Content

The Evolve Workplace Wellbeing website is a toolkit of
evidence-informed workplace wellbeing resources: www.evolveworkplacewellbeing.org
.  In the successful evaluation in 2023, Evolve was highlighted as a ‘go-to
resource’ for learning about best practice in how organisations can improve
wellbeing and performance.

The toolkit was developed based on cutting edge research
and insider insights by researchers at the University of East Anglia, RAND
Europe and other UK universities. Since 2022, human resource and wellbeing
practitioners across business, charity and the public sector have used the
online resources (including the cost-effectiveness business case calculator),
taken part in workshops and webinars, listened to podcasts and joined the insight network.

Now, the team is looking to take the next steps in Evolve’s
life – moving from a project-based initiative to a living ongoing resource.  They are looking to have conversations with anyone who has responsibility for
people, culture and wellbeing in their organisation (across all sectors and
sizes) to influence what the Evolve team do next.

Helen and Ritchie from the Evolve team are looking to
have 20-30 min informal online conversations during April and May with people
professionals. They will explain the resources available through Evolve and
want to hear feedback on where there might still be gaps in the evidence and
resources available to help organisations improve wellbeing.

Email workplace.wellbeing@uea.ac.uk
or use the contact form on the  website to arrange a quick chat! https://evolveworkplacewellbeing.org/contact/

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has recently considered whether it was fair to dismiss two employees for taking preliminary steps towards setting up in competition with their employer. Employment Principal Lorna Townsend reports.

Following hot on the heels from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ranson v Customer Systems plc (see our previous briefing), in which an employee who set up in business with his employer was held not to be in breach of his contract of employment, the EAT has considered the dismissal of two employees who had taken preliminary steps towards setting up in competition with their employer.

The two employees in this case, K and H, had put together a detailed business plan for the purpose of seeking investment in their own company, which would be competing with their employer’s business of operating residential care homes for children.

Both employees were suspended and then dismissed for gross misconduct following separate disciplinary hearings. The misconduct was described as a breach of the “fundamental trust and confidence” essential to the employment relationship. The employer relied in particular on the fact that K and H had used company resources, including information on costings, in the preparation of their business plan.

The employees’ claims for unfair dismissal were rejected by the employment tribunal, which concluded that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses open to the employer, following a reasonable investigation.

The EAT upheld the employees’ appeal and remitted the case to be reheard by the tribunal. The EAT was not satisfied that the information used by the claimants in the preparation of their business plan could necessarily be categorised as ‘confidential information’, the unauthorised use of which would amount to a fundamental breach of contract. The tribunal had not fully considered the question of whether the employees were acting in breach of their contract of employment by using company information in the preparation of their business plan.

Comment

The EAT in this case has provided a useful reminder that whilst employers have a considerable freedom to define what they will treat as gross misconduct, it is not in itself gross misconduct for an employee to make preparations for conducting a future business after his employment with his current employer has terminated. It is likewise not necessarily the case that every piece of information the employer has, and that the employee may be aware of, can properly be regarded as ‘confidential information’ within the strict legal meaning of the term.

Employers should exercise caution before terminating an employee’s employment in this situation. It would be prudent for employers to make sure that employment contracts and policies make the employee’s duty of confidentiality, and the consequences of breaching that duty, very clear.

A copy of the EAT judgment is available here

Steeles Law Associate Jean Parkinson and Trainee Solicitor Laura Tanguay discuss the new Private Member’s Bill on littering.

A new Private Member’s Bill on roadside littering was heard in the House of Lords last week. The aim of the Bill is to ‘close the loophole’ in the existing provisions and enable councils to hold someone accountable when litter is thrown from a vehicle.

At present, it is a criminal offence under sections 87 and 88 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 (as amended by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (CNEA) 2005 which includes within the definition of ‘litter’ smoking related litter and chewing gum) to throw litter from a vehicle. Those found guilty of the offence can receive an £80 fixed penalty fine from the council, or a maximum fine of £2,500 for more serious offences tried in the Magistrates Court.

There is, however, a serious evidential difficultly in proving which particular person in the car was responsible for throwing the litter, and consequently, these provisions are rather ineffective in practice.

Because of this, the London Local Authorities Act 2012 was enacted this year to enable councils in Greater London to issue civil penalties for littering to the registered owner of the vehicle, thereby removing the evidential burden of the existing criminal provisions. The penalties operate in the same way that speeding fines, seat belt, and parking offences do, with the owner of the vehicle automatically liable but able to nominate the guilty individual to bear the penalty.

The proposed new Bill seeks to extend this civil penalty to local authorities across England, allowing those councils outside of London to benefit from the provisions, thereby removing the current anomaly and rounding the legislative circle.

The new Bill has the support of CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England), with CPRE Stop the Drop Campaign Manager, Samantha Harding, stating, “if people think they can toss litter from their cars, councils should have an effective way to fine them and that’s what this bill delivers.”

