Latest news with #employmentRights
The Independent
12 hours ago
- Politics
- The Independent
UK leave for new fathers among ‘worst in developed world', MPs say
A House of Commons committee report has warned that the UK has one of the worst statutory leave offers for fathers and other parents in the developed world. The committee is urging the government to amend the Employment Rights Bill to legislate for a day-one right to paid leave, or commit to considering this change within its review. The report recommends raising paternity pay to the level of maternity pay in the first six weeks, which is 90 per cent of average earnings. The committee says the UK's rate of statutory parental pay is out of sync with the cost of living and is far below rates in most comparable countries. The report also says the lack of provision for self-employed fathers is deeply unfair. UK has one of 'worst statutory leave offers for fathers in developed world'
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Pregnant accountant wins £30k payout after her 'spiteful' boss cut her hours when she called in with morning sickness before she was sacked in 'sham' redundancy
A pregnant accountant has won more than £30,000 after her boss cut her hours when she called in with morning sickness before sacking her just as she was due to go on maternity leave. Sadia Shakil was told by property boss Mohammed Saleem 'it would be best if you only come into work for two days per week' after she told him she was pregnant and experiencing sickness, a tribunal heard. This forced Mrs Shakil to take on another full-time job to cope with the financial pressures of an upcoming baby - and still had to find time in evenings and at weekends to fulfill the two days work for her 'spiteful' boss. The burden of money worries weighed on her so heavily she questioned if it was the 'right thing to have a baby' and didn't enjoy pregnancy. However, Mr Saleem ignored her throughout her pregnancy and sacked her just as she was due to go on maternity leave in a 'sham' redundancy. Now a tribunal has ordered Mr Saleem's property development company to pay Mrs Shakil £31,860 after she sued him for maternity discrimination. 'Hateful' Mr Saleem even described Mrs Shakil's pregnancy as 'embarrassing' during tribunal proceedings, it was heard. Birmingham Employment Tribunal was told Mrs Shakil joined Mr Saleem's company Samsons Ltd, based in Bedford, Beds, in October 2020. She became pregnant in early 2021 and in March 2021 called Mr Saleem to say she was unwell due to morning sickness as she was pregnant. The following day he 'unilaterally reduced her hours of work from full-time to two days per week', it was heard. He told Mrs Shakil: 'After careful thought and deliberation especially considering that I am unable to give you extra work as I am abroad and in view that you are feeling unwell during your pregnancy it would be best if you only come into work for two days per week.' It was a 'financial struggle' for Mrs Shakil to only work two days per week because her husband was out of a job at the time so she was the main source of their income. A tribunal report said: 'She was motivated to stay with [Samsons Ltd] as she had accrued sufficient pre-pregnancy service to qualify for maternity leave, which would not be the case with new employment. '[She] experienced stress, anxiety and panic from the time that [Mr Saleem] reduced her hours to part-time. 'She did not know how she and her husband were going to manage financially and how she would be able to afford all the things needed for a new baby. '[Her] anxiety manifested itself over the period after April 2021 in sleepless nights, low self-esteem, frequent tearfulness, rumination and being 'plagued by worrisome thoughts day and night', including doubts about whether she had done the right thing to have a baby at all when she was not financially stable. 'She experienced panic attacks and had feelings of fear that she would not be able to obtain alternative or additional work if prospective employers found out she was pregnant. 'This led her to set about concealing her pregnancy with baggy clothes or by asking for interviews to be conducted remotely. 'This inhibited [her] enjoyment of her pregnancy because she felt she had to conceal it much of the time. During interviews she would feel embarrassed and anxious.' After just over a month, Mrs Shakil obtained a full-time job in a second finance role. The report said: 'She hoped that, if she did this job alongside the part-time hours she still had with [Samsons Ltd] to make ends meet, she would be able to return to full-time hours with [the company] once she returned from maternity leave.' While pregnant, she had to work 8.30am to 5pm five days per week, had to commute 45 minutes to that job once a week, then fit in two days of work with Samsons Ltd and travel to the office to do paperwork in evenings and at weekends. As her pregnancy progressed she felt 'confused' by a lack of correspondence from Mr Saleem about her maternity leave. She suffered complications and was booked in to be induced so informed Mr Saleem she was going to begin her maternity leave on October 1. But a couple of days before, he sacked her due to 'redundancy'. He also claimed he had no idea she was pregnant. After the arrival of her newborn son, Mrs Shakil and her husband had to move in with her parents after she lost her job and the early weeks with her baby were 'marred' by trying to resolve her money issues. The tribunal found that Mr Saleem sacked Mrs Shakil because she was pregnant, not redundancy. Employment Judge Vereena Jones said: 'The discrimination took place at a time in [Mrs Shakil's] life which she had hoped and planned would be exciting and happy - the pregnancy, birth and early life of her first child. 'Instead, she suffered physical and emotional symptoms of anxiety and distress. These included sleepless nights, panic attacks, intrusive anxious thoughts and tearfulness. 'There was evidence that her confidence and self-esteem were damaged by the discrimination. These symptoms persisted from the time she was told that her hours had been cut to two days per week, until her baby was born. 'The symptoms did not stop then, however, because of her ongoing financial struggles. '[Mrs Shakil] had to take a second job to mitigate the effects of the discrimination. This meant she has to work very long hours during what was a difficult pregnancy. '[She] was confused and distressed by Mr Saleem's behaviour... Mr Saleem was someone known to [her] family and considerably senior to her in age and authority in the organisation and in her community. '[Mrs Shakil's] feelings were further hurt by her dismissal on the sham basis... that her job was redundant. 'The effects of the discriminatory dismissal were ongoing at the time of the hearing, four years later, because [she] is still worried that she might have a similar experience with her new employer if she decides to have another baby.'
BBC News
5 days ago
- Business
- BBC News
US Supreme Court sides with Ohio woman in 'reverse discrimination' case
The US Supreme Court has sided with an Ohio woman who alleged she was discriminated against at her job because she is justices voted unanimously in a ruling focused on evidence standards that could make it easier to file similar "reverse discrimination" cases. Marlean Ames said that despite working for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years, she was denied a promotion and then demoted. She had appealed to the court to challenge the standards required to prove her decision effectively lowers the burden of proof required for people who are members of a majority group - such as white or heterosexual people - to make discrimination claims. US court precedent covering some states, including Ohio, had required that members of majority groups show additional "background circumstances" to prove their case or evidence showing a pattern of discrimination. The court has now ruled that the standard of evidence for a discrimination claim should be the same, regardless of a person's court did not consider Ms Ames' original discrimination suit. Ms Ames had said she had positive performance reviews, but a promotion she sought was given to a lesbian. She was then demoted and her job was given to a gay man. In a lawsuit, she argued her employer had a preference for LGBTQ staff members and denied her opportunities because she identifies as straight. Lower courts ruled that she had failed to provide sufficient evidence of her claim, propelling the burden of proof question to the Supreme Court. At a February hearing, justices on both sides ideologically appeared sympathetic to her argument.
Times
6 days ago
- Business
- Times
Plea to Starmer over ‘devastating' cost of employment rights bill
Businesses keeping Britain's hospitals, train stations, airports, offices, warehouses and factories clean, maintained and secure have warned the prime minister of the 'devastating impact' of the government's employment rights bill. In an open letter to Sir Keir Starmer, his deputy Angela Rayner and the business secretary Jonathan Reynolds, the 128 companies — including the sector leaders OCS Group, Churchill Group and Mitie — urged the government to rethink its plans. The letter highlighted what its authors believe will be the 'serious unintended consequences' from the large-scale changes to employment law proposed by the legislation, which is passing through parliament. The reforms include making protection from unfair dismissal a right from the first day of employment, increased union representation and more generous sick pay, which has to be paid for by businesses. • Workers' bill 'won't work unless tribunal backlog is cleared' 'We are deeply concerned that some of the bill's provisions … could harm both good employers and the very employees that the bill seeks to protect,' the authors of the letter say. The additional costs or risks of hiring the wrong person for a role would 'force some employers to reduce staff headcount or reduce their hours, turn down new contracts, or even exit the market altogether,' they added. Dominic Ponniah, chief executive of the office and commercial cleaning company Cleanology and a co-author of the letter, said concerns had been building about the negative impact of the legislation for some months, but they had come to a head once facilities management firms had seen the impact on their operating costs of April's rise in employers' national insurance to 15 per cent. 'Suddenly people are feeling that on their bottom lines and we need to make our voice heard,' he said. The 128 signatories of the letter also include Josie Marshall-Deane, regional director of OCS Group, whose services include passenger screening, surveillance and emergency response at airports, and Charlotte Parr, executive director of Churchill Group, which is majority-owned by 10,000 of its employees and works to maintain social housing for housing associations, among other services. The facilities management industry overall employs 1.4 million people and generates £60 billion for the economy, making it many times more important for economic growth than other more favoured industries such as fashion and farming, the authors note. It is dominated by thousands of small and medium-sized companies, typically operating on tight profit margins. They said the changes to employment law 'risk penalising the good companies while doing little to deter the bad players'. The companies make clear their support for the government's efforts to tackle exploitative labour practices and establish fair treatment of agency workers. The government is phasing in the introduction of the new rights, which it has calculated could add £5 billion in costs to the economy each year. Smaller companies will be hit disproportionately, it acknowledges. It has said most of the new rules would not take effect until next year. A Government spokesperson said: 'Insecurity and poor health at work aren't just bad for workers, they also impact productivity and drive down competitiveness in businesses and the wider economy. 'That's why through our transformative plan for change, this government is delivering the biggest upgrade to workers' rights in a generation, and our measures already have strong support amongst business and the public. 'We've consulted extensively with business on our proposals, and we will engage on the implementation of legislation to ensure it works for employers and puts money back into the pockets of working people.'
Irish Times
16-05-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Racehorse trainer Anthony Mullins loses appeal against €86,000 WRC award to stable hand
An appeal by the horse racing trainer, Anthony (Tony) Mullins, against an award of more than €86,000 made to one of his former employees by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has been rejected by the Labour Court. In a decision just published, the court upheld the award against Mr Mullins, a well-known figure in the industry, in the case taken by Yasir Ali, a migrant worker who he employed as a stable hand at Watree Stud in Co Kilkenny. Mr Ali worked for Mr Mullins between September 9th, 2019 and November 9th, 2021, when he was dismissed not long after WRC officials carried out inspections at the yard. He told a December 2022 WRC hearing that he worked 13 out of every 14 days, with the hours involved varying somewhat between summer and winter, during the time he was employed by Mr Mullins. READ MORