The recent changes in UK’s employment law.

Employment law is one aspect of the law that is on constant change. For both employees as well as employers, it is necessary to keep abreast of these changes and developments so as to provide the best services to their clients. If you’re looking for the best legal firms in London, having knowledge of these changes would help you avail the best services. Let’s take a look at these changes.

Pay in lieu of annual leave

The worker must have been given a chance to avail that leave and it is for the employer to depict that it invigorated the worker to do so, while informing him or her, precisely and in good time, of the risk of losing that leave if it is not availed.

Employers should make sure that they have suitable language in employment contracts and annual leave policies in regard to the carryover and payment in lieu of vacant holiday, and consider having actions to retell workers to use their annual leave during the relevant holiday year.

Part-time workers

The Court of Appeal has stated that a part-time cabin crew member who needed to be ready for 53.5% of the hours of her full-time comparator but got only 50% of the salary, had set up a prima facie case of less promising treatment.

The questions hanging as to whether the less favorable treatment was defensible and, if not, what the suitable remedy need to be. The case will now get back to the Employment Tribunal for this to be dogged.

Harassment

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has verified that, when examining whether workplace conduct leads to harassment, it is suitable to assess that conduct within the context in which it happened. All leading legal firms in London need to be aware of this.

In this situation, the Claimant introduced a harassment claim on the basis that he had been called a “fat ginger pikey”. He was diabetic and had relevant associations with the traveler community. The Employment Tribunal took into account that the comment is possibly discriminatory but that the office culture in question was one of good-natured sneering and teasing among modest salespeople and, at the time, the Claimant did not take the remark incorrect. The EAT long-established that the Employment Tribunal was permitted to do this research.

Company liable for data breach

The Court of Appeal has supported the decision of the High Court that Morrisons was vicariously accountable for the actions of a disgruntled employee who dispatched the payroll details of around 100,000 employees on the web.

The Court stated that there was an adequate link between the employee’s actions and his employment to make Morrisons vicariously liable. He had got the data in during employment as a senior IT internal auditor and had been asked to forward it to the company’s external auditor. The fact that he had copied it and revealed it in an illegal way was carefully connected to what he had been asked to do and his motive was immaterial.