In Free Miles v The Royal Veterinary College an employment tribunal determined that a belief in ethical veganism that encompassed an obligation to contravene laws to ease the suffering of animals was not a philosophical belief under section of the Equality Act 2010.

Ms Free Miles (‘Ms Miles’) was employed by the Royal Veterinary College (‘RVC’) as a veterinary nurse. In 2019 she was arrested by police investigating alleged burglaries of farms and private residences in England by a splinter cell of the Animal Liberation Front. Ms Miles was later summarily dismissed by RVC for reasons including a suspected connection with an animal rights group that approved of law breaking and that she had herself been involved in trespassing and the theft/removal of animals from private property.  

In response to her dismissal, Ms Miles brought a claim against RVC alleging direct and indirect philosophical belief discrimination (amongst other reasons she contended for unfair dismissal). She argued that her belief in ethical veganism included an obligation to break the law to reduce the suffering of animals. At the time of the hearing, Ms Miles had been charged with criminal offences of conspiracy in connection with animal rights activities.

The tribunal concluded that Ms Miles’ belief in ethical veganism would have been a protected philosophical belief under the EA 2010 if it had been limited to believing that humans should not eat, wear, use for sport, experiment on or profit from animals. Additionally, it stated it might also have reached the same judgment if the moral duty to take positive action to reduce or prevent the suffering of animals had been limited to lawful action, such as protests and demonstrations.

Nonetheless, Ms Miles’ beliefs included trespassing on the private property of others, removing their property and breaking the law. The tribunal considered that a belief to take such actions that are unlawful (whether contrary to civil or criminal law) did not satisfy the fifth element of the test as outlined in the case of Grainger Plc v Nicholson. As laws were made by democratically elected representatives they should be obeyed by all citizens and it was not for individuals to decide the laws they could obey and disobey. The discrimination claims therefore failed.

In Singh v Metroline West Ltd , the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) determined that, with regard to a claim for constructive dismissal, a fundamental breach of an employment contract could occur even where an employer’s actions did not suggest an intention to end the employment relationship.

The case related to the withholding of contractual sick pay to an employee, Mr Singh, by Metroline West Ltd (‘Metroline’). Company sick pay was withheld as Metroline believed that Mr Singh’s absence from work was an attempt to avoid a scheduled disciplinary hearing. Statutory sick pay was paid to Mr Singh instead. In response, Mr Singh brought a claim for constructive dismissal, contending that the failure to pay him the contractual rate of sick pay was a fundamental breach of contract.

The Employment Tribunal (ET) determined that there had been a breach of contract by Metroline, albeit not a fundamental breach. Metroline had contractual rights to suspend Mr Singh without pay for an illicit absence. Additionally, his contract allowed company sick pay to be withheld if an investigation found that an absence from work was not for legitimate reasons. Still, the ET considered that Metroline’s aim in withholding contractual sick pay was to encourage Mr Singh’s involvement in the disciplinary process. The ET did not believe that it implied a desire to not be bound by the employment relationship.

The EAT disagreed with the ET’s judgment and upheld Mr Singh’s appeal on this issue. It was considered that the ET erred in law in deeming that a fundamental breach of contract could only occur if there was an intention to not be bound by a contract in such a way as to end an employment relationship. Rather, a unilateral decision to reduce pay to which an employee is entitled is a fundamental breach of contract.

A Social Market Foundation (SMF) study has discovered that new mothers typically suffer a financial loss of £66,434 in pay over the course of a decade in comparison to childless women.

The monetary loss figure gauges the income a woman would have earned if her career progression had emulated similar women without children. The statistics are based on new SMF analysis of a dataset that tracks the experiences of approximately 30,000 people over many years.

Considering women who were 25 to 35, the SMF discovered that the typical woman who remained childless from 2009/10 onwards would have seen her earnings rise by around a third over the following decade. In contrast, a woman who gave birth to a first child in 2010/11 would be earning 10% less at the end of the relevant period.

A key contributory factor in the divergence of incomes was the high cost of childcare in Britain. With families typically paying 7% of their income towards it, the UK continues to have some of the most expensive childcare in the world. This factor means that it is often not possible for parents to work as much as they would like. In turn, this leads to reduced earnings, stalled wage growth, and a lack of career progression.

The SMF have announced the creation of a cross-party commission into the effect of poor childcare provision on wages and poverty.

Two years on from the murder of George Floyd in the USA, Ipsos has published research into the experience of UK employees following the incident. A representative sample of 1,652 workers aged 16-75 were interviewed with 405 interviews coming from those with an ethnic minority background

The survey saw 41% of workers confirm that their organisation’s handling of race-related issues had been impacted by the murder. In contrast to the survey cohort as a whole, 57% of those from ethnic minority backgrounds stated the incident had impacted the way their company handled race-related matters at least a little. Also, despite workers’ beliefs that employers were willing to take action, less than half (43%) considered that this commitment had been lasting.

It was notable that employees representing different ethnicities demonstrated differences in their opinions of the steps companies had taken to create environments of inclusivity for those of different racial/ethnic backgrounds. For example, 61% of white working Britons agreed that their company was taking steps to engender an inclusive environment. However, this figure fell to 53% for ethnic minority workers. Similarly, 73% of white working Britons felt they could safely be themselves at work whilst the figure for those from ethnic minority backgrounds was 60%. Less than half of ethnic minority workers (49%) felt valued at work whereas 63% of white working Britons did.

Less than half (45%) of workers agreed that the leaders of their organisation were racially diverse. This suggests there is room for improvement in this regard. Furthermore, workers from an ethnic minority background were much more likely to report having encountered micro-aggressions in the workplace, with those describing their ethnicity as Black reporting a higher percentage of incidents than the ethnic minority cohort as a whole.

An academic team at the University of Leeds has published a guide to effective hybrid working. The Future Workplace project outlines research examining Covid 19’s effect on employee and employer views on the definition of a workplace. In addition, the report offers advice for employers who may wish to establish hybrid working environments.

The research categorised five classes of hybrid working. These are:

• Free hybrids;
• Timeless hybrids;
• Nomadic hybrids;
• Fixed hybrids; and
• Balanced hybrids.

The report notes that each type of working will have particular physical space implications for an organisation.

In a study of worker attitudes, the project surveyed 759 UK office workers and discovered that 72% preferred to work at the office at least once a week. 33% also stated that they did not have a dedicated workspace within their home. Less than 10% of respondents were trained for hybrid working and less than 20% of office spaces were said to be adapted to support hybrid working. A higher proportion (41%) were conscious of a formal hybrid working policy at their place of work.

The report advises that employers’ communication regarding hybrid working practices should be carefully calibrated to ensure tensions within the workplace are mitigated. It suggests that there cannot be a single policy that suits all employees within an organisation. An effective workplace utilizing hybrid working will require adaptions of working culture and procedures, organisational objectives and IT systems.

Helpfully, the report proposes methods that organisations may utilise to alleviate pressures or dangers that could arise upon implementation of a hybrid working policy. Guidance is given on how to construct a hybrid policy, with regard given to physical space within the workplace, in addition to overseeing employees.

The advice on workplace communication and methodologies is all the more welcome given that a recently published CIPD survey of employers has demonstrated there is a lack of consensus amongst employers regarding the continued use of hybrid working policies.

The second part of the report is due to be published in September 2022.

Alex Burghart, the then Minister for Skills, revealed in May 2022 that the UK Government was focussing on simplification of the current apprenticeship programme from August 2022. The Government is seeking further improvement to the current system via implementing measures to reduce bureaucratic burdens, make the system as simple and user-friendly as possible and giving apprentices the finest possible experience.

Four improvements were mentioned in the announcement. These included:

1. Making it simpler for apprentices to accelerate their apprenticeship by placing a greater emphasis on provider assessments of learning and experience.
2. Introducing a uniform baseline for off-the-job training, which will stipulate the minimum number of hours that a full-time apprentice must spend in training.
3. A change to English and maths requirements for Level 2 apprentices who start with the lowest level of prior attainment in English and maths.
4. Providing a more efficient payment service for providers by reducing the data need for payments, as well as improving financial reports.

Further to the above, the 2022 to 2023 funding rules will apply to apprenticeships starting between 1 August 2022 and 31 July 2023. Further information can be found at Apprenticeship funding rules – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).

The CIPD published a report on 11 August titled Zero-hours contracts: Evolution and current status, which reflects how zero-hour contracts are used and sets out their benefits and disadvantages for both employers and workers. The report follows a survey of employers which suggests that the number of workers engaged on zero hours contracts is small, accounting for about 3% of total employment.

The report makes 4 recommendations. In summary, these are:

1. To introduce a right for variable hours workers to request a more stable contract or working arrangement after six months of employment;

2. Create a statutory code of practice on the responsible management of zero hours workers, including a requirement to pay compensation if workers’ shifts are cancelled at short notice;

3. Improve labour market enforcement, including through the creation of a single enforcement body and a stronger focus on supporting employer compliance; and

4. Abolish worker status to help clarify and enhance employment rights for zero hours workers and more widely.

In a recent case, Harpur Trust v Brazel, the Supreme Court (“SC”) held that the annual leave entitlement under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (“WTR”), being 5.6 weeks, should not be reduced pro-rata for “part-year” workers.

“Part-year” workers are those who are employed for the whole year but only work some weeks, and not others.

In this case, Ms Brazel was a music teacher who was employed for term-times only. She was paid for the hours she taught which varied from week to week. She was required to take her annual holiday during the school holidays, and her holiday pay was paid to her in three equal payments at the end of each school term. Following the Acas guidance, the school calculated Ms Brazel’s earnings at the end of each term and paid her 12.07% of that figure (the “Percentage Method”).

Ms Brazel argued that her holiday entitlement should be paid at the level of her average earnings over the 12-week period immediately before holiday was taken – if she worked 32 weeks of the year, this would equate to 17.5% of her annual earnings. Ms Brazel claimed unlawful deductions from wages for the difference

The SC held that entitlement to 5.6 weeks’ holiday still applies to workers on a permanent contract, regardless of how much work is done in that time. The SC also rejected the Percentage Method, and as such, it should no longer be relied on. The calculation exercise required by regulation 16 of the WTR is straightforward and should be followed, even if it results in part-year workers receiving a higher proportion of their annual earnings as holiday pay.

38 MPs have signed an early day motion which calls on the government to introduce legislation to ensure employers maintain a reasonable temperature in the workplace.

The motion proposes a maximum temperature of 30°C, or 27°C for workers doing strenuous work and a requirement for employers to introduce effective control measures like ventilation or moving staff to cooler areas away from windows and heat sources.

Similar calls for legislation have come from the GMB and TUC unions. The TUC has called for a requirement to stop work if indoor temperatures hit 30°C, or 27°C for strenuous jobs – whilst the GMB wants the maximum indoor temperature to be 25°C.

Currently, there is no guidance for a maximum temperature in the workplace however, an approved code of practice does set a limit on minimum workplace temperatures of 16°C, or 13°C if the work involves severe physical effort.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld a decision that a Christian doctor, “Dr M” was not discriminated against for refusing to address transgender people by their chosen pronoun.

The tribunal considered whether a Dr M’s belief that a person cannot change their sex/gender at will was capable of protection as a religious or philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010, and whether conduct (because the individual would not agree to use a trans person’s chosen pronouns was discriminatory on grounds of belief).

Dr M worked as a health and disabilities assessor and was required to assess claimants for disability-related benefits, including conducting face-to-face assessments and writing reports. However, he expressed that he objected to using pronouns or titles inconsistent with a person’s birth gender. This was inconsistent with the workplace policies and procedures, including the diversity and equality policy. After conducting meetings with Dr M, where he confirmed that he could not in good conscience use a trans person’s chosen pronouns, it was decided that he could not stay in his role as a health and disabilities assessor.

It was held that whilst the doctor’s beliefs were protected, the EAT agreed with the employment tribunal findings that there was no direct or indirect discrimination or harassment against the doctor.

The government has introduced the Bill of Rights 2022 to Parliament which seeks to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and create a new domestic human rights framework.

The Bill seeks to give effect to the same rights as the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA Rights”) and makes it unlawful for any public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with these rights. A court may also make a declaration of incompatibility in respect of primary or subordinate legislation that is incompatible with a HRA Right.

The Bill also imposes a higher threshold for victims of alleged breaches of HRA Rights in order for permission for their claim to proceed, namely that they have suffered a “significant disadvantage”.

The Bill is currently at the second reading stage in the House of Commons, and will have to be approved by both the Commons and the House of Lords before receiving royal assent.