A British Airways pilot has succeeded in her bid to be allowed to work part-time.
British Airways announced that it had withdrawn its appeal against an employment tribunal ruling which found in the pilot’s favour, bringing a successful close to Jessica Starmer’s three-year campaign to reduce her hours by 50 per cent.

Mrs Starmer had asked for her hours to be cut to enable her to care for her daughter, but BA refused the request on health and safety grounds, arguing that she had not completed the requisite flying hours under the company’s rules.

Announcing its decision to withdraw the appeal, the airline said: “It is now three years since Mrs Starmer first asked to reduce her working hours to 50 per cent. Since that time Mrs Starmer has been working at 75 per cent and British Airways recognises the high standards that she has been able to maintain.

“Her flying experience has now reached a level that, together with other measures agreed with British Airways, satisfies its safety concerns and meets its high level of operating standards.

“British Airways intends that pilots in similar circumstances to Mrs Starmer will be eligible for 50 per cent contracts subject to the same measures in the future.”

BBC, March 9, 2007

A guide to clarify misunderstandings arising from the new age discrimination laws has been jointly published by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD).

The guide sets out to clarify common misunderstandings that have arisen from the new laws including whether it prevents colleagues from sending each other a birthday card or employers from running graduate recruitment schemes.

Developing a New Mindset on Age and Retirement, aimed at employers and trade union representatives, provides guidance across all aspects of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006 1031).

Before writing the guide, focus groups were held to find out exactly what about the new regulations was causing concern.

Dianah Worman, CIPD diversity adviser, comments: “The CIPD and TUC have joined forces to ensure that HR and trade unions are better informed about what good practice on age is.

“The guide will hopefully contribute to creating age diverse workforces that implements the new age regulations without falling into the trap of political correctness going overboard while meeting business needs.

“We hope the guide will reassure employers and blow misconceptions out of the water. The age regulations will fail if they result in unintended consequences.”

Trades Union Congress, February 27, 2007

A person provided by an employment agency to a 3rd party end user may be an employee of the agency or of the end-user or of neither.

In the event of a dispute, the question is important not only so that the employee knows against whom to make a claim but also because a pre-condition for many employment law rights (notably unfair dismissal) is that the claimant should be, or have been, an “employee” as defined by the Employment Rights Act 1996. If he or she is not an “employee” as defined he or she simply will not have many statutory rights.

There has been a discernible trend in recent years for the courts and tribunals to imply a contract of employment with the 3rd party end user. However this is by no means automatic and in two recent cases the EAT found that the worker was not an employee of the end user. In both cases the EAT called for Parliament to clarify the position – a DTI Consultation on “Measures to Protect Vulnerable Agency Workers”, issued in February 2007, may lead to legislative change. The practical message is that great care should be taken by employment agencies and their clients to ensure that they all understand the position in any particular case. It is prudent from all parties’ points of view to have proper contractual documentation drawn up to ensure that everyone knows where they stand.

www.emplaw.co.uk, February 26, 2007

A City worker who sued her employers when they refused to let her work part-time after giving birth has settled for what is believed to be a six-figure sum.

Janine Funsch, 34, worked as an account manager for financial information service Bloomberg for 11 years, during which time she said she was “happy” and “highly successful” in her role.

However, following the birth of her child, she submitted a request to work part-time when she returned from maternity leave which was was rejected by the firm. Shortly before the employment tribunal Bloomberg offered her a less demanding part-time role in a different area of the business, claiming Mrs Funsch’s clients had policies preventing them from working with part-timers.

She sued under the Sex Discrimination Act claiming the requirement to work full-time had a disproportionate impact on women.

William Garnett, head of employment at Bates Wells & Braithwaite solicitors, who represented Mrs Funsch, said: “Companies need to have a good reason in law if they do not offer part-time posts. Failure to do this discriminates against women because they are primarily responsible for child care and they, at times, need this option. Bloomberg has 10 part-time women in 9,610 staff.”

After a one-day hearing both sides agreed to an out-of-court settlement, believed to be in the six figure region. Bloomberg has now pledged to review its policies on part-time and flexible working.

