contended she was less favourably treated because she was married to Mr Dunn, with whom the employer was also in dispute. She was treated as an adjunct of him. According to the EAT, reviewing the authorities, including Chief Constable of the Bedfordshire Constabulary v Graham [2002] IRLR 239, section 3 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (see Equality Act 2010, s. 8) could be construed as protecting the claimant by reason of her status, not only of being married, but also of being married to her husband. Furthermore, although the 1976 Equal Treatment Directive was not of assistance in this interpretation, the claimant's rights under Arts 8,12 and 14 of the ECHR were engaged, and section 3 of the SDA should be construed accordingly. MARITAL DISCRIMINATION

PENSION SWITCH RULED LAWFUL BY HIGH COURT

7 December 2011 The government's public sector pensions policy has been given a major boost following a High Court ruling.

CIPP Policy News Journal

09/10/2012, Page 57 of 234

Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker