Home
 
Quick Tour Break Out Room Login
 
HR buddies

The Covent Garden HR Buddies is an initiative facilitated by Clarkslegal to offer the London HR community the opportunity to meet with like-minded peers, attend relevant seminars and workshops and boost your knowhow of the issues specific to this sector.
 
It’s free and open to anyone interested in HR. It sets its own agenda, so it can be purely social or facilitate presentations to help prevent HR problems for companies in the London area. So if you want to network face to face contact
buddy@clarkslegal.comClick here for further details about our next HR Buddies event.  

If, alternatively, you wish to network online with other HR professionals, then using the discussion forum below, is your ideal opportunity to do so.

Please feel free to post new queries or questions, and/or reply to ones already posted. All you have to do is register a few details, then you will be ready to post your thoughts.

You can post a new query by selecting the tab "new thread". To reply to a post, select that post and then choose the "reply" tab.

Discussion zone
SearchForum Home
     
  Discussions  Buddy's question time  Discrimination:...
 Discrimination: anti-social hours
 
Kate_Atkinson
99 posts
Joined
1/4/2006

Discrimination: anti-social hours
Posted: 07 Nov 06 4:37 PM

This week buddy was asked: we pay our employee's who are rostered to work at any time of the day or night special "anti-social hours" bonuses, however it has been brought to our attention that this could potentially be a form of indirect discrimination, is this true?

Kate_Atkinson
99 posts
Joined
1/4/2006

Re: Discrimination: anti-social hours
Posted: 14 Nov 06 1:19 PM

Buddy says: No, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) recently held in Scott-Davies v Redgate Medical Services , UKEAT/0273/06, that there is no free-standing right for employees to bring a claim for breach of the statutory procedures.

Employer information:In Scott-Davies, the claimant argued that although he had not met the one year qualifying period to issue unfair dismissal proceedings, he could bring a claim for breach of the statutory dispute resolution procedures as laid down in the Employment Act 2002. Mr Scott-Davies argued that if the Respondent had followed the statutory procedures he might not have been dismissed.

The EAT acknowledged Mr Scott-Davies' argument and stated that had he been employed for more than one year, his dismissal would have been automatically unfair pursuant to section 98A(1) as the Respondent had not followed the statutory procedures. However, the EAT went on to add that the statutory procedures did not apply in this case as employees with less than one year's service cannot claim unfair dismissal (except in exceptional circumstances) and therefore, 'there is no requirement to use the procedures' in cases like these. If free-standing claims where statutory procedures had not been complied with were allowed to proceed, this would increase the number of tribunal claims and be contrary to the policy behind the procedures, which was to 'encourage conciliation,agreement,compromise and settlement rather than precipitate issue of proceedings' (Shergold v Fieldway Medical Centre [2006] ICR 304, paragraph 26).

  Discussions  Buddy's question time  Discrimination:...
 
Clarkslegal LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales. Registered number: OC308349. VAT registration number: 198 9098 84. Registered office: One Forbury Square, The Forbury, Reading RG1 3EB. Solicitors regulated by the Law Society. References to Partners are to members of Clarkslegal LLP. Clarkslegal LLP is a member of the TAGLaw worldwide network of law firms. * Trade Mark Applied.