Employment Law E-Bulletin

Sept 07

QUICK LINK

Read this month's cases in detail

**********

SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN THE WORKPLACE

In previous issues of this bulletin, we have reported on cases where religion and belief have been at the heart of the matter and it is clear that issues concerning religion are become more and more common in the world of work. This month we will look at how the religion of the employer can have an impact upon the employment relationship.

Read full article

**********

CASES

Refusing to Award Bonuses

The recent high court case of Ridgway v JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association saw the court return for another look at the issue of when employers can use their discretion and decide not to award bonuses.

Failing to Notify the Employee of the Right of Appeal

Although we are all fairly certain that the statutory procedures as they are now will eventually be amended, they remain with us for the foreseeable future and continue to produce vast amounts of litigation of which the case Apituit (Edinburgh) Ltd v Kennedy  is the most recent.

Compensation Uplift

The question of how much a compensation award should be uplifted for failure to follow the statutory procedures has become an area of increasing uncertainty.

Read this month's cases in full

**********

LEGISLATION UPDATE

New Guidance on the Data Protection Act

The Information Commissioner’s Office has recently produced new guidance on what amounts to ‘personal data’ for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998 (“the DPA”). To be covered by the DPA, the data must ‘relate to’ an ‘identified or identifiable individual’. Previous guidance has focused on what is not covered by the term ‘personal data’ rather than what is, and the definition of ‘personal data’ has appeared to be a narrow one.

The new guidance suggests that employers focus on eight key points when trying to decide if the data in question is covered by the Act. The questions are as follows:

(1) Is a living individual ‘identifiable’ from the information?
(2) If so, does the information ‘relate to’ the ‘identifiable’ individual?

If an individual is ‘identifiable’ and the information clearly ‘relates’ to them then the information is ‘personal data’ and no further issues have to be looked at. If it is not clear whether the information is ‘related’, then the guidance suggests asking up to a further six questions, namely:

(3) Is the data ‘obviously about’ an individual?
(4) Is the data ‘linked to’ an individual?
(5) Does the processing of the data affect decisions about the individual?
(6) Does the data have ‘biographical significance’ in relation to the individual?
(7) Does the data ‘concentrate’ on the individual?
(8) Does the processing of the data ‘impact’ or ‘potentially impact’ on an individual or individuals?

If the answer is ‘yes’ to any of the above questions then the information is ‘personal data’ and the protection of the Act applies.

Further definitions, guidance and useful examples to illustrate all of the above considerations can be found at The Information Commissioner's Office.

For further information on the issues featured here or any other employment law issue contact Burnetts' employment law solicitors on 01228 552222

Sept 2007