Daily Telegraph, February 14, 2007

Anna Coulombeau, 24, a manager sacked because her plan to adopt a child would make her “no bloody use” to her employers has won a landmark employment tribunal case.

According to the Nottingham tribunal, Ms Coulombeau was the victim of a carefully planned plot. The tribunal praised her work in exposing the reality of a number of disciplinary charges used to force her out and upheld her claims of unfair dismissal related to her adoption hopes and sex discrimination.

The tribunal said: “Her manager saw her as likely to need time off for adoption purposes, including ultimately adoption leave, because she is a woman. It is why he orchestrated her dismissal.”

The tribunal was told of Ms Coulombeau’s glowing appraisals from managers at Enterprise Rent-a-Car and her promotion to manager levels. But in autumn 2005, only a few weeks after she had taken holiday leave to start pre-adoption courses, she was faced with two disciplinary hearings, sacked for gross misconduct and had an appeal dismissed.

“Genuine but minor” errors made by Ms Coulombeau were errors for which male colleagues had previously only been reprimanded,” the tribunal heard. She was also told that a manager has said: “Well, she’ll be no bloody use to me then” on hearing of her adoption hopes.

It is understood Ms Coulombeau will give her undisclosed compensation award to adoption and fostering charities.

Guardian, February 27, 2007

Men working in the public sector are facing salary cuts of up to £15,000
a year as equal pay agreements take effect, according to a report in The Times.

Compensation claims for up to 1.5 million workers could cost more than £10 billion and mean that hundreds of thousands of male staff could lose up to 40 per cent of their salary.

Female council workers, NHS workers and teaching assistants, among others, are now eligible for equal pay settlements stretching back six years. Over the past two years, unions have reached compromise agreements with local councils to help protect male workers’ pay and jobs while getting a better deal for women.

But no-win no-fee lawyers are now finding faults with the agreements and winning higher compensation payments for individual claimants. The result is increased pressure on male pay. Unions claim that these lawyers are undermining industrial relations in the public sector and that they are having to agree settlements where men’s pay will be cut.

Higher paid female workers and social services staff could also lose money so that salary rises for lower-paid women are affordable.

Brian Strutton, of the GMB union, commented: “People have to compromise, otherwise it is unaffordable. As part of the compromise we sometimes have to bring down male earnings. But it only then takes one woman to want more to break the whole agreement.”

It is believed more than half of all local authorities will miss the March 31 deadline for new equal pay deals to be in place, despite being given 10 years’ notice. Councils blame the multi-million pound compensation claims taken by women in the North East, Scotland and West Midlands which challenged the equal pay deals.

Times, March 11, 2007

A male fire-service controller who was banned from his workplace as a result of a series of spurious complaints made against him by a female colleague has agreed a compensation deal with his employer thought to be worth more than £100,000.

The case of John Owers, a controller at Devon Fire and Rescue Service, was heard by an employment tribunal in 2006. The Tribunal found that the service’s handling of the 16 complaints made against Mr Owers by fellow controller Sarah Kelly – which included claims that Mr Owers had “stared” at her, had missed a colleague’s leaving party, had taken a holiday in August and had referred to Ms Kelly’s boyfriend as “mate” – constituted sex discrimination. Mr Owers, the tribunal concluded, had been treated as a wrongdoer even though Ms Kelly’s complaints had been repeatedly shown to be spurious; when Mr Owers sought to submit a complaint regarding Ms Kelly’s behaviour, the service declined to investigate. At one point, the tribunal heard, Mr Owers was told by a personnel officer that “the whole thing would have been handled differently” if he had been a woman.

Tribunal chairman John Hollow said that the service’s conduct had been “less than impressive”.

“Firm and effective management should have been brought to bear at a very early stage,” Mr Hollow said.

The officially undisclosed compensation pay-out was tabled by the service at the start of a remedy hearing this week.

The Times, February 27, 2007

The High Court has ruled that women subjected to sexual harassment by the public in the course of their employment have the right to claim against their employers.

The Court ruling extends protection from abusive colleagues to the behaviour of customers, clients and members of the public. The Government now has seven days to overhaul equality laws to strengthen women’s rights or appeal against the ruling which said that the Government has failed to meet its obligations under EU law.

The decision, in a challenge by the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), could prompt a flood of claims for harassment unless employers act quickly. The main target in this case is the hotel and restaurant trade, which the EOC says is “rife” with harassment. Workers, mainly women, but also men, would equally be protected under the ruling.

The EOC took the Government to court accusing it of failing to implement the Equal Treatment Directive 2002. It complained that regulations amending the Sex Discrimination Act fell short of the Directive’s intention, to ensure that women in the workplace were not subjected to “any unwanted conduct related to their sex which violates their dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, humiliating or offensive environment”.

Mr Justice Burton ruled that the Government’s regulations on rights during maternity leave were unclear and that women risked losing the full protection against pregnancy discrimination that they currently have under UK case law.

An example of the current law was that it excluded harassment by an employer’s clients or customers. Justice Burton ruled in this instance that women must be protected against harassment, and an employer liable for it, if the employer knew of continuing or regular objectionable conduct and failed to act.

He also ruled that women must be protected by sex discrimination laws if denied certain benefits during maternity leave. The ruling said that the time a woman takes on maternity leave must count as continuous service and be included where it affects her promotion. A woman is also entitled to be fully consulted about any changes to her job while she is on maternity leave.

However, Hazel Oliver, employment partner at Lewis Silkin, said that although the ruling is “potentially very good news for women, the Government is very likely to appeal and so nothing will change just yet”.

Times and Daily Telegraph, March 12, 2007

The Government has announced a rise in the National Minimum Wage (NMW) from £5.35 to £5.52 an hour from October.

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Alistair Darling said that the rise will benefit more than a million workers. Mr Darling has also accepted recommendations from the Independent Low Pay Commission that the NMW increases from £4.45 to £4.60 for 18-21 year olds and from £3.30 to £3.40 for
16-17 year-olds.

Announcing the changes, Mr Darling said: “I am proud of the minimum wage, proud of how it is helping families and proud of the role it plays in the modern economy we are delivering. The minimum wage has gone up by almost 30 per cent more than inflation since 1999, with the number of jobs in the economy increasing by almost 2m in the same period. It is right for workers and employers.”

DTI press release, March 7, 2007

The majority of the public want to see anti-discrimination laws applied to obese people in the workplace, according to research from law firm Vizards Wyeth

Seventy seven per cent of respondents want it to be illegal to discriminate against obese people, provided they are able to carry out their job.

The research, issued for National Obesity Week (11-17 March), also found that 40 per cent of people believe employers that request a photograph to be sent with job applications do this to give preference to better looking people, with a further 25 per cent believing that it is to block applications from certain minority groups. This contrasts to 46 per cent who believe that a photograph is necessary for security or administrative purposes. Overall, 71 per cent feel the request is to enable some form of discrimination.

Depending on the job, the public believes that obese people may not be able to carry out some jobs as effectively as someone of normal weight and that there can be circumstances where obese people are not fit enough to perform their role or could put themselves or colleagues at risk.

Susanna Gilmartin, a partner at Vizards, commented: “In circumstances where, for example, a fire-fighter, security or police job may require considerable physical fitness, it would be perfectly acceptable for an employer to require a certain level of physical and medical fitness. However, provided an obese person met the fitness and or medical criteria then they should not be excluded from such roles.

“To exclude someone out of hand may give rise to a claim. As there is currently no specific discriminatory legislation to protect obese people the only way a person can have a right of action would be to claim constructive dismissal, bring a claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, or seek to show that the reason they are overweight is due to a condition which is classed as a disability under the existing disability discrimination legislation.”

Ms Gilmartin said that, whilst she did not expect obesity legislation to be proposed in the near future, case law is expanding in that direction.

Vizards Wyeth, March 12, 2007

Levy & McRae have been awarded the contract to represent British Sky Broadcasting Limited in the enforcement of all copyright and licensing matters arising in Scotland.   This will give rise to approximately 200 cases a year ensuring rigorous enforcement of all intellectual and contract rights belonging to BSkyB.