Category: Employment Law

Recent studies have shown that the United Kingdom is home to some of the most overweight individuals in Western Europe – inspiring a hike in national incentives to get moving and a plethora of health foods and new gyms. Aside from the impact that our growing waistlines have on our lifespans, being overweight is increasingly making it difficult for some individuals to carry out their day-to-day tasks.

While being overweight does not fall into the classic definition of ‘disability’ under the Equality Act 2010, the Advocate General of Denmark has indicated that morbid obesity may be classified as a disability. In his opinion in Kaltoft v Kommunernes Landsforening (Municipality of Billund), the Advocate General claims that if a person is so morbidly obese that it hinders their ‘full participation in professional life on an equal footing with other employees’ then it may be described as being a ‘disability’.

While this opinion in itself is not binding, it will be taken into account by the Court of Justice of the European Union when they deliver their judgement later this year.

Classifying morbid obesity as a disability would mean that many employers would have to ensure that the workplace is fully accessible for those who fall within this category. This could mean ensuring individuals who are morbidly obese can enter the work premises and have specialised equipment to suit their needs.

Perhaps of most interest is the fact that the Advocate General’s opinion proposes to classify all forms of morbid obesity as a disability, regardless of whether the cause of the obesity is the individual’s own excessive intake of calories or an unavoidable health problem.

 

Amarjit Atwal, Litigation Paralegal

 

 

 

Disability discrimination is a serious offence, under the Equality Act 2010 and can lead to an uncapped amount of compensation if proven. The Act covers discrimination based on an individual’s severe disfigurement, but many people are unsure as to what exactly amounts to a severe disfigurement.

A recent case at the Employment Appeal Tribunal (Hutchison 3G UK Ltd v Edwards UKEAT/0467/13/DM) upheld, on appeal, the importance of looking at the impact of a disfigurement on a person’s everyday life when assessing whether or not it is severe. In this case, the claimant, a sufferer of Poland syndrome, worked as a sales associate in a mobile phone shop. His condition left him with two missing ribs and various missing muscles in his chest, making his chest look notably asymmetrical. His employers required him to wear a new type of polo shirt that made this disfigurement visible and the claimant suffered harassment and victimisation as a result. Subsequently, he brought a claim in the employment tribunal for constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that it was important to look at the extent to which an individual would go to in order to hide their disfigurement. However, courts should not have to examine the claimant themselves nor look at photographic evidence to establish this. The burden of proof lies on the claimant to prove that the disfigurement substantially impacts their ability to carry out their day to day activities and that they noticeably attempt to hide their disfigurement or avoid certain places or people as a result.

It is important to note, however, that the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 do not encompass piercings or tattoos in the definition of ‘disfigurement’.

 

Amarjit Atwal, Paralegal

The law surrounding rest breaks at work is often misunderstood with many individuals believing that everybody, not dependent on time or work facility, is entitled to 1 hours break per working day. However, the law surrounding breaks in work has many variables.

Adult workers must have a rest break of 20 minutes when a day’s working time is more than 6 hours. Workers aged between 15 – 18 are entitled to a rest break of 30 minutes where daily working time is more than 4.5 hours.

Workers have the right to take an uninterrupted rest break, away from their workstation. Workers can be required to remain in or about their workplace (but not at their workstation) whilst taking a rest break, provided that they are not still having to perform any duties. However, there is no need for employers to provide separate facilities or accommodation for workers to take a rest break. There is no restriction as to when the break must be taken but it should ideally be taken near the middle of the shift.

Employers must ensure that workers can take their rest periods or breaks but are not required to force workers to take them. Workers can elect to work through a rest period or break, provided they do not risk their own or others’ health or safety.

Workers carrying out monotonous or pre-determined work, such as on a production line, are given special protection. Where the pattern of work is “such as to put the health and safety of a worker… at risk, in particular because the work is monotonous or the work-rate predetermined”, the employer must make sure that the worker is given “adequate rest breaks”. This may therefore involve giving the worker further short breaks in addition to the usual rest breaks.

The break need not be paid, unless the workers contract states otherwise and providing that the workers have not previously been receiving longer and/or paid rest breaks, as this ‘entitlement’ may have become a term implied by custom and practice.

There is no need to keep records of rest breaks taken or forgone, although it may be prudent to do so to create a paper trail in case of a dispute arising.

Aston Bond solicitors in Slough assist employers and employees across the south east with employment law matters. As a specialist employment law solicitor I am able to assist you with employment disputes. For further information on our employment law services please visit our employment law page or call us on 01753 486 777 for a free, no obligation discussion about your matter.

