HR Bytes

Welcome!

Although the summer was a bit of a wash-out, dealing with the impact of the riots which hit London and other areas of the UK in August gave some HR practitioners plenty to think about. Low economic growth and one of the highest unemployment rates in decades were among factors said to have caused the unrest. We have included our commentary on the employment law implications of the riots at the end of this month's edition.

On a not unrelated subject, the Agency Workers Regulations are coming into force on 1st October. The Regulations are designed to ensure that agency workers – many of whom are in low-paid roles with little security – receive (after a qualifying period) the same basic employment conditions as equivalent employees. We have prepared an Agency Workers FAQs document, and a table summarising which types of worker are covered by the Regulations. If you would like to receive copies of these, please email events@kemplittle.com

What's new this month?

Legal Developments

HGV drivers who let their licenses expire were fairly dismissed Car valeters were in reality employees Can a worker on sick leave for a year receive holiday pay on termination? What reasonable adjustments need to be offered to an employee on sick leave? In principle, it may be fair to dismiss an employee for refusing to accept change to terms and conditions Other news

Agency Workers Regulations due to come into force The CIPD claims that the Tribunal system is "broken" by vexatious claims Age discrimination awards rise by 20% Comment

Our thoughts on the employment law issues surrounding the August riots Publications

The rise of social media and the impact on the employment relationship - read more Legal developments

HGV drivers who let their licenses expire were fairly dismissed

In Wincanton plc v Atkinson and another UKEAT/0040/11, the EAT overturned a tribunal's decision that an employer had unfairly dismissed two lorry drivers who had mistakenly allowed their HGV licences to expire, and had therefore been carrying dangerous loads with no licence or insurance. The tribunal had placed too much emphasis on the fact that there had been no adverse consequences from the employees' mistake. In the EAT's view, it had been within the band of reasonable responses for the employer to dismiss the employees, taking account of the potentially "horrific" consequences of their mistake, even if those consequences never actually materialised.

This is a useful case for employers suggesting that they are entitled to take account of "serious adverse consequences" that might arise from the employee's negligence, and are not prevented from fairly dismissing the employee just because those...