Balaclavas can be very useful things to have to hand – when the weather is very cold or you’re discussing the Crimean War (1853-1856) from where the term for the garment originates in the United Kingdom (circa 1881, according to the historian and cleric, Richard Rutt). During the Crimean War, British soldiers wore the garment to cope with the sub-zero temperatures that they experienced during the winter months of the Campaign.
Today, the garments are still incredibly popular with cyclists and winter sports’ enthusiasts (I confess: I have two for cycling during the winter months and they’re great!).
Despite, the historical associations with the British Army’s involvement in the Crimean War, it’s not always advisable to use the Balaclava as a teaching aid for History classes – especially DIY History classes.
McClean, an Irish footballer playing for the English Championship side, Stoke City FC, has recently found this out to his cost.
In a bizarre social media post (on Instagram), McClean put a picture of himself wearing a Balaclava as he was talking to two children. What was the point of this strange exercise? McClean claims that he was teaching the children about history, but others have seen this as an endorsement of paramilitary groups – particularly the Provisional IRA.
There was a public backlash and McClean was fined by this Club. The player is something of a controversial figure to many as he routinely refuses to have a poppy printed on his football jersey in the run-up to Remembrance Day commemorations each November in the United Kingdom.
McClean hails from the City of Derry in the North of Ireland which will be forever associated with the events of ‘Bloody Sunday’ on 30 January 1972. On that day, 13 innocent Civil Rights marchers were shot and killed without justification by members of the Parachute Regiment – as per the conclusions of Lord Saville’s Report (2010) which contradicted Lord Widgery’s findings published in April 1972. The Saville Inquiry took 12.5 years and cost the British taxpayer £191.5 million – the longest and most expensive inquiry ever in the United Kingdom (figures obtained from The Spectator).
The previous Widgery Report was seen by many in the Republican and Nationalist community as a cover-up and a whitewash in that it absolved the Parachute Regiment of any wrong-doing for the deaths. Inevitably, the Report fuelled a long lasting sense of grievance within this community. McClean grew up on Derry’s Creggan Estate – not far from St Mary’s Church where many of the funerals of the ‘Bloody Sunday’ victims took place.
We often forget that footballers can be employees i.e. have a contract of service with their Clubs as per Section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. McClean is fortunate that he has retained his post; other, less famous employees might not have been so lucky.
Section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 permits an employer to dismiss an employee (potentially) fairly by reason of his/her conduct (with the proviso, of course, that the employer follows proper procedures in line with current ACAS standards).
McClean might initially have protested that the social media post was done while he was outside working hours. Regular readers of this Blog will be well aware that this type of excuse is extremely naive at best. Yes, employees do have a right to privacy, in terms of the European Convention on Human Rights, but this is never absolute – especially if an employer can argue that the behaviour of an individual employed by him or her has caused reputational damage to the organisation.
Employers do have a part to play here: they have a duty to have clear and consistent guidelines on employee social media use within and outwith the work-place. It should go without saying (but I’ll say it anyway) that the employer should make sure that employees are aware of the existence of such guidelines and have actually read them.
The misbehaviour or misconduct of employees which takes place outside working hours can have a really serious reputational impact on your employer. Individuals, like McClean, with high profiles in the community should be aware of this. It won’t be the last time that we read about someone who is deemed to be a role model – a teacher or a sporting personality – who misbehaves outside work and pays the price for this type of behaviour.
A link to the story on the Sky News website can be found below:
This is the lesson which a Scottish secondary teacher has learned to his cost. He was filmed by a pupil while drunk in the street wearing only his boxer shorts. Teacher Z (he remains anonymous) was charged with drunkenness and subjecting paramedics to abuse. Apparently, he did not inform his employer and, following a hearing before the General Teaching Council, he has been ruled unfit to continue practising as a teacher.
I often grimace when I hear someone trying to justify bad behaviour on the basis that it happened outside work. If I had a £20 note for each time I heard this remark …
Regular readers of this Blog will be well aware that employers are entitled to dismiss an employee who has committed an act of gross misconduct in terms of Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Such behaviour could include misconduct committed outside working hours.
Provided the employer follows the correct disciplinary procedures, the dismissal will almost certainly be regarded as a fair by an Employment Tribunal.
A link to the story on the BBC News App can be found below:
It has just been announced that the well known UK construction company Balfour Beatty has just had a contract terminated by one of its clients.
The client in question is MI6 or the UK Special Intelligence Service, the equivalent of the CIA and the employer of Britain’s best known (but fictional) spy – James Bond. The Service is based at Vauxhall Cross on the River Thames.
Termination of contract can be a pretty dry area, but mix it in with the world of secret intelligence services and you have a story that will be of interest to a potentially large audience.
The company’s shareholders will almost certainly care about this and a large part of the public will be keenly interested to know the facts behind this development.
What went wrong?
Balfour Beatty had been contracted to refurbish the HQ of MI6. In order to carry out the job, the company had in its possession floor plans of the building. Somehow these plans went missing – although they were later recovered – but too late the damage had been done.
Mindful of the mind boggling ramifications of this huge security breach, the UK Foreign Office, which has overall responsibility for the work of MI6, promptly removed Balfour Beatty from further involvement in the middle of the refurbishment project.
A link to the story as reported in The Financial Times can be found below:
I would assume that the Foreign Office is on pretty safe legal ground when it made the decision to terminate Balfour Beatty’s contract. The loss of highly confidential documents by the company could represent nothing less than a material breach of contract. This arises in situations where one of the parties acts in such a way that it completely undermines the contract. The breach, in other words, is so serious because it goes to the very roots of the contract.
The victim of the breach can then potentially use the remedy of rescission i.e. terminate the agreement. The remedy of damages is also available to the victim.
Rescission is actually a much more common remedy than you otherwise might think. In terms of both the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, a buyer may choose to terminate a contract of sale in situations where the trader supplies goods that fail to comply with, for example, the implied duty of satisfactory quality.
In employment contracts, an employer is entitled to dismiss an employee in circumstances where the individual commits an act of gross misconduct (theft, violence, gross negligence or failure to follow lawful orders). The Employment Rights Act 1996 recognises that there will be situations where the employer is entitled to terminate the contract of employment and there will be nothing unfair or wrongful about the dismissal (presuming, of course, that proper disciplinary procedures have been followed).
In the well known Scottish employment law decision of Macariv Celtic Football & Athletic Club  IRLR 787 SC, a football manager had his contract terminated quite legally by his employer owing to the fact that he had repeatedly failed to follow lawful and reasonable orders. This failure by the employee to honour the terms of his contract was nothing less than a material breach of the agreement.
Conversely, an employee may choose to regard the employment contract as terminated in situations where the employer has breached the implied duty of trust and good faith. This could occur where the employee was subjected to bullying and harassment by colleagues and the employer (being aware of this) does nothing meaningful or concrete to deal with this. In the face of the employer’s indifference (or collusion), the employee could regard him/herself as constructively dismissed.
Particularly serious for the employer could be situations where the bullying or harassment are motivated by hostility towards an individual’s protected characteristic in terms of the Equality Act 2010 e.g. age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation.
Back to Balfour Beatty: it looks as the company has no one to blame for this mess, but themselves. MI6 or the Foreign Office obviously felt that the loss of sensitive (Top Secret?) documents was such a serious development that there was no choice to terminate the contract with immediate effect.
“Great big girl’s blouse!” or “a girly swot”. Harmless insults; a bit of banter; or perhaps an example of sexist language? Deborah Haynes, a journalist with Sky News, certainly took the view that these remarks were sexist in nature – even though men were the targets (see the link below).
The first of these remarks was uttered allegedly by Prime Minister Boris Johnson MP in the House of Commons last week and directed towards the Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn MP. The second remark was in a memo written by the Prime Minister in which he was critical of David Cameron (one of his predecessors).
Mr Johnson is well known for his colourful language in both print and in his speeches, but he was called out last week in the House of Commons by the Labour MP, Tammanjeet Singh Dhesi who accused him in very blunt terms of making racist remarks about Muslim women who chose to wear the Islamic form of dress known as the burka as an outward sign of their religious beliefs and cultural background.
Mr Tammanjeet drew on his own experiences as a Sikh and the kinds of derogatory remarks that he had to endure. His speech was received very warmly on the Opposition benches of the House of Commons.
On the other hand, Mr Johnson attempted a defence of his language by saying that he had merely spoken up in favour of the good old fashioned liberal value of freedom of speech. It was not an entirely convincing performance from the Prime Minister and far from his finest hour at the despatch box.
The Equality Act 2010 recognises various forms of prohibited conduct such as direct discrimination (Section 13) and harassment (Section 26). Sexist, sectarian and homophobic remarks may well be taken as examples of direct discrimination. A sustained campaign of bullying to which an individual (with a particular protected characteristic) is subjected may amount to harassment.
It will be sensible for employers particularly to spell out to employees what is acceptable (and what is not) in terms of the kinds of language or behaviour in the work-place. If employers do nothing to check discriminatory remarks such as racist or sexist insults, there is a real danger that they could be held vicariously liable.
Had Mr Johnson been a mere mortal, some of his remarks may have come back to haunt him. Employers are entitled to take disciplinary action against those employees who have committed acts of discrimination. After all, they are merely protecting their position by not leaving themselves open to the threat of legal action by the victims.
From the employee’s perspective, engaging in offensive language could give the employer the right to treat this type of behaviour as gross misconduct. It should be recalled that, in terms of Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1998, misconduct committed by an employee can be punished by dismissal and such a termination of the employment contract may be entirely reasonable in the circumstances.
In short, no one should have to work in a place where there is a hostile, degrading or intimidating environment. Racist or sexist remarks can be highly suggestive of such a working environment if permitted to go unchecked and unchallenged. Maybe in future the Prime Minister would do well to mind his language.
Links to articles about the Prime Minister’s colourful turn of phrase can be found below:
Regular readers of this Blog will be aware that a number of my previously published articles have commented on individuals being dismissed from employment because they posted offensive or ill advised comments on social media platforms.
Such dismissals can be potentially fair grounds for termination of the contract of employment because the employer will able to claim that the employee’s behaviour (or misconduct) has caused reputational damage.
Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 makes it very clear that that acts of misconduct committed by the employee can constitute fair grounds for dismissal.
An interesting case which was reported today is McAlpine v Sodexo Justice Services (Sodexo Ltd) ET Case 4121933/18 where McAlpine, a prison officer employed at Her Majesty’s Prison Addiewell, lost his claim for unfair dismissal. On the facts, the Edinburgh Employment Tribunal held that Sodexo, the employer, was justified in dismissing McAlpine for posting offensive comments about Muslims (amongst other things) on Facebook while he was off duty.
It was not a competent defence put forward by McAlpine that some of the remarks which he posted were not his own, but rather those of the far right activist and campaigner, Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon).
Sodexo had a clear social media policy for its employees and the relevant sections can be found below:
“6.1You must avoid making any social media communications that could damage our business interests or reputation, even indirectly…
6.2You must not use social media to defame or disparage us, our employees or any third party; to harass, bully or unlawfully discriminate against employees or third parties; to make false or misleading statements; or to impersonate colleagues or third parties”.
In a section entitled Miscellaneous Rules, individuals were informed about the following conditions governing their employment with Sodexo:
“Employees must be honest at all times, in connect with their employment and must not breach the trust and confidence that is provided to them by the Company or Client. … Employees must not engage in, condone or encourage any behavior that could be regarded as harassment, bullying, victimisation or discrimination”.
Significantly, Sodexo had also stated that a “… breach of any of these rules would be considered gross misconduct”.
The Employment Tribunal was satisfied that in deciding to dismiss McAlpine for misconduct, the employer had followed its disciplinary procedure correctly and the ultimate sanction of termination of his employment was within the band of reasonable responses.
It is worth noting that the employer’s disciplinary procedures were fully in accordance with the current ACAS Code of Practice.
In these circumstances, it can hardly be surprising that McAlpine lost his case.
A link to the Employment Tribunal’s judgement can be found below:
A story which caught my eye over the last few days comes from the fair Canadian City of Toronto and involves misconduct dismissals. For a change, the dismissals do not involve social media misuse, but rather good old fashioned fraud.
150 members of staff working at a Toronto hospital were sacked for involvement in a sophisticated prescription fraud which was reportedly in the region of £3 million over an 8 year period. Defrauding your employer is, of course, an extremely serious breach of trust which materially undermines the contract of employment.
Interestingly, at this point, the Police in Toronto have not charged any individual with the crime of fraud – yet – but clearly the employer feels that it has sufficient grounds to go ahead with the dismissals.
I often to say to students that the employer merely has to have a reasonable suspicion that the employee has committed an act of misconduct. There is no need for the employer to demonstrate that the allegation(s) of misconduct meets the criminal standard of proof.
A link to the story on the Sky News website can be found below:
Had this story occurred in the UK, we would be talking about the matter in the context of Section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. If employers can show that the reason for the dismissal of employees is justified i.e. on the grounds of misconduct (fraud), it will be a fair dismissal. As a point of good disciplinary policy, of course, employers should always follow the proper procedures when deciding to dismiss employees on the grounds of dismissal.
An issue which many employers will have to deal with is that of long-term sickness and/or frequent absences of certain employees.
In terms of Section 98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, it is open to employers to argue that a dismissal was fair when they terminated the employment relationship by reason of an individual’s sickness absences. The employer would justify such a dismissal on grounds of capability (meaning “in relation to an employee, means his capability assessed by reference to skill, aptitude, health or any other physical or mental quality”).
This is subject, however, to the requirements laid down in Section 98(4) of the Act as to whether the employer has acted reasonably or unreasonably and also having regard to the “equity and substantial merits of the case”.
I also stress to students and to members of the wider public, that an employer does not have a blank cheque (or an automatic right) to dismiss an employee on the basis of sickness absences. Many employers will rightly argue that they have a business to run and they must monitor sickness absence amongst employees.
A particularly problematic issue is the use by many employers of sickness absence trigger points. This is where employers designate a set number of days (usually within a 12 month period) and affected employees may find themselves being summoned to a meeting which, in reality, is a thinly disguised disciplinary action which could ultimately lead to dismissal on capability grounds.
The problem here for employers is that the use of such trigger points can be entirely arbitrary in nature. In other words, they are blunt instrument which take little or no account of individual personal circumstances.
What if the employee in question has a disability in terms of Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010? In such cases, employers would be well advised to tread extremely carefully when dealing with members of the workforce who have (or might have) the protected characteristic of disability. Additionally, a female employee who is pregnant (and is suffering from short term ill health e.g. morning sickness) may fall foul of the trigger point. Again, caution should be exercised here because a pregnant employee will be entitled to the protection of Section 18 of the Equality Act 2010.
Let’s also discuss employees who are undergoing gender reassignment and, as this involves a prolonged medical process, it may be the case that this will involve a significant amount of absences from work for the person undergoing this process. Section 16 of the Equality Act 2010 makes it very clear that an employer who treats such an individual less favourably by, perhaps, subjecting them to disciplinary action on account of these absences will be acting unlawfully.Let’s also discuss employees who are undergoing gender reassignment.
When applying policies (practices or criteria) to the workforce, employers will have to be very much aware of straying into the perilous territory of the prohibited conduct known as indirect discrimination (Section 19: Equality Act 2010).
The Equality and Human Rights Commission provides guidance on
what constitutes indirect discrimination in its Statutory Code of Practice
An employer has a ‘no headwear’ policy for its
staff. Unless this policy can be objectively justified, this will be indirect
discrimination against Sikh men who wear the turban, Muslim women who wear a
headscarf and observant Jewish men who wear a skullcap as manifestations of
Requiring a UK-based qualification, when equivalent qualifications obtained abroad would also meet the requirement for that particular level of knowledge or skill, may lead to indirect discrimination because of race, if the requirement cannot be objectively justified.
The concept of indirect discrimination in Section 19 of the Equality Act applies to all of the protected characteristics with the exception of pregnancy and maternity (which are specifically addressed elsewhere in the Act (Sections 17 and 18)).
A gung ho or insensitive approach by the employer may be very costly in the longer term as regards dealing with sickness absences (especially as an injury to feelings element could be part of an Employment Tribunal award).
A disability, for example, will affect not only the individual’s ability to perform her job, but also her ability to perform normal day-to-day activities. If this is the case, the employer will have a duty to make reasonable adjustments, in terms of Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 to the employee’s working conditions, in order to aid her return to work.
A failure to consider reasonable adjustments or to dismiss out of hand certain adjustments may constitute disability discrimination in terms of the Act.
Furthermore, it may be extremely ill advised for employers to place employees with disabilities on some sort of attendance monitor system. This could be an example of harassment (Section 28: Equality Act) and, if the employee in question was eventually dismissed, it may represent a breach of Section 15 of the Act i.e. discrimination arising from disability.
Section 15 is an area where many employers may be caught out and, consequently, they may treat a disabled person less favourably. The issue often arises when employers monitor attendance and time-keeping of employees. It may be the case that disabled employees face greater difficulty when it comes to maintaining an acceptable level of attendance and time-keeping and are thus placed at a disadvantage in comparison with their non-disabled colleagues.
Typically, employers will impose sanctions on all employees who do not meet attendance and time-keeping targets and they will doubtless argue that the issue disability has nothing to do with the way in which they treated an individual.
An example from the Equality and
Human Rights Commission’s Statutory Code on Employment makes it very clear the
dangers of such a blanket approach being taken by employers (which could leave
them open to legal action under Section 15):
A disabled worker periodically requires a limited amount of time off work to attend medical appointments related to the disability. The employer has an attendance management policy which results in potential warnings and ultimately dismissal if the worker’s absence exceeds 20 days in any 12-month period. A combination of the worker’s time off for disability-related medical appointments and general time off for sickness results in the worker consistently exceeding the 20 day limit by a few days. The worker receives a series of warnings and is eventually dismissed. This is likely to amount to disability discrimination.
Discrimination arising as a consequence of disability
Some of the pitfalls which employers face when dealing with employees who are disabled and who have accumulated a number of sickness absences which may trigger the organisation’s intervention policy was demonstrated in a case from 2018.
O’Connor, a disabled employee, was disciplined by DL Insurance because she had accumulated 60 days sickness absence during a 12 month period (she had been given a final written warning). Her employer had fallen foul of Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 because both the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal were of the view that disciplinary action to deal with her level of sickness was not a proportionate response given that she was a disabled person within the meaning of the Act. Her employer was aware (and had accepted previously) that O’Connor was a disabled person. Reasonable adjustments (principally flexible arrangements) had been put in place by the employer as per their duty under the Act.
Significantly, the employer had failed to involve an independent occupational health service in the matter before it made the decision to discipline O’Connor AND the manager charged with carrying out disciplinary action had not bothered to obtain a full grasp of the facts of the situation i.e. by going to discuss how what impact the absences were having on O’Connor’s colleagues. In particular, the failure by the employer to involve occupational health services in O’Connor’s case was a breach of the company’s own procedures.
In the employer’s defence, however, the Employment Appeal Tribunal did note that O’Connor had been treated sympathetically in the past and that more latitude had been given to her personally in relation to the number of sickness absences she had accrued. This was not enough and by placing O’Connor under disciplinary sanctions, the employer had subjected her to unlawful. less favourable treatment in that she would not receive contractual sick pay if she was absent from work in the future.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal placed particular emphasis on the fact that the employer had failed to explain how a written warning (with all the implications for O’Connor) would actually lead to an improvement in her attendance at work. It was noted that the employer accepted that O’Connor’s absences were genuine and unavoidable and were caused by her disability.
Dealing with employee sickness absence (whether of a short or long term nature) can be extremely problematic for employers. The blunt instrument approach where arbitrary trigger points are used to monitor and deal with sickness absence can store up problems for employers over the distance. Quite simply, such policies, criteria or practices (PCPs) may have a disproportionately, adverse effect on certain groups of people within the workforce e.g. individuals with disabilities. There is a very real danger for employees that they end up breaching provisions of the Equality Act 2010 and their argument that a capability dismissal was fair will fall foul on deaf ears at any subsequent Employment Tribunal hearing. Proceed with caution might be the best advice when dealing with employees who have poor sickness records.