At the Conservative Party Conference at the beginning of this month, Chancellor George Osborne announced the Government’s plans to make the following changes to employment law:
1. The Government proposes to increase the qualifying employment period for unfair dismissal from the current one year to two years.
This should result in a significant drop in the number of unfair dismissal claims being brought to the Employment Tribunal each year.
There is criticism to this in that, if a dismissal is unfair then it is unfair and the employee’s length of service should be irrelevant. There is a concern that this change in the law will allow employers to mistreat their staff and is an unwelcome modification from the point of view of the UK workforce.
However, for business managers who have had to defend a number of questionable unfair dismissal claims from their workers may welcome any instrument implemented that serves to reduce the amount of time and money spent on such things.
The law will not change with regard to individuals who claim to have been dismissed for complaining about a health and safety issue, for being a whistle-blower, or who claim to have been a victim of discrimination. In these cases, as now, there is no qualifying period of employment necessary in order to bring a claim.
2. The Government propose to introduce a fee to lodge a claim in the Employment tribunal.
The suggestion is that in order to lodge a claim in the Employment Tribunal, the Claimant must pay an upfront fee of £250. There will be a further £1000 to pay to the Tribunal when and if the claim is listed for a hearing and this fee is likely to be higher where the value of the claim is over £30,000.
The idea behind this system is that those Claimants pursuing baseless claims will be deterred from doing so. This will save both employers and the Tribunals a lot of unnecessary work.
It is proposed that this fee will be recouped by the Claimant if the claim is successful and will not be required at all for those on income support, those who are unemployed, and those who are in low paid work.
Both these changes described above have attracted criticism, not only from the opposition but also within the Coalition itself. Nothing has been made official yet, however there is little doubt that change is to come.
For advice on any of the issues raised in this article or on any other aspect of employment law, please call Iain Lock or Lisa May at Q&A Law for a free initial consultation.
Sarah Zokay-West
The headlines are full of reports that Argentinian forward Carlos Tevez refused to play for his club when called from the substitutes bench by Manchester City manager Roberto Mancini during the match against Bayern Munich in the Champions League this week. Mancini is reported to have said that he felt that Tevez could never play for City again after this incident. The striker, who earns more than £200,000 a week at Man City, has been suspended for two weeks and the debate over his footballing future continues.
Reports state that Tevez is claiming that he did not refuse his boss’ request to play and the whole episode results from a misunderstanding. However, if it is true that he failed to obey his employer’s order, what does the law say about how they are entitled to react?
Under the common law, which forms the basis of our country’s legal system, there are fundamental implied duties between both parties to an employment contract. One such duty for the employee is that he will obey all lawful and reasonable orders from his employer. Arguably, a professional footballer being asked to play football for the team that employs him constitutes such an order.
If it is the case that Tevez was asked to play and refused, it seems highly possible that he is guilty of breaching his contract. Such a breach could be legitimate grounds for dismissal.
As ever, it is crucial that Manchester City, as the employer in the situation, follow the correct disciplinary procedures to deal with the breach. An employee’s misconduct is a potentially fair reason for dismissal but the actions carried out by the employer while dealing with the same is crucial to the eventual outcome.
Existing Q and A Law Clients who subscribe to our fixed fee employment law service with free telephone advice line are encouraged to speak to Iain or Lisa with any questions they might have arising from any of the above. Non-clients are also welcome to take advantage of a fee-free initial consultation with the same regard. Please call 01707 444450 and ask for Iain Lock or Lisa May who would be happy to talk with you.
