Your guide to the Employment Rights Bill

Palmers Solicitors, providing personal and commercial legal services across Essex and beyond, has once again been ranked in the prestigious Legal 500 Guide – achieving recognition across six practice areas.

Based on rigorous research, Legal 500 is one of the most highly regarded guides to legal services and expertise.

Palmers Solicitors has been recognised as a leader within a diverse range of practice areas, signifying the firm’s dedication to excellence and client experience.

It has been ranked in:

• Corporate and Commercial – Tier 3
• Commercial Litigation – Tier 2
• Family – Tier 4
• Personal Tax, Trusts and Probate – Tier 2
• Commercial Property – Tier 2
• Construction – Tier 2

The firm has either maintained or exceeded its previous rankings in all of these practice areas.

In addition to its broader expertise, several of the firm’s individual experts have been featured in the rankings, including:

• Helen Jago, Personal Tax, Trusts and Probate – Leading Partner
• Matthew Johnson, Corporate and Commercial – Leading Associate
• Adam Davis, Construction – Leading Partner
• Luke Morgan, Commercial Litigation – Next Generation Partner

Practice Manager, Gina Newman, said: “We are all delighted with the latest Legal 500 rankings. These achievements are a real demonstration of the expertise and dedication of our team, so a huge congratulations to everyone who contributed to our success.

“I would also like to extend our sincere thanks to the clients who provided invaluable feedback to the Legal 500 researchers, for their help and for their continued support.

“Legal 500 is highly respected across the legal profession, and we never underestimate the power of being ranked consistently – but we’re not resting on our laurels!

“We’re always committed to enhancing our approach and delivering excellent service and outstanding client experiences.”

To speak to one of our experts and access our services, please contact us.

Essex-based Palmers Solicitors sponsored the Most Improved Cadet Award at the 1476 Squadron RAF Cadets presentation evening – continuing its committed support of the local community.

Held at the spectacular Vulcan Restoration Trust on Friday 27 September, the event recognised the success and achievements of young people in the Squadron, one of the many ways in which the group helps its cadets reach their full potential.

Representing Palmers Solicitors, Supervising Directors Erin Cronin and Helen Jago were proud to present the award for Most Improved Cadet to Toby Aitkin, in light of his outstanding achievements this year.

The event was doubly special for the attendees, as they were also able to celebrate the career and retirement of Richard Jennings, former Civilian Instructor at the RAF cadets.  

Speaking on the evening, Erin said: “It was a huge honour for us as a firm to sponsor the award, and for Helen and I to have the opportunity to present it to a very deserving winner!

“Events and groups like these have so much to offer to young people, helping them to celebrate their achievements and realise their potential.

“It was an incredible evening. Congratulations to Toby and, of course, good luck to Richard in his retirement.

“It’s important for local businesses to sponsor them when they can so that they can keep going – and it’s also a great opportunity to get involved with the local community!”

Jeremy Sirrell, Supervising Director, Palmers Solicitors

The sentencing of former BBC broadcaster, Huw Edwards, has received significant media coverage and online comment, with many people expressing discontent about the fact that Edwards escaped prison.

Criticism suggests that he received more lenient treatment than would ordinarily have been the case, with some critics specifically highlighting his fame as a cause.

Such commentary is entirely wrong if we take a closer look at the law. As expected, Huw Edwards was sentenced in accordance with current sentencing guidelines in relation to these kinds of offences.

Categorising the offence

Indecent images are divided into three different categories: A, B and C, with category A being the most serious and C being the least serious. Possessing indecent images is a very serious offence in British Criminal Law and one which is often dealt with by way of prison sentences.

The starting point for possession of a category A indecent image is one year of imprisonment. For distribution, the starting point is three years’ imprisonment. To produce such an image, the starting point is six years’ imprisonment.

The English Criminal Law treats indecent images of children very seriously.

However, there are factors that the law must consider when imposing a sentence, including:

• Any previous convictions
• Remorse
• In the case of indecent images, other surrounding factors including the number of images.

