Two female police officers, who are claiming that they should be paid the unsocial hours' premium given to other officers for working nights, have taken their argument to the Court of Appeal. The female officers are arguing that the only reason they can't claim this premium is that their childcare commitments prevent them from working unsocial hours.  The EAT in Chief Constable of West Midlands Police v Blackburn and Manley overturned the original decision last year and held that, under the Equal Pay Act, employers are not required to “compensate for the economic disadvantages suffered by those who have childcare responsibilities”. The EAT said that as the employer's aim was to reward night workers, it was both necessary and appropriate not to reward those who did not work nights. Will the Court of Appeal agree?

In May, the Government announced plans to give all suitably qualified young people an entitlement to an apprenticeship. A draft Apprenticeships Bill has now been published setting out the proposals for a new National Apprenticeship Service and Apprenticeship Programme. Under these arrangements, the apprenticeship agreement entered into with the employer will not be a contract of apprenticeship but a contract of service. This will make the scheme more attractive to employers as it has the effect of limiting the damages in the event of early termination. However, it would also remove the exception that currently exists excluding apprentices from the right to receive the National Minimum Wage. 

The Court of Appeal has overturned the EAT decision in GMB v Allen and reinstated the original decision of the tribunal. Almost a year ago to the day, the EAT overturned the finding of indirect sex discrimination against the union after it encouraged female members to settle their equal pay claims despite the compensation being less than the claims were worth. The Court of Appeal has now rejected the EAT’s conclusion that the union's conduct, although dubious, was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, namely the pursuit of equal pay for all employees. 

The ECJ has left the door ajar for individuals to pursue a discrimination claim based on the wording of a job advert.  The judgment, which involves a Belgian case, undermines the legal position in the UK that claims can not be brought on the basis of a discriminatory advert alone, but that an individual must have also applied and been rejected for the post on discriminatory grounds. Seemingly, it is now possible for a potential job applicant, who has been discouraged from applying, to bring a claim using the advert to establish facts from which it can be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination. The burden of proof would then be on the employer to show that its actual recruitment practice does not correspond to that stated in the advert.

An Exeter tribunal has awarded a total of nearly £60,000 in  compensation to a waitress for unfair dismissal, sex discrimination and harassment. The manager was held personally liable for groping her breasts and trying to kiss her and was ordered to pay £5256. However, the restaurant owner who then dismissed her by text, after she complained about the incident, was ordered to foot the rest of the bill!

The draft Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 have now been published and are to come into force on 27 October 2008. The amendment will mean that agency workers on a contract of less than 3 months will be entitled to Statutory Sick Pay, subject to the normal qualifying conditions. The original Fixed Term Regulations were intended to repeal sections of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 concerning the 3 month eligibility requirements for all workers. However, the Court of Appeal in HMRC v Thorn Baker Ltd & Ors ruled that agency workers were excluded from the Regulations, making this further legislative change necessary.

A reminder that employees must be given notice of their retirement and advised of their right to request to continue working at least 6 months beforehand. Failure to comply entitles the employee to compensation of up to 8 weeks pay. In Todd v Sanquhar Home Ltd an employee, whose request to stay on was accepted, still continued with a claim on the grounds that she received her notification late (12 weeks prior to the intended date of retirement). The Scottish tribunal disagreed with Mrs Todd that a punitive award of maximum compensation should be made. Fortunately for the employer, the employee had suffered no losses and their breach had been a matter of timing only, so the tribunal made an award of just one week’s pay.

The Government has launched a consultation on a range of measures to improve and simplify dispute resolution, which will require secondary legislation. One of the proposals is to extend the definition of a “relevant advisor”, who can advise on the signing of compromise agreements, to members of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. The consultation closes on 26 September 2008.      

In a statement made to the House of Commons, the Equalities Minster announced that the Government had today published a white paper, “Framework for a Fairer Future”, setting out is proposals for a reform on discrimination law. Harriet Harman summarised the key provisions of the Equality Bill, which include making contractual clauses that prohibit employees disclosing their pay to one another unlawful and enabling employers to take more positive action. Equal pay audits are not to be made mandatory in the private sector, although employers are to be encouraged to report on equality through a new kite mark system. A more detailed paper on all of the proposals is expected to be published next month. 

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Clark v Novacold (1999), which set a precedent on the appropriate comparator in cases of disability-related discrimination, has been overturned by the House of Lords. The ruling in London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm will make it harder for employees to show that they have been treated less favourably for a reason that relates to a disability. In future it will be necessary to establish some connection between the actual disability with the reason for the treatment and the comparison is to be made with a non–disabled person to whom that reason would also apply.

The Employment Retention Bill, which sought to create a statutory right to rehabilitation leave for newly disabled employees, has reached the end of the road. Success always looked doubtful as it slipped further down the agenda. It was initially due to have its second reading in the House of Commons on 14 March but this was postponed until to 25 April. It then got rescheduled for a third time for the 20 June, when it was eventually dropped. The Private Members’ Bill failed to get off the ground last year too. Will it be third time lucky next year?

Employers who flout the law and employ illegal workers, now face public humiliation as well a £10,000 fine, under new enforcement measures revealed by the Home Secretary. From today the UK Boarder and Immigration Agency website will publish a list of employers who have incurred civil penalties including the amount they were fined. In order to ensure errant employers are tracked down and penalised, new Local Immigration Teams are to be introduced across the UK.

Big brother fans have the chance to vote for Mario, the self acclaimed people manager, to stay in or leave the house this week. His conversational insights into his role have been said to have even “out Brented David Brent”. Management speak can be amusing but also very annoying. The BBC has published a Top 50 of cringe worthy phrases submitted by the public.  View the story on the BBC website.