Reward
decision is not legally binding. It’s entirely possible the employee may appeal the decision, in which case the outcome of the employment appeal tribunal (EAT) would be binding authority, which all employers would have to follow.
stores. However, the respect and encouragement from his managers changed when his store’s performance began to struggle. Issues which are regularly overlooked in well-performing stores (e.g. hiding price cards when product lines had run out) were raised against Williams and he was invited to a disciplinary hearing. The claimant explained he had been under immense pressure and did not feel safe in his role because of this, saying Aldi used past incidents as an excuse to force him out. The ET agreed, concluding that, on the balance of probabilities, if a store manager was performing well then the removal of price cards was ignored. But, if there were other performance issues and the store was struggling, removing price cards would be used together with other allegations of either underperformance or misconduct by the individual, to dismiss them or reach a confidential settlement agreement. The ET found that Aldi was in fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence in the way they dealt with the claimant, leading to his claim for constructive unfair dismissal being successful. The ET also outlined that the treatment of, and towards, Williams made it clear that the respondent wanted him out of the business. The compensation awarded to Williams was reduced by 20% due to contributory fault. Specifically, since he admitted misconduct, which he accepted was against the rules, even though it was usually ignored for good performers anyway. The tribunal took into consideration the view that Williams was acting to protect his job role when deciding not to make the reduction higher. This case is a reminder for employers of the need to follow fair and reasonable processes when dealing with performance and conduct issues. It also highlights the importance of taking a consistent approach to what is deemed to be misconduct across a business, and not allowing managers to make allowances for good store performance in taking decisions on disciplinary matters. Although there was a reduction considering the claimant’s contributory fault, it was recognised this was as a result of the undue pressure applied to him. Therefore, this shouldn’t not be taken as a sign by employers that this sort of treatment of employees is to be tolerated. n
July 2019, with the decision to not uphold it given on the same day. The ET determined that, since the employee agreed to attend the appeal on 1 July 2019, there was an implied agreement to extend the decision period. This led the ET to conclude there was no jurisdiction to hear the claim. However, the claimant appealed to the EAT, who confirmed the ET had erred in deciding the employee agreed to the extension of the decision period, because they were attending the delayed appeal meeting. The EAT concluded the purpose of the regulations was to ensure decisions are made within a reasonable time. They found the fact the employee attended the appeal hearing to be another matter altogether and was likely an action to try to resolve the substantive issues at hand. This case is a reminder for employers of the need to follow fair and reasonable processes when dealing with performance and conduct issues Therefore, businesses must ensure they follow the procedures laid out in the regulations and ensure agreement is sought if there is a need to extend the decision period. For the avoidance of doubt, it is beneficial to confirm agreement in writing, with all parties signing and dating the document. This may become particularly prudent should the government confirm changes to the flexible working process, including reducing the current timeframe for response.
Delays to flexible working requests must be agreed
The government has not yet confirmed the outcome of its public consultation on making flexible working the default position for all employees from day one of employment. However, in the meantime, the ET system has confirmed the responsibilities of employers to provide an outcome to all flexible working requests within three months of a request being made. Under section 80F of the Employment Rights Act (1996), employers can apply for a change to the terms and conditions of their employment, typically relating to factors such as their hours, place and time of work. This applies if they have worked continuously with the same employer for at least 26 weeks. The Act further states that employers are required to deal with any requests in a reasonable manner, and that, where there is an appeal, the appeal decision must also be notified within the decision period. The decision period in this situation is specified as being ‘…(a) the period of three months beginning with the date on which the application is made, or (b) such longer period as may be agreed by the employer and employee.’ In the case of Walsh v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd, the employee made a flexible working request on 11 February 2019, which the respondent rejected on 6 March 2019. An appeal was submitted on 13 March 2019; however, a date could not be arranged by both parties to hear the appeal. The delay to the process led the employee to apply for an early conciliation certificate on 4 April 2019. Extensive correspondence between both the employee and employer continued, but by 10 May 2019 (the three-month decision period deadline), the meeting had still not been arranged. Eventually, it was agreed to be held on 1 July 2019, but the claimant submitted a tribunal claim on 25 June 2019. This was on the grounds the flexible working request had not been dealt with reasonably, was determined on incorrect facts and that the process was not concluded before the end of the decision period. The appeal was finally held on 1
Forced resignation is constructive dismissal
An Aldi employee was awarded over £27,000 after being forced to resign from his position as store manager in the recent ET case of Williams v Aldi Stores Ltd. In this, the claimant had worked for the company for ten years, most of which he was well regarded by his seniors. He worked to transform underperforming
31
| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward |
Issue 78 | March 2022
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker