Policy News Journal - 2011-2012

Directives which meet certain criteria (as to clarity) can be enforced against the State or an emanation of the State (in other words, Government departments and other public bodies, including some previously nationalised organisations), even if a particular provision has not yet become part of national law. Why is this case important for us – after all we don’t have the same rule in UK law? It is significant because it finally confirms that European cases such as Stringer & ors v HMRC , which state that workers absent on long term sick leave for a whole leave year are entitled to be paid for, or carry forward, holiday they haven’t been able to take whilst off sick, can be enforced directly by public sector workers. In their present form, the Working Time Regulations do not permit this, and a change to the rules is in the pipeline, but without any definite date for implementation – so for the time being private sector employees will be in a less favourable position than public sector workers. Current government proposals to amend the Working Time Regulations to bring them into line with these developments would apply different rules to the additional 8 days provided for in UK law over and above 20 days’ minimum leave provided by the Directive – an approach which the CJEC seems to say is acceptable. 19 March 2012 Is it unlawful discrimination on the grounds of marital status if a spouse is dismissed (or suffers some other detriment) on the grounds of being married to a particular person? Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin reports: No, says the EAT (Underhill P) in Hawkins v Atex Group , unless the ground for the less favourable treatment is specifically marriage, as opposed to a close relationship which takes the form of marriage. The Claimant was employed for less than a year by a company her husband managed when a policy prohibiting employment of close relatives was implemented, leading to her (and her daughter's) dismissal. An employment tribunal struck out her claim of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of marital status, and her appeal failed. The EAT observed that in this case, there was no general rule or criterion applied by the employer about married women, the decision to dismiss applied to the Claimant and her daughter, and the Respondent was not motivated, in whole or in part, by the fact that the Claimant was married to her husband. The EAT considered and departed from the recent case of Dunn v Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management under which detriments arising from being married to a particular person, not only being married, could found a marital status discrimination complaint, and doubted some of the reasoning in Dunn. So there is a conflict of authority on this point. The EAT noted that it had been referred to an authority not cited in Dunn. Expenses and Benefits Advisory Fuel Rates CHANGE TO CALCULATION AND ASSESSMENT OF ADVISORY FUEL RATES MARITAL DISCRIMINATION

25 May 2011

CIPP Policy News Journal

09/10/2012, Page 70 of 234

Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker