Flexible Working

The Government has scrapped plans to extend the right to request flexible working to parents of 17 year olds, as was originally planned for April 2011.  This is one of a range of measures designed to reduce the amount of red tape faced by employers.  The right to request flexible working continues to apply to employees who care for a child under 17 (or 18 is disabled) or a dependent adult.  The Government still intends in the future to extend the right to request flexible working to all employees, regardless of their caring responsibilities.  A consultation paper is due to be published this year to consider this extension.

Additional Paternity Leave

Fathers of babies due on or after 3 April 2011 (and other relevant carers – eg. The mother’s spouse or partner) are now able to take up to six months’ additional paternity leave in addition to the existing entitlement of one or two weeks.  The right also applies to adoptive couples.  To be eligible for the additional leave, the employee must have at least 26 weeks’ service and apart from the mother, expect to have the main responsibility for the child’s upbringing.  It is a condition of the leave that the mother has ended her maternity leave early.  The additional leave will only be paid if it is taken when the mother would otherwise have been entitled to statutory maternity pay or maternity allowance, in which case it will be paid at the statutory rate.

The Government is also considering an even more flexible system of ‘shared parental leave’ which would allow parents to split the leave between them as they see fit, rather than having to take it in back-to-back blocks.  A consultation will take place during 2011 on how the system will work, and it is proposed that any changes would be introduced by 2015.

 Statutory Maternity, Paternity, Adoption and Sick Pay

On 11 April 2011, the lower rate of statutory maternity pay, and the rates of statutory adoption and paternity pay, will increase from £124.88 to £128.73 per week.  Statutory sick pay will increase from £79.15 to £81.60 per week.

Equality and Diversity

Since 6^th April 2011, employers are now allowed to discriminate in favour of a candidate in recruitment or promotion, but only when choosing between equally qualified candidates where the aim is to address an imbalance in the workforce – eg. selecting a female over an equally qualified male to join an all male management team. The Government has produced guidance which suggests that, when deciding whether two candidates are “equally qualified”, the employer can take into account their overall ability, competence, professional experience, any relevant formal qualifications and any other qualities required to carry out the job.  In spite of the guidance, few employers will want to rely on this provision.  If the employer gets it wrong, and the two candidates are not equally qualified, the candidate who is rejected because of their sex, race, religion etc, will almost certainly have a discrimination claim.

Childcare Vouchers

The way that tax relief works on employer-provided childcare vouchers was changed on the 6 April 2011.  Previously, the first £55 a week (or £243 a month) of eligible childcare vouchers was exempt from income tax and national insurance contributions for all employees.  Now the value of vouchers which are tax and NICs free will vary according to the employee’s tax rate.  This is designed to even out the tax savings available to all employees.  Employers therefore, need to estimate the employee’s earnings to determine the value of vouchers that can be provided tax-free.  The change only affects people joining an employer’s scheme on or after 6 April 2011 – employees who already participate in an employer scheme as at 5 April 2011 are not affected.  HMRC has published guidance on the changes, including how to estimate the employee’s earnings, which is available at www.hmrc.gov.uk/thelibrary/esc-qa.htm.

Settlement Payments

The rules on deducting tax for termination payments also changed in April.  From 6 April 2011, employers must deduct tax from post-P45 payments at the employee’s marginal rate (not at basic rate as was previously the case) and on the basis that all allowances have been used.  Employers should ensure that any compromise agreements with payments due on or after 6 April refer to tax being deducted at the applicable rate, rather than basic rate.

www.hays.co.uk

The deceased solider was travelling in a Nimrod plane which crashed in Afghanistan in 2006, claiming the lives of all on board.

Prior to the Court of Session hearing previous investigations into the incident had criticised the MOD and the airworthiness of the aircraft in question.

The awards to the deceased mother and sister amounted to £90,000 and £60,000 respectively, solely in relation to loss of society.

Loss of society is the generalised term used for awards in Scotland under statue Law providing compensation to the immediate family of the deceased for distress and anxiety, grief and sorrow, and also loss of the society of the deceased.

This is an extremely contentious issue between pursuers representatives and insurance company’s, with both putting forward arguments, in the pursuers case that this practice leads to under settlement of legitimate claims, the insurers stating that it cuts out unnecessary costs and that the settlements are fair and quickly received by the injured person.

There are however numerous reported instances of apparent abuse of this practice by insurers, and it would certainly appear that on approaching an injured person without that person being given any independent advice that there is a blatant conflict of interest on the insurer’s part.

Legal Solution Partnership in Luton advised of the following case where they were instructed to deal with a serious road traffic accident on behalf of a teenage girl.  This client had been a passenger in a car which was driven into a tree and had suffered a fractured spine along with complicated internal injuries.

“The insurance company’s rep contacted the girl’s mother by mobile telephone, met her in a local cafe, and sent her text messages.  He offered to settle the girl’s claim for £8,000.  He said it would be good to get it all wrapped up early.  He made no mention of how he had come to this figure, nor whether legal advice might be appropriate.

Another tactic was to try to induce settlement by dangling the expenses carrot – immediate payment, including her loss of earning, if they could agree settlement of the whole claim.  The mother was in dire straights having not worked for a month (or so) because of the need to look after her daughter.

No mention was made of the need for court approval.

The girl’s mother did not accept the offer.  While we don’t know the value of the claim yet, it looks likely to be in six figures”.

Quantum Claims would encourage any injured person who is contacted directly by a third-party insurance company with a view to settling their claim, to seek independent advice.

Quantum Claims has on numerous instances represented clients where an initial offer and settlement has been received directly from the third-party insurer, where upon our involvement has lead to an increased settlement sum being obtained.

This overturned a House of Lords Ruling that found as plaques are asymptomatic and, therefore, cannot be compensated for. Axa, Aviva, RSA and Zurich had subsequently attempted to get this revoked so that parity could be restored with England and Wales.

However, in a lengthy judgement, although Lord Emslie decided certain issues in favour of the insurers, he rejected the challenge in its three main arguments.

While expressing some sympathy for their position, he dismissed the application on a number of grounds. He said the petitioners (as insurers) are not actually parties to any affected court proceedings and that the Act does not relevantly interfere with pending actions anyway and that the new legislation can in any event be justified on what the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourge terms “compelling grounds on the general interest”.

Lord Emslie said “there is clearly room for” differences of opinion as to whether the Parliament was right to legislate in the way it did, and it remains to be seen whether the 2009 Act will prove to have adverse legal or political consequenses in years to come”.

But he also said he does not accept theat the insurers’ complaints come anywhere near the standard of “irrationally” needed to onvalidate and Act of the Scottish Parliament.

Last year the Association of British Insurers (ABI) director of general insuance and health, said The Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill overlooked a fundamental legal principle that comensation is paid where there are physical symptoms. He added the ruling could have “profound and unintended consequences beyond pleural plaques”.

Following the decision on 8 January 2010 the ABI expressed its dissapointment, and said it was considering an appeal.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Office of Fair Trading {OFT} had no jurisdiction in deciding whether the level of bank charges were fair or not.

It is felt that the ruling has been influenced by political considerations as it has saved the Banks from paying out billions of pounds in compensation to consumers.

It is also thought that the threat to the ending of free current account banking could have influenced the decision.

For over 2 years a large number of cases have been placed on hold by the courts,Financial Services Authority,and the Financial Ombudsman Service {FOS},pending this ruling.

It is expected that the banks will now write to millions of customers rejecting previously lodged complaints.The only recourse for customers would then be to write to the FOS,although they are likely to reject complaints and there may be a lengthy delay in a customer receiving a response due to the backlog of existing appeals to be dealt with.

The only real hope is that the OFT appeal the ruling to the European Court,although this in itself would be a further lengthy process.

It is believed by the OFT that the banks have been making £2.6 billion per year from penalty charges.

Unfair dismissal

Redundancy pay

Discrimination

Dismissal for union/employee representative or pension trustee reasons

Dismissal for health and safety reasons

Dismissal for making a protected disclosure

Guarantee Pay

Contract claims in a tribunal

Limit on week’s pay = £350 (where applicable) (a)

(a)     The Secretary of State will increase these figures annually in line with the retail prices index

(b)    (b) Applies to dismissals where the effective date of termination fell on or after 1 February 2009

(c)     Applies to dismissals where the ‘relevant date’ fell on or after 1 February 2009