For financial years starting in 2019, all UK listed companies with more than 250 UK employees will have to publish and explain every year the differences in pay between their chief executive and staff
The government has announced that it will make a range of policy changes and introduce new laws to provide new protections for employees and workers
The Supreme Court found that an enhanced pension that was based on the employee’s part-time working, that had been agreed as reasonable adjustments, did not amount to unfavourable treatment
The EAT ruled that a term must be implied into the employment contract, that the employer could not terminate employment on the grounds of incapacity to work while the employee was entitled to disability benefits
The Court of Appeal concluded, by a 2:1 majority, that although the contractual documentation indicated the Uber drivers were self-employed, they were workers and therefore entitled to national minimum wage (NMW), paid holiday and whistleblower protection.
The Government is considering proposals to help parents and carers in the workforce, including creating a duty on employers to consider whether a role may be done flexibly, and making this clear when advertising the role.
The Government has launched a consultation asking for views on taking forward its manifesto commitment that large employers should publish ethnicity pay data. The consultation closes on 11 January 2019.
IR35 reforms – The off-payroll working rules currently applying to the public sector will be extended to large and medium-sized businesses in the private sector from April 2020. IR35 aims to combat tax avoidance by workers supplying their services to clients via personal service companies (PSC).
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that an employee can claim victimisation if they act honestly, even if the discrimination allegation they made was made for an ulterior motive.
The Court of Appeal decided that a serious assault by the company’s managing director at spontaneous post-Christmas party drinks which resulted in an employee suffering brain damage was sufficiently connected to the managing director’s job for the company to be vicariously liable for the employee’s injury.