Employees who are whistleblowers have protection from dismissal and detriment (being treated badly) because they blew that whistle on their employers. These so called ‘protected disclosures’ could be disclosures of information about a criminal offence, or breach of health and safety, or other legal obligations. An example of a detriment is refusing to promote someone because they blew the whistle on you.
For the first time in contested proceedings since the law came into force in 2011, a commercial organisation has been convicted of failing to prevent bribery under section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010.
An employee who refused to do work after suffering a discriminatory demotion has lost his court case. Mr Rochford was Senior Vice President of a WNS Global Services. He was off work for a year with a back condition (which was a disability). He eventually returned to work on full pay. However, his employer refused to allow him to do his full role or say when he could go back to full duties. Instead they gave him fewer duties, but on the same pay. This demotion related to his disability and therefore amounted to disability discrimination. As a result, he refused to do any work at all and was eventually dismissed for misconduct.
We recently prepared for trial a Funder’s defence to a claim which raised a number of difficult issues in relation to the annual statements required for a fixed sum credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA”). In the event the matter settled before trial but a number of interesting points arose and are worth considering.
The rules regarding stamp duty land tax (‘SDLT’) have recently been updated, for the third time in two years. Bermans has previously looked at the impact of the introduction of SDLT higher rates, which came into force on 1 April 2016, in two articles which can be found here and here. These articles also provide clarification as to when a purchase may be exempt from higher rates.
This article, however, focuses on the recent changes arising under the 2017 autumn budget, as well as the newly introduced Land Transaction Tax (‘LTT’), payable on the purchase price of properties in Wales from 1 April 2018.
It is only since 1997, that any disparities between the average rates of pay for men and women have been recorded. In 2016, the gap for full time employees was 9.4% in favour of men. One interesting detail to these figures is that the gap develops from the age of 40 onwards. Until this point, men and women have similar pay. One factor which influences this is the time women take out to have children and the figures indicate that the effect of this inequality becomes more marked in their later years. The Equal Pay Act has been in force since 1970 but recent news items have demonstrated that nearly 50 years later equal pay between the sexes has still not been reached. A senior editor for the BBC, Carrie Gracie, recently resigned over what she described as “unlawful pay discrimination”. The BBC is just one organisation which has come under scrutiny over the differing level of salaries it pays to some of its male and female presenters.
Over the last few years the Government has stated its intention to redress this balance. On 6th April 2017, Gender Pay Gap Reporting came into effect for large private and voluntary sector employers, being those with 250 or more employees. On 5th April each year, they must now publish data in relation to their gender pay gap. These obligations include the provision of:
A recent VAT case in the European Court Justice is of considerable interest to motor-vehicle financiers because it blurs the long established distinction between the VAT treatment of lease and hire purchase.
You should all by now be into the final stages of implementing plans for the impending new legislation on GDPR which comes into effect on Friday 25th May 2018.
There has been much written in the media and we are sure you will have been bombarded with information from various providers seeking to offer solutions.
The first thing to remember in all of this is the fundamentals have not really changed. The regulations are a consolidation and update of existing laws. There are some rights which are now requirements but the main difference is that firms need to demonstrate that they are taking steps to protect personal client, employee and supplier data that will avoid the now punitive fines that The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) can levy.