Huw Edwards had 41 indecent images, which is an extremely low number in the context of other cases in this area of the law. Due to the nature of the internet, it is extremely easy to obtain huge numbers of images, and most of those appearing before the court will have images numbered in the thousands or more.

The number of images that Edwards possessed may, therefore, have been a material factor in sentencing.

Suspended sentencing

Another matter to consider is that, although Edwards did not go to prison immediately, he has received a custodial sentence.

He received a custodial sentence of six months, suspended for two years.

Should Mr Edwards fail to comply with any requirements imposed on him for those two years, for example reporting to probation, then he will be in breach of that suspended sentence and will serve his six-month sentence in prison.

The guidelines for possession

Some commentators have suggested that the sentencing guidelines are inappropriate and given leniency, handing down sentences that are too light for this kind of offence.

However, the position here is that lengthy custodial sentences are imposed for those who are involved in the distribution or production of these images – although possession can also lead to a custodial sentence.

We can see then that, while many criticisms can be made of the law in this area, undue leniency for Edwards is not one of them.

For advice on criminal law, please contact Jeremy.

The summer holidays are almost at an end, but the travel season is far from over. September is a hugely popular time for taking to the skies, particularly among those with adult children or those without children.

However, with flight and hotel bookings comes the inevitable cancellations that unfortunately face a small minority of customers. From a consumer rights perspective, this is certainly an interesting time of year.

A case of mistaken pricing

We’ve recently seen two fairly high-profile cases of travel arrangements being cancelled which have raised questions around the rights of consumers and brands.

The first, in which a small number of Qantas customers were briefly able to book first class tickets for a fraction of the normal cost, saw consumers downgraded (based on the tickets they held) to business class – which was worth considerably more than the price of their tickets.

Qantas said that this was due to a computer error and that it would honour bookings made, in business class instead of first, or offer a full refund.

This seems fair on the face of it, but let’s dig deeper. The airline terms and conditions state it is entitled to cancel a booking and offer a refund when it is ‘reasonably obvious’ that an error in pricing has been made.

What does the airline define as reasonable? The dynamic nature of airline pricing coupled with the absence of a set numerical definition of reasonable means that consumers who have planned a trip or booked accommodation around their flight lack protection and the recourse to argue that they made the booking in the belief that the price was genuine.

This also shifts the onus of realising the mistake onto consumers, although this is both allowable and a prudent move commercially.

Securing accommodation

Hotel chains in Manchester have also been recently criticised for supposed cancellations of existing bookings in order to raise prices on the dates that Oasis will play the city.

Some consumers have faced the disappearance of their bookings, more commonly, cancellations due to overbooking.

While frustrating, there is little in the way of protection for consumers for overbooking – as not cancelling the booking could result in unsafe overcrowding.

As long as a refund is offered, consumers can sadly do little to recoup the logistical losses that a cancellation could entail.

Recourse for consumers

When consumers are faced with cancellations or disruption to their plans, what is available to them to prevent losses?

Generally, when a cancellation of accommodation or transport is due to provider error or unavailability on the part of the provider, consumers are entitled to a full refund, as the service has not been provided.

The issue with both of the cases highlighted here is not, in fact, the financials of it all. Rather, these consumers are facing inconvenience and disruption that does not necessarily hold a financial value.

Additionally, then, providers may be able to offer a suitable alternative in place of a refund where a refund would not solve the issue of the service not being provided.

This is generally allowable for most services, on the basic principle that appropriate funds have been exchanged for a suitable service or product.

When travelling and booking transport and accommodation, consumers should be particularly careful to note cancellation policies and the rights of the provider, to avoid situations where they are left high and dry.

For further advice on consumers rights, please contact our team today.

By Kristie Willis, Employment Solicitor, Palmers Solicitors

A recent report by the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) has found that the “hidden cost” of employee sickness in the UK reached £103 billion in 2023.

This is an increase of £30 billion since 2018. Surprisingly, £25 billion of this increased cost is due to lower productivity from people working through sickness, with only £5 billion related to rising sick days.

The report has also found that workers in the UK “are among the least likely to take sick days, especially compared to other OECD and European countries.” Those lacking formal qualifications and those from ethnic minorities are particularly likely to work through poor health.

Analysing the figures

There are different types of workplace ill health which could factor into these figures, including:

• Those who are off on long-term sickness often as a result of long-term health problems and disabilities;
• Those that suffer from long term, dynamic health problems and disabilities who have intermittent flare ups and require days off in relation to these, but are otherwise able to work;
• Those suffering from short term illnesses who require short term absence.

The report recognises that working while sick does not always carry a cost to productivity. In some cases, it can have a therapeutic effect, but it depends on the illness and the employee in question.

However, the above data also shows that a lot of the productivity loss is actually from people not taking time off sick but continuing to work – at least part of which relates to those with long term health conditions.

The report notes that: “Twenty-six million people have long-term conditions in the UK. The number of working-age adults living with one or multiple health conditions is set to rise rapidly over the next decade.”

It is therefore important that employers are aware of their obligations in respect of long-term health conditions and disabilities, including the duty to make reasonable adjustments and avoid discrimination.

Setting a precedent

Employers should tackle the issue of employees working when they are not fit to do so by encouraging senior members of staff to set examples on when they are fit to work and when they are not.

If employees are at work when they are unwell, not only could any microbial illness spread through the workplace, but it may also take longer for the employee to recover, which could then affect the employee’s productivity over a longer period of time.

Employers should use return-to-work meetings and ongoing one-to-ones to ascertain the workplace dynamic in relation to sickness absence and seek to avoid a position where employees feel that they must attend work even when sick, whether this is due to workload, perceived negative views on sickness or financial reasons.

In addition, it can help if employers can be flexible.

For example, allow employees to work from home rather than being required to attend the office if they feel they cannot manage the commute.

That said, there is a fine line between whether any employee should be working if they are feeling under the weather, or whether they should be off sick.

Employers will need to consider this on a case-by-case basis, particularly if the employee has a disability or long-term condition.

Proposed solutions

The solution to these issues proposed by the IPPR is based on the Government and businesses working together to improve the health of employees, which will, in turn, benefit businesses and the economy.

The report continued: “IPPR is proposing a bold pro-business health plan which reimagines the role of business in health – clamping down on businesses that harm health and scaling up businesses that create good health – to deliver a healthy future of work for all. The think tank argues this would help the new government achieve health, prosperity and economic growth.

“The plan includes:

• Incentives: A new tax incentive for companies that commit to significant improvements in the health of their workforce, including the security, flexibility and pay of their staff, focused on SMEs.

• Regulation: A new ‘do no harm’ duty for employers, regulating them on health outcomes, not just safety inputs.

• Investment: New compulsory reporting on worker health – modelled on climate emissions reporting – to help private investors differentiate between health-orientated and health-harming businesses”.

In respect of incentives, it is proposing that those who meet certain standards relating not only to policies and procedures but also in respect of outcomes, including regarding the level of employee satisfaction for example, will have access to a temporary reduction in employer National Insurance Contributions (NICs) for a period of five years (provided a yearly certification is met).

Improving workplace environments

The report points to the fact that there are currently high levels of employment but that the quality of the employment appears to have deteriorated.

For example, in 2023, there were over 1 million people on zero hours contracts as opposed to 190,000 in 2011. The current Government has pledged to ban exploitative zero hours contracts so it is likely this will happen in some format, although the final proposals as to how this will work in practice are not clear currently.

To enable a continuous improvement incentive, it is proposed that where sufficient changes continue to be made, employers could become re-eligible for any incentive.

These proposed changes could be part of the measures considered by the Government to support employees and improve the health of employees overall.

At present, it appears that the number of people living with long-term health conditions is likely to increase and as such, it will likely be a combination of Government-led initiatives and employer led initiatives that provide the best outcomes in terms of productivity for both employees and employers.

The government is already proposing substantial employment law changes so it remains to be seen whether any of these proposals will be actioned.

Please contact our Employment Law team today to discuss workplace wellbeing initiatives for your business.