Employment Law E-Bulletin

June 2008

QUICK LINK

Read this month's cases in full

***********

MATERNITY LEAVE BENEFITS

Pregnancy and maternity leave can be a difficult issue for employers to handle. Recent years have seen an increase in the length of paid and unpaid maternity leave and greater rights for women whilst taking their leave and on their return to work. Whilst ‘mothers to be’ may (rightly) rejoice at the increased opportunities these changes give them, businesses, especially small businesses, have found the increased cost and administrative burden engendered by these changes difficult to cope with.

This month’s bulletin will focus on the rules and rights in relation to pregnancy and maternity leave as they stand and will also look at the changes to the law that came into force last month due to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (Amendment) Regulations 2008.

Read full article

***********

CASES

Changing Terms and Conditions

The recent decision in Martland v Cooperative Insurance Society Ltd reinforces that when an employer is forced to terminate and re-engage employees because there is no agreement to a change in terms and conditions, this will generally not amount to a redundancy but is a dismissal for some other substantial reason.

Refusing a suitable alternative vacancy

The recent case of Commission for Health Care Audit and Inspection v Ward addresses the issue of what happens when an employee who is facing redundancy is offered an alternative vacancy but refuses it.

Reasonable Investigations

Back in March we highlighted the case of Millbrook Proving Ground Ltd v Jefferson which stressed that an investigation into misconduct did not have to be exhaustive.  The case of Carlsberg UK Ltd v Cramp and Rabbitt reinforces this position but reminds employers that their investigations must be reasonable in the circumstances.

Read this month's cases in full

***********

LEGISLATION

The Corporate Manslaughter Act came into force on 6 April 2008.  Although not strictly an employment issue (and far too detailed to go into in any depth), it is worth being aware that an offence is now committed if the way in which a business’s activities are managed or organised causes a persons death and the way in which the business’s activities are managed or organised by senior management was a substantial element in any gross breach of a relevant duty of care which lead to the death.

What this really means is that if senior management is conducting itself in a way which falls far below what can reasonably be expected of persons in such positions and this failing leads to negligent breach of a duty of care then an offence may have been committed. 

It is also worth remembering that the Corporate Manslaughter Act applies to partnerships and Limited Liability Partnerships as well as to organisations which might traditionally be thought of as companies.

The punishment for a breach is an unlimited fine (nobody is going to be sent to prison as a result of a breach of this legislation) but the impact of the regulations should lead all those in senior management positions to reassess their risk management strategies and the way in which accidents are managed.

**************

If you require any assistance regarding the changes to law on benefits and maternity leave, or any other employment issue, please contact the employment team at Burnetts on 01228 552222.

June 2008