Dion McCarthy, Litigation & Employment Solicitor Advocate

dmccarthy@astonbond.co.uk

---

If your currently undergoing a dispute at work with your employer or employee please contact our specialist employment law solicitors in Slough. Call us on 01753 486 777 or email info@astonbond.co.uk. Alternatively, you can visit our offices at 135 High Street, Slough, Berkshire, SL1 1DN.

A compromised agreement is a legally binding agreement between you and your employee and will often be used when your employer makes you resign. The reason your employer has forcibly made you resign may vary, it may be due to restructuring of the business, financial restraints upon the business, or a change in company directors mean some employees will be forced into resignation.

However, many employees often resign without taking any further action against their employer; however, you, the employee, may have the right to claim financial payment for your resignation if it has been forced upon you.

While some individuals do represent themselves in a compromised agreement case, or settle out of court with their employer it is likely that you will not gain the highest amount of financial reward by doing this. Furthermore, without any legal representation from a compromised agreement or employment solicitor the agreement may, in-fact, not stand up in court if you need it to at a later date.

At Aston Bond solicitors in Slough our specialist employment law solicitor and compromised agreement solicitor Dion McCarthy handles a wide array of compromised agreement matters.

If you believe you may be entitled to financial payment from you current or previous employer after a forced resignation or wrongful unemployment please contact our compromised agreement  solicitor by calling 01753 486 777 or emailing dmccarthy@astonbond.co.uk.

Ashton Hudson, Online Marketing Executive

ahudson@astonbond.co.uk

---

Our Solicitors in Slough can be contacted by calling 01753 486 777 or emailing info@astonbond.co.uk. Alternatively, you can visit our offices at 135 High Street, Slough, Berkshire, SL1 1DN.

The statutory test that must be satisfied in order to bring an employment tribunal claim after 3 months from the effective date of termination (EDT) is that it was “not reasonably practicable” to do so.

The fact that an employee is pursuing an internal appeal does not, of itself, mean that it is not reasonably practicable for the employee to submit an employment tribunal claim within 3 months of the EDT, even if this means submitting the employment tribunal claim before the appeal has been concluded.

An application to extend the time limit for bringing an employment tribunal claim cannot be made preemptively i.e. before the 3 month deadline expires. Therefore, it would be advisable to file an employment claim at tribunal within the deadline, as opposed to making an after-the-event application – with no guarantee of success.

If an employee’s internal process is pending, it is advisable to request a stay of proceedings i.e. the claim be frozen, until completion of the internal appeal procedure.

Dion McCarthy, Litigation & Employment Solicitor Advocate

dmccarthy@astonbond.co.uk

---

Our Solicitors in Slough can be contacted by calling 01753 486 777 or emailinginfo@astonbond.co.uk. Alternatively, you can visit our offices at 135 High Street, Slough, Berkshire, SL1 1DN.

Your contract of employment is one of the most important contracts you will sign in your life, which should provide you with financial security. However, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of employees working on zero-hour employment contracts.

Much controversy surrounds zero-hour contracts, with both political figures and human rights campaigners questioning the legality of these type of employment contracts.

To understand the legality of zero-hour employment contracts, you should first understand what they are, how they work and how they affect both the employer and employee. A zero-hour employment contract is an employment contract in which no specified time is given as to the number of hours an employee is scheduled to work per week or per month. This allows the employer to employ an individual without any limitation on the minimum number of hours an employee will work per week or per month. This means that the employee has no secure income due to the day-to-day uncertainty of available paid work.

This has advantages and disadvantages for both the employer and employee. For an employee, a zero-hour contract offers flexibility and is often popular with students who require flexible working hours alongside their uncertain studying hours. For the employer, these type of employment contracts are seen as beneficial, as it allows the employer to adapt to the needs of their business and the market, day-by-day.

Many employers see the zero-hour employment contract as cost efficient, although there is still of course the mandatory requirement for the employer to pay the employee the national minimum wage.

But are zero-hour employment contracts legal? Yes. These type of employment contracts are legal with no limitations other than the limitations that are placed on conventional employment agreements. With large corporations in the UK heavily relying on zero-hour employment contracts, the government would arguably be taking a large risk in placing limitations and/or banning these type of employment contracts, as it could have a negative effect on the current employment rate.

It is likely that zero-hour employment contracts will come under further scrutiny in the future, however, unless and until any legal restraints are implemented, it is just as likely that the use of zero-hour employment contracts will continue to increase.

Vinesh Patel, Paralegal

vpatel@astonbond.co.uk

---

 

Aston Bond Solicitors in Slough and providing legal services to clients across Oxford, London, High Wycombe and Reading are specialist employment law solicitors. To find out more about our employment solicitors and our employment law services please click here.