The tribunal did however concede that the evaluation scheme itself was not "openly discriminatory" in its design. It was not, it said, "designed to 'get around' the issue of potentially discriminatory bonus payments". In a statement, South Lanarkshire Council said that it was considering its next course of action. "This is a complex judgment reflecting the fact that two and a half years' worth of evidence was heard in this case," it said. "We will be taking time to analyse the content before considering our next course of action. Crucially, the tribunal did not find our job evaluation scheme to be sex discriminatory."
Read the full report from Pinsent Masons
FACILITIES STAFF WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY TRANSFER UNDER TUPE IF CLIENT CHANGES AT THE SAME TIME AS SERVICE PROVIDER
4 July 2012
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed Regulations designed to protect employees when the company they work for is taken over by a new owner, will not apply where the contractor providing business services changes at the same time as the client for whom those services are being carried out. Its ruling , which overturned an earlier employment tribunal decision, meant that a security guard whose contract was terminated when his employer lost a contract to provide security services at a building could not rely on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) Regulations to raise an unfair dismissal claim against the new security service provider. This was because the owners of the building changed at the same time.
TUPE was expanded in 2006 to govern situations where work is outsourced, brought back in-house or the service provider is changed.
In a separate case heard last December the EAT was asked for the first time to decide whether a service provision change (SPC) could be said to have taken place if the client to whom services were being provided changed at the same time. In that case, called the 'Hunter case', it held that the regulations would only apply in this context if the activities carried out before and after an SPC were on behalf of the same client.
Read the full report from Pinsent Masons
REDUCTION IN HEADCOUNT NOT REQUIRED FOR REDUNDANCY
4 July 2012
Can there be a redundancy where the headcount remains the same?
Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin reports:
Yes, says the EAT in Packman v Fauchon .
The claimant was employed as a book-keeper. There was a downturn in business. Also, the employer introduced an accountancy software package which reduced the number of hours which it was necessary for the book-keeper to work. Accordingly, it sought to persuade the claimant to cut down her hours. She refused and was dismissed.
The employment tribunal held that the downturn in business meant there was a diminishing need for book-keeping. Since the claimant did not agree to a significant reduction in her
CIPP Policy News Journal
12/04/2013, Page 50 of 362
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker