Click on the headings to read more about each development
In this case, the Court of Appeal struggled to decide the rules around when notice to terminate an employee's employment takes effect under the contract. They concluded that notice is served only when the employee, personally, has taken delivery of the letter containing notice. Here, the employee was away on holiday and didn't receive the letter until her return. The Court decided that notice was served on her return, notwithstanding that it had also been emailed to her and posted in a letter collected by her father-in-law in her absence. However, there was no requirement that the employee must have read the letter before the notice became effective (Newcastle upon Tyne NHS Foundation Trust v Haywood, CA).
This important decision concerns the scope of the information that the outgoing employer has to supply to the incoming employer in the context of a TUPE transfer. Here, the EAT decided that information about the employment particulars of the transferring employees is not confined to contractual employment particulars, but could also encompass non-contractual entitlements (Born London Ltd v Spire Production Services Ltd, EAT).
The Supreme Court has held that there is no requirement for a claimant to prove the reason why a PCP puts (or would put) an affected group sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage. The essential element is establishing a causal connection between the PCP and the disadvantage suffered, both by the group and the individual. This may be easier to prove if the reason for the group disadvantage is known, but is a question of fact rather than law.
There have been two important developments to note in connection with the gender pay gap reporting regime which came into force on 6 April 2017. First, Acas and the GEO have published the final version of their guidance and there are a number of important changes between this and the draft version published in January. Second, the Government website which hosts employers' gender pay gap results has gone live and a number of employers have already uploaded their results.
The Government has published its response to the House of Commons Petitions Committee and Women and Equalities Committee joint report on dress codes in the workplace. The Government has rejected recommendations for legislative change on the basis that scope for redress for women subjected to discriminatory dress codes already exists, in favour of an approach based on more detailed guidance and awareness campaigns.
Earlier this month, the Home Office introduced a suite of changes to the Immigration Rules and associated Policy Guidance in respect of Tier 2. For many employers, the most notable of these changes is the Immigration Skills Charge, which we reported on last month. However, there are a number of other changes which employers should be aware of. We cover these in detail here, along with their implications for current and potential sponsors of migrant workers. These changes all took effect from 6 April 2017.
Recap of the key employment law reforms coming into force in March and April 2017
Read the document here