Where there are outstanding equal pay claims against the insolvent employer, employees may seek payment from the Secretary of State of up to 8 weeks’ pay on the basis that they were entitled to be paid the greater amount under their contract. The Secretary of State would have to consider any application for payment of the arrears in the normal way, and any dispute as to entitlement could be referred to the employment tribunal.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin for providing this update.
Back to Contents
Surveillance Cameras and Privacy at Work 15 December 2017
Does video surveillance of lecture halls violate a professor's right to privacy?
Yes, held the European Court of Human Rights in Antovic and Mirkovic v Montenegro .
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to respect for private and family life. The Dean of the School of Mathematics installed video surveillance in a public lecture theatre at a Montenegro university to "protect safety of property, people and students"•. It also recorded lectures. The data was protected by codes known only to the Dean and kept for one year. The Personal Data Protection Agency ordered the removal of the cameras. There was no evidence safety was an issue and therefore no legitimate grounds for data collection. Ms Antovic and Mr Mirkovic brought compensation claims. Domestic courts held that Article 8 had not been violated.
By four votes to three the European Court ruled that although the University is a public sphere, private life encompasses business and professional activities. Article 8 had been breached.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin for providing this update.
Back to Contents
Inducements to forego collective bargaining rights 19 December 2017
The EAT has heard the first appeal under s145B of TULR(C)A 1992 in Katsos UK v Dunkley , dealing with provisions preventing employers unlawfully offering inducements to employees to forego collective bargaining rights.
Collective bargaining between Katsos and Unite had broken down in December 2015. Katsos made two pay offers to a number of employees covered by Unite’s collective bargaining agreement. 57 employees brought claims in the employment tribunal, alleging that Katsos had offered unlawful inducements to forego collective bargaining under s145B. Section 145B applies where the sole or principal purpose of the employer’s offer is to achieve the ‘prohibited result’ of employees’ terms no longer being determined by a collective agreement, e.g. if they accept a pay rise from a direct offer. The tribunal awarded the prescribed amount of £3,800 per employee per offer; the December offer included a Christmas bonus, the next offer in January did not. The total awards exceeded £400,000. The EAT rejected the grounds of appeal, holding:
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Policy News Journal
cipp.org.uk
Page 94 of 516
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker