Consultation on Fees in Employment Tribunals
By Hazel Oliver
The UK's Ministry of Justice has issued a public consultation document on the Government's proposals for introducing fees in the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). This is not a consultation on whether or not to introduce fees, as that has already been decided. Rather, the consultation is about the proposed structure and arrangements for charging fees. There are two alternative proposals for fee structures, Option 1 and Option 2, which are outlined below.
Major Employment Law Shake-up Unveiled
The UK Government has announced wide-ranging plans for what it claims to be "the most radical reform to the employment law system for decades". The proposals were set out by the Secretary of State for Business, Dr Vince Cable, in a speech to the EEF manufacturers' organization. Some of the measures had been previously floated but others were novel, including:
- amending the UK's whistleblowing legislation so that complaints by employees about a breach of their own employment contract will no longer constitute a protected disclosure;
- seeking views on introducing compensated no-fault dismissals for "micro employers" with fewer than ten employees;
- simplifying and "slimming down" the processes required to carry out a fair dismissal, including potentially working with the conciliation service Acas to change their Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures;
- consolidating the myriad regulations relating to the national minimum wage; and
- streamlining the current regulatory regime for the recruitment sector.
Green Light for Unfair Dismissal Reform and Tribunal Fees
The UK Government has confirmed that it will be increasing the qualifying period for claiming unfair dismissal from one to two years and introducing fees for bringing employment tribunal claims.
These were two of the most significant proposals contained in a consultation document on reforming employment tribunals and the resolution of workplace disputes, published by the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) last January. At the Conservative Party conference on 3 October 2011, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, announced that both reforms are to be implemented. This pre-empted the Government's formal response to the consultation, which is expected shortly.
Continue Reading...Employment Newsnotes (Issue 51, Summer 2011)
Employment Newsnotes (PDF) is an occasional publication by Lewis Silkin covering recent UK employment law developments in an accessible, succinct and entertaining way. The latest issue includes articles on:
- Dangers for employers in relying on surveillance film in disciplinary proceedings
- Controlling employees' use of social media in the workplace
- How employers should go about implementing a pay cut lawfully
- The Government's proposal to introduce financial penalties for employers losing Employment Tribunal claims
- The latest cases concerning employees claiming discrimination on grounds of their 'philosophical belief'
- Interns - are they entitled to be paid the national minimum wage?
- The potential sanctions for businesses employing people who are working in the UK illegally
- The prospects of former News of the World staff being able to claim stigma damages
U.S. Supreme Court Issues Decision on Wal-Mart Sex Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit
On June 20, 2011, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court reversed a federal district court's 2004 decision certifying a nationwide class of female employees alleging sex discrimination in the company's pay and promotion practices under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The decision follows rulings by the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010, and a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in 2007, both of which had affirmed class certification in large part.
In a 27-page majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court held that the district court improperly certified the Dukes class under both Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules. Four justices (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan) dissented regarding the Court's Rule 23(a) analysis, disagreeing with the majority about the proper threshold standards to apply in evaluating class certification. However, all justices unanimously agreed that the district court ultimately should not have certified the class under Rule 23(b)(2)'s more specific requirements.
As employers everywhere breathe a collective sigh of relief, what should they still be on guard for, and what should they take away from the Supreme Court's decision and analysis?
To learn more about the decision and its implications for employers, please continue reading Littler's ASAP, And the Class Certification Battle is Won: A Unanimous Supreme Court Reverses Rule 23(b)(2) Class Certification in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, by Margaret Parnell Hogan and Danielle L. Kitson.
Saskatchewan Plans to Overhaul Human Rights Systems
The Saskatchewan government has introduced Bill 160, An Act to Amend The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code (pdf), to reduce inefficiency, delay, and complexity in the human rights system. If passed, the Bill would, among other things, phase out the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal, which currently hears human rights complaints referred to it by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, and require complaints to be heard in court.
Under the new system, the Commission will have the power to require mediation of all complaints. If, in the Commission's opinion, the complainant refuses a reasonable settlement offer, the Bill would give the Commission the power to dismiss the complaint. If the complaint is not resolved through mediation, the Commission may apply to the Court of the Queen's Bench for a hearing of the complaint. The Tribunal would only hear complaints filed prior to the Bill coming into force.
The Bill must still pass second and third reading and will be considered again when the provincial legislature reconvenes on March 7, 2011.
Consultation on Resolving Workplace Disputes Launched
The UK's Coalition Government has launched a major consultation on reforming employment tribunals and the resolution of workplace disputes. The stated aims of the proposed measures are:
- achieving more early resolution of disputes;
- ensuring that the employment tribunal process is as swift, user friendly and effective as possible; and
- helping business feel more confident about hiring people.
The document includes two highly controversial proposals that the Government has previously trailed: an increase in the qualification period for claiming unfair dismissal from one to two years (see our previous article on the background to this); and the introduction of a fee for lodging an employment tribunal claim. With regard to the latter, employers' organisations in the UK have been lobbying hard for a fee of up to £500 to discourage weak and spurious applications.
Continue Reading...Amendments to Ontario's Employment Standards Act, 2000
Amendments to the Employment Standards Act, 2000 contained in Schedule 9 of Bill 68, Open for Business Act, previously discussed here, have come into force. Among other things, the amendments:
- Allow the Director of Employment Standards to require complainants to take steps to resolve their claim before assigning an investigator;
- Permit Employment Standards Officers to mediate complaints; and
- Allow Officers to make decision when parties fail to attend meetings or provide evidence.
New York Federal Court Dismisses Case Against U.S.-Based Corporation Alleging Human Rights Abuses in Guatemala
In what continues to be a flurry of activity in U.S. federal courts involving allegations of human rights abuses abroad, the Southern District of New York, in Palacios v. Coca-Cola Co., Inc., No. 10-03120(RJS) (Nov. 19, 2010), recently dismissed a federal lawsuit brought by a group of Guatemalan nationals in connection with their union activities in Guatemala.
In Palacios, Guatemalan nationals alleged that Coca-Cola Company, Inc. was complicit in death threats, murder and rape resulting from plaintiffs' union involvement at a Coca-Cola-affiliated processing plant in Guatemala. Significantly, the complaint included a consumer fraud claim under New York's General Business Law section 349, alleging that Coca-Cola fraudulently misrepresented to New York consumers - through its published "Workplace Rights" standards - that its affiliated bottlers "comply with internationally-recognized human rights standards, the laws of the countries where [Coca-Cola] operates, and the policies and directives of [Coca-Cola]." Surprisingly absent from the complaint was any claim under the Alien Tort Claims Act, a federal statute commonly used by non-U.S. plaintiffs seeking damages in U.S. courts for alleged violations of international law.
Continue Reading...10 Tips for Employers with Operations in China
The continuing growth of the Chinese economy means that even more foreign companies are looking to the People's Republic of China (or the PRC) to expand their operations. However, while many new operators in China are focused on lower labor costs or the vast potential market, these foreign businesses often neglect to fully educate themselves about Chinese employment laws and rules critical to their operations' success.
Indeed, the rapid evolution of the Chinese labor environment in the face of ongoing social changes presents many challenges for both foreign and domestic companies. Below, we summarize 10 key considerations for global businesses with employees in China and highlight some common mistakes.
Continue Reading...