INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION THROUGH FLEXIBLE WORKING REQUEST REFUSAL
5 November 2012
In a recent case a retailer was found to have indirectly discriminated against a female employee by refusing her flexible working request on her return from maternity leave.
Ms Cooper (C) worked for House of Fraser (Stores) Ltd (H) as a full-time senior buyer in women's wear. Whilst C was on maternity leave, one of the brands on which she had been employed was discontinued and C could therefore not return to the same role on her return from maternity leave. C was offered a full-time senior buying role on a different brand. C wanted to work part-time on her return from maternity leave. The director of buying, Ms Hawes, did not believe this role could be carried out on a part-time basis and refused C's flexible working request. As there were no other vacancies, C resigned and brought a claim of sex discrimination. The tribunal found that there was a "Provision, Criterion or Practice" (PCP) within the women's wear department that buyers should not work part-time. The tribunal found that, on the statistics shown to them, this PCP was potentially disadvantageous to women buyers as a group, as they were more likely to be the main carers for children. Further, the tribunal held that C herself was disadvantaged by this PCP and that H had failed to justify this PCP. Therefore, the tribunal upheld C's claim for indirect sex discrimination.
Pinsent Masons continues by exploring how employers can justify refusing flexible working requests in a retail round up briefing. Follow the link below to read their briefing.
Pinsent Masons Employment Update for the Retail Sector
UNLAWFUL DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES IN PAYMENT OF EXPENSES TRIBUNAL
14 November 2012
The Claimants, airline cabin crew, won tribunal claims for unlawful deductions from wages after a dispute over the payment of expenses, which were, for tax reasons, earmarked as allowances within salary.
Can individual clauses in an employment contract be construed in line with the principles of Autoclenz to establish the validity of a clause?
No, says the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Quantas v Lopez and Hooper .
Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin reports:
The Claimants, airline cabin crew, won tribunal claims for unlawful deductions from wages after a dispute over the payment of expenses, which were, for tax reasons, earmarked as allowances within salary. The EAT considered whether the principles of Autoclenz v Belcher (see bulletin on this here ) meant that the Claimants' contracts should be construed so as to make their allowances payable on top of salary. The EAT upheld the appeal: it was not appropriate on the facts of this case to construe the individual clauses relating to allowances as allowing the payment of the allowances on top of salary, and there had been no unlawful deductions. There was no suggestion that the clauses themselves were sham clauses, and there was no need to depart from settled principles of construction.
The EAT also held that the payments were 'expenses' within the meaning of S27(2)(b) ERA
CIPP Policy News Journal
12/04/2013, Page 67 of 362
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker