A new National Staff Dismissal Register is being launched by Action Against Business Crime, an organisation working in partnership with the British Retail Consortium. The database will contain the personal details of former employees dismissed for, or suspected of, theft, fraud or damage or loss of property. Access to the database to vet applicants will be restricted to registered employers who comply with the Data Protection Code of Practice. Organisations known to be involved are HMV, Harrods and Selfridges.  

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill has received Royal Assent. The Act has mostly received publicity for creating a new criminal offence for possession of extreme pornographic images. However, it also contains a new civil penalty for serious breach of any of the eight data protection principles. The Information Commissioner will now have the power to fine a data controller for a deliberate breach or where it failed to take reasonable steps to prevent a breach that was likely to cause substantial damage or distress. The fine will be subject to a maximum amount, as yet unknown.   

The Low Pay Commission has been asked to report on what changes can be made to the National Minimum Wage, to support young workers on a low income, who will lose out financially following the Government’s decision to abolish the 10p starting rate of income tax. The Chancellor is considering a range of measures to compensate all those adversely affected and has announced that these will be outlined in the pre-Budget report in the Autumn. Although, it was initially understood that the compensation package put in place would be backdated to 6th April 2008, it is not now clear if this is the case, for all measures and any proposals to increase the minimum wage are likely to be an exception. 

The EAT has upheld the decision in Havering PCT v Bidwell, that a nurse, who held down two jobs, was unfairly dismissed by one employer for working excessive hours on grounds that it posed an unacceptable health and safety risk. The EAT noted that it would not always be unfair to dismiss in these circumstances, but agreed that the tribunal had been correct to decide on the facts of this case that it was not within the band of reasonable responses. Factors taken into account included the fact that PCT had failed to actively monitor working hours, and the employee had not been given the option of reducing or ceasing her work elsewhere. 

Depression Awareness Week kicks off with media coverage on the findings of a survey carried out by Depression Alliance, which revealed that 79% of respondents felt that disclosing their condition would result in a detriment. Also reported is the case of Sandra Samuel who, at hearing at the end of last year, was held to have been unfairly dismissed and subjected to disability discrimination, including a failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation.  Ms Samuel, who has clinical depression, had previously been reinstated by Waltham Forest Council after it admitted it had failed to take into account her disability.  However she resigned 10 months later when the new role turned out to be incompatible with her part time working hours, which had been agreed for health reasons.

Wolverhampton Crown Court has sent out a strong message to employees, reminding them of their personal liability for acts of harassment which they commit. The Court sentenced 3 men each to 3 years imprisonment for a 9 month campaign of harassment of a Muslim colleague, including trying to force him to eat bacon and setting his trousers alight. The victim only reported the matter to the employer and the police once he had left the company, but the employer then carried out its own internal investigation, which resulted in the individuals leaving the company. The lesson for all employees is that harassment will not only lose you your job, but it can also cost you your freedom.

An employer’s flexible benefits scheme has come under the scrutiny of the age discrimination regulations in Swann v GHL Insurance Services UK Limited, but was subsequently found to have firm justification. The tribunal held that the flexible benefits package, where employees were provided with a fund to purchase benefits, did not amount to less favourable treatment, even though the cost of health insurance was dependant on the age of the employee, taking into account the premiums charged by the provider. The tribunal further stated that, had the scheme been found to be discriminatory, the employer would nonetheless have been able to justify its use on recruitment and retention grounds. 

A tribunal has ordered a Chinese restaurant to pay £36,268 in compensation to five workers who were treated less favourably on grounds of their ethnic origin by their manager. The Claimants, all non-Chinese, were paid less in tips and at break times were given dispensable dishes to eat, such as noodles, whereas Chinese staff were afforded the privilege of choosing expensive meat and fish dishes, including sushi. The tribunal also found that the owners had unjustifiably reduced the Claimants’ working hours after learning of the employees’ concerns, which could not be attributed to a downturn in trade.

New statutory rates of pay come into effect. The prescribed weekly rate of Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP), Statutory Paternity Pay (SPP) and Statutory Adoption Pay (SAP) is increased to £117.18 from the first payment date on, or after, 6th April 2008. In addition, the weekly rate of Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) has gone up from £72.55 to £75.40.

There are sound reasons for establishing a policy on the provision of employment references to control who can supply a reference and what information they contain. As South Tyneside Council found out to their cost, references should not raise issues of any complaints or performance concerns of which the employee is unaware. The Council have reportedly paid out £36,000 in an out of court settlement to a social worker who suffered stress and anxiety after losing her dream job. The offer of employment was withdrawn following receipt of a negative reference supplied by the Council, written by a former supervisor, which raised concerns about the employee’s performance of which she was oblivious.