Clearly, littering is of widespread concern, not only because of the associated harm to our countryside and wildlife, but also because of the huge cost implications to Local Authorities in removing the rubbish from our streets. Green Flag reports that the cost to taxpayers of clearing up litter on the roadside is £850 million a year. Similarly, Keep Britain Tidy estimates that over 30 million tonnes of litter are collected from our streets every year at a cost of £885 million per year.

For further information on this topic, please contact Jean Parkinson on 020 7421 1720 or jparkinson@steeleslaw.co.uk.

Adam Blenkinsop and Katy Kidd report on Lambeth Council’s recent success in obtaining injunctions against unlicensed ice cream traders in London’s South Bank, and outline the legal framework for local authorities bringing such actions.

Click here to view the article in full published by Local Government Lawyer.

Lee is a FA and FIFA Licensed Football Agent, and joins Leathes Prior to work in Dan Chapman’s Sports Team, which trades under the style Full Contact (see www.fullcontactlaw.co.uk).

Lee will head up Full Contact’s player representation and agency division, acting for football players throughout the UK, Europe and beyond.

Lee brings vast experience as both a professional footballer and an agent and he will work closely with his legal, commercial and mentoring colleagues within Full Contact and Leathes Prior to allow us to offer players a service which truly is second to none.

Lee, whose background is steeped in football (his father was a football manager), decided to become a football agent once his playing career ending prematurely due to injury, and over many years he successfully built up an impressive roster of clients.

From 6 April 2013, a new statutory test will replace the existing rules fordetermining if you are UK resident. While the test will provide clarity, it isimportant to understand it now so that you can plan ahead.

Take a look at our detailed flyer, which includes the test to see if it will affect you.

The
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk is excited to be
partnering with the Suzy Lamplugh Trust to drive
awareness of street harassment and upskill and empower bystanders across
Norfolk to deal with all harassment types.

We are asking local businesses for their support, as
employers in Norfolk to arrange for as many of their staff to attend this free
training as possible. The training is provided by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and is funded by L’Oréal Paris.

This is a globally approved program by the American
NGO Right To Be and L’Oreal Paris, which aims to create a global community of
bystanders who can safely intervene when they see harassment to support the
victim and deter the harasser. To date this program has rolled out across 40
countries and trained over 3.4M bystanders.

The training of even more of the moment now, as The Worker Protection (Amendment of
Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 mandates that employers take ‘reasonable steps to
prevent sexual harassment.’ It is imperative that employers take action to
fulfil this duty of care and the Anti-harassment/Bystander training complements
any other training and measures that these organisations are implementing in
this regard.

Norfolk’s
Police and Crime Commissioner, Sarah Taylor, said: “L’Oreal Paris have funded this much
needed initiative and we are working with the Suzy Lamplugh Trust to organise
free training for local businesses.  It is everyone’s responsibility to
ensure that people are safe, especially women and young girls, when they go for
a night out enjoying the bars and clubs in the nighttime economy. So, I would
urge employers to take advantage of this special opportunity to sign up to the
“Stand Up Against Street Harassment” training programme.

About the free, 30 minute training

Following a growing national conversation around what
the public can do to increase women’s safety, people and organisations want to
take steps to be able to address the prevalence of unwanted and aggressive
behaviors such as harassment that underly the broader cycle of violence against
women and girls.

To accommodate public demand, the Suzy Lamplugh
Trust and L’Oréal Paris formed a partnership to bring the expert approved
international “Stand Up Against Street Harassment” training programme
to UK audiences.

The programme is free of charge as it is sponsored
by L’Oréal Paris, driving awareness of harassment, as well as upskilling
and empowering bystanders across various settings such as public transport,
educational institutions, festivals, public spaces, and workplaces, to help
defuse situations, discourage harassers, and support victims. You can get a glimpse of what this is
all about here.

Exclusive
dates for businesses in Norfolk have been offered by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust.
You can book on to them using the following links:

• 23 April 2025 – webinar registration – Zoom

• 21 May 2025 – webinar registration – Zoom
• 18 June 2025 – webinar registration – Zoom

These
training sessions are open to anyone from Norfolk and are ideal for licensed
venues, taxi companies,
food vendors, bus and rail providers, retailers, large employers,
manufacturing and farming; hospitals and care settings and further education.

If you
cannot make those dates, don’t despair. We will be providing more dates over
the next few months.

If you would
like to arrange a free, one-off and/or face-to-face session for your
organisation/s, please contact ncsp@norfolk.police.uk.
Such a session has a minimum sign up of 75 people. 

The Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment in the case of NHS Leeds v Larner, dealing with the issue of carrying forward accrued holiday entitlement during sick leave. Professional Support lawyer, Elizabeth Stevens, reports.

In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) had ruled that an employee who was dismissed after a long period of sickness absence was entitled to be paid in lieu of all her accrued holiday. The EAT was satisfied that she was entitled to be paid in lieu of the full amount, including in respect of the previous holiday year, even though she had not made any request to carry the leave forward (see our previous briefing).

Following this decision, the case of Fraser v Southwest London St George’s Mental Health Trust was heard by a different division of the EAT, which concluded that in order to be entitled to carry the leave forward to a subsequent holiday year, the employee must expressly request to take the leave (see our previous briefing).

As a consequence of these two EAT decisions we had conflicting authorities on the issue. The case of NHS Leeds v Larner was then appealed to the Court of Appeal and was heard on 27 March 2012. The decisions was handed down on 25 July 2012.

The Court of Appeal has upheld the EAT decision, meaning that a worker who has been on long-term sick leave can claim a payment in lieu of his or her accrued holiday entitlement in full, regardless of whether they made any request either to take the leave or to carry the leave forward to the next holiday year.

In handing down its judgment, the Court reviewed the numerous European decisions on the issue of statutory holiday entitlement during sickness absence under the provisions of the Working Time Directive (WTD). The Court was satisfied that Article 7 of the WTD, which provides the right to paid annual leave, does not impose any requirement for the worker to make a prior leave request in order for the holiday entitlement to be carried forward to a subsequent holiday year.

Crucially for private sector employers, the Court also ruled that it was possible for the Working Time Regulations 1998 to be interpreted in light of the European rulings on Article 7 WTD. This means that employees working in the private sector, as well as those in the public sector, can rely on these European decisions to pursue a claim for any unpaid holiday entitlement on termination of their employment.

Comment This decision means that, subject to any further appeal to the Supreme Court, employers will now have very little scope for refusing to pay employees in respect of their accrued holiday, if their employment is terminated following a long period of illness.

The Government is due to be issuing draft amendments to the current Working Time Regulations in order to take account of the European decisions on the issue of annual leave entitlement and sickness absence.

A copy of the Court of Appeal judgment is available here

We’re delighted to announce the launch of the new Britannia Training website which will allow you to search for and book the courses you need online.

Because customer service is important to us, we will be following up each booking in exactly the same way as before – making sure that you have found the perfect course to suit your needs, and ensuring that you know what to expect on the day. We hope you will have a browse of our new website and let us know what you think! We would appreciate your feedback!

Britannia Safety & Training has a Twitter page, you can find us at Britannia_train, just type this is the search engine and tweet us! Keep updated with the latest news, legislation and updates on Health & Safety.

Britannia also has a page on IPatter, you can find us at Britannia Safety & Training, Wymondham.

COMING SOON! WATCH THIS SPACE! Britannia will have a Facebook page “Britannia Bad Boys”, you can read the lastest health & safety information and play videos!

Employment Principal Lorna Townsend considers a recent decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), in which it was held that a diminution in work alone did not result in a redundancy situation when there was no reduction in the number of employees required to carry out the work.

In this case (Welch v Taxi Owners Association (Grangemouth) Ltd), the claimant, a radio controller, brought a claim for constructive dismissal after her employer sought to impose a reduction in her hours. She argued before the tribunal that her employer should have approached the issue as a redundancy situation.

The tribunal hearing her claim concluded that there was no redundancy situation, since the company’s requirements for radio controllers had neither ceased nor diminished at the relevant time. It held that the claimant’s dismissal had been fair for ‘some other substantial reason’, namely the company’s genuine business need to reduce the hours of its radio controllers following a downturn in business.

The EAT has since upheld this decision, confirming that the claimant’s dismissal was not by reason of redundancy. In accordance with long-established case law authority, it was satisfied that for a redundancy situation to arise there must a diminution or cessation in the employer’s requirement for employees (i.e. the number of employees) to carry out the work in question, rather than merely a diminution in the work itself.

Comment

The difficulty with this decision is that it appears to directly conflict with the recent EAT decision in Packman t/a Packman Lucas Associates v Fauchon (see our previous briefing). In that case, a different division of the EAT concluded that an individual who was dismissed as a result of refusing to accept a significant reduction in hours was redundant, regardless of the fact that there was no reduction in the requirement for the number employees to carry out the work.

However, the present case was principally concerned with whether the claimant had been constructively dismissed, rather than the EAT considering in any detail the question of whether it could be interpreted as a redundancy situation.

In light of the apparent conflict between these two EAT decisions, an appeal to the Court of Appeal in either or both cases is desirable in order to clarify the position. In the meantime, employers should exercise caution in seeking to make any significant reduction in hours and be prepared for affected employees claiming a redundancy payment.

A copy of the EAT judgment is available here

Steeles Law’s Michael Fahy looks at some of the more contentious property aspects surrounding wind farms.

Click here to view the article in full published by Local Government Lawyer.