This week at Chadwick Lawrence

Happy New Year from everyone in the employment law and regulatory teams at Chadwick Lawrence. In the first dispatch of 2023 we introduce a new feature,  examine the changing legislation on flexible working and invite you to join us for our first seminar of the year.

Moving forwards, as well as our usual updates focusing of employment law, HR and regulatory matters, we will have a rotating guest contribution from one of the other teams at Chadwick Lawrence, which we hope you find beneficial. This week our litigation team has prepared an article on the Renters Reform Bill Proposals which should be enlightening for any landlords or property owners.

On the employment law front Daniel has prepared a video on potential changes to flexible working legislation and there is still time to join us at our first seminar of the year (details below).

The Media Hub

Expanded Flexible Working Rights on the Way

Changes will be made to the current flexible working legislation, probably later in 2023. This video examines the changes and the widening of employee rights in relation to the making of requests.

To watch the video please click the following link: https://youtu.be/f6JNdLBVeXw

There have been lots of relevant employment law/HR updates this week.

Employee dismissed for sending ‘stalkery’ messages to younger female colleagues.

In this recent case the Claimant worked for His Majesty’s Passport Office and was found to have sent inappropriate messages to two younger female colleagues, one of which he had never met. One of these employees had received the messages from the Claimant for more than a year and also received inappropriate comments on her Instagram account. The other employee never worked with the Claimant however began receiving the messages through social media. It emerged that the Claimant knew what car she drove and other personal details such as her student address and carried out ‘stalkery’ acts such as pulling up next to her in the work car park and at traffic lights in her residential area. The Claimant was dismissed and subsequently brought claims of race discrimination (he is Asian British) and unfair dismissal. The race discrimination claim was dismissed as the decision was based on the Claimant’s conduct and the unfair dismissal claim was automatically dismissed as he did not have two-years of continuous service however tribunal found that the dismissal would have been fair even if this was not the case.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/c-v-the-home-office-2501653-slash-2021

Chief risk officer dismissed after whistleblowing

In this recent case, the Claimant’s role involved fixing issues laid out in the Company’s ‘section 166’ remediation plan that were necessary to be resolved in order to avoid further intervention by the regulator. Between the Claimant’s appointment and his dismissal, he had made numerous protected disclosures about regulatory and compliance issues at the bank including a potential conflict of interest that breached the senior management regime’s conduct rules, breaches of procedures relating to risk control and failures to follow correct processes for new product approvals. The Claimant had also complained that there were insufficient resources to allow him to complete his role. Despite his ‘A’ grade appraisal the previous month, the Claimant was dismissed and brought successful claims of unfair dismissal despite his lack of two-years’ service for his whistleblowing complaints.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-m-daniels-v-united-national-bank-ltd-and-mr-b-firth-2204139-slash-2021

Dismissal of employee who stayed away from work during COVID-19 was not automatically unfair

In this recent case, the Court of Appeal has upheld a tribunal decision that an employee was not automatically unfairly dismissed under section 100(1)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Claimant was dismissed for leaving work and refusing to return at the start of the first COVID-19 lockdown. The tribunal had originally held that the employee did not believe that there were circumstances of serious and imminent danger at the workplace under section 100(1)(d) and that any such belief would not have been reasonable. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, and set out a five-stage approach to determine whether a case fell under the section.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/mr-d-rodgers-v-leeds-laser-cutting-ltd-2022-eat-69

Finally, our 2023 events program is up and running and we are pleased to host an event with Hays Recruitment, details as below.

Salary Guide in conjunction with Hays Recruitment

Date – Thursday 19^th January 2023

Time – Arrival from 8:30am, Seminar 9:00am-10:00am

Location – Wakefield Office – Paragon Business Village, Red Hall Crescent, Wakefield, WF1 2DF

In the first event of 2023, Chadwick Lawrence will be partnering with Hays Recruitment who will be presenting on their findings of their Salary Guide.

This year the Salary guide is in its 9^th year of publication. It includes insights and tips to help you plan your hiring strategy for the year ahead including:

• The impacts on the rising cost of living on pay
• Are skills shortages going to get worse
• Actions your peers are taking to secure talent
• What matters most to professionals apart from pay

Chadwick Lawrence will then present on what is to come in 2023 in the world of employment law. With the recent Retained EU Law (Revocation and Repeal) Bill, Chadwick Lawrence will cover how the Bill works and their predictions on how the Bill will impact on TUPE, the Working Time Regulations and other employment law topics. The event will then focus on the recent decision of Harper v Brazel. Chadwick Lawrence will discuss the Supreme Court’s decision have made it clear that employers cannot use the 12.07% method to calculate holiday pay.

Focus On –Litigation

Each week we thought we would provide you with an insight into our other commercial areas of law outside of the Employment team. This week Kaye Willis from our Litigation team has prepared an article on the Renters Reform Bill Proposals.

Litigation – Renters Reform Bill Proposals