A round up of the latest HR and Employment Law updates and related stories.  

TAKE CARE WHEN HANDLING REQUESTS FOR PARENTAL LEAVE EMPLOYEE ABSENTEEISM

Practice managers will already be aware that handling employee absenteeism and requests for parental leave requires the utmost care and the recent case of Van Heeswyk v One Call Insurance Services Ltd reinforces this. Mrs Annie Van Heeswyk was represented by general trade union GMB http://www.gmb.org.uk/newsroom/damages-win-for-working-mum

The case involved a mother with an unwell baby daughter (who spent time in hospital) who wanted to spend time together as a family whilst her military husband was home on leave. Shortly after she made her request for parental leave to her employers Mrs Van Heeswyk was “invited” to attend a disciplinary hearing regarding what her employers termed her “persistent absenteeism” and “unsatisfactory standards or output of work”. The employers also allegedly commented that “spending time together as a family didn’t qualify as parental leave”. The result of the hearing was that Mrs Van Heeswyk was dismissed for gross misconduct.

However, Mrs Van Heeswyk had previously held an exemplary work record and had not received any prior warnings about her work standards or attendance and so took the matter to an employment tribunal for sex discrimination, unfair and wrongful dismissal, unreasonable refusal to allow parental leave, and unlawful deductions from wages.

The Tribunal found that Mrs Van Heeswyk had been unfairly dismissed finding that her employers:

• operated a “cynical” procedure
• were “unsympathetic” and
• were “scraping the barrel” in their reasons for her dismissal.

This case reinforces the need for practice managers to

• have robust and transparent procedures for working requests and disciplinary matters
• which are clearly followed and
• maintain accurate accompanying records

You can also find a handy overview of the family leave rights introduced on 5 Apr 2015 here.

RETURNING FROM MATERNITY LEAVE – AVOID INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION

In the case of Hamilton v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police ET/2401363/2014 a female police officer returning from maternity leave was required to attend 2 intensive re-training courses which mean that the officer had to work very long hours.

After completing the first course, police officer Hamilton protested at attending the second course which would involve a longer commute and even longer hours than the first.

On hearing the evidence the employment tribunal held that this requirement indirectly discriminated against police officer Hamilton as a female office returning from maternity leave.

Helpful guidance, from the National Childbirth Trust, of what you should consider when a member of staff intends to take maternity leave can be found here.

UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF HR ADVISORS

In a recent case, Ramphal v Department for Transport UKEAT/0352/14/DA http://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed27454 the employment Tribunal provided some guidance on the role of HR advisors.

During disciplinary proceedings which result in dismissal, the person conducting the proceedings, Mr Goodchild, requested assistance from an HR advisor. That advisor should have limited their advice to matters of law and procedure but instead, advised about Mr Rampal’s (the claimant and subject of those disciplinary proceedings) credibility and culpability. At appeal the EAT found that the HR advisor had an improper influence on Mr Goodchild which rendered his decision untenable.

Whilst HR advisors clearly have an important role to play, that role must be limited to advice about procedure and the law if practice mangers want to avoid rendering any dismissal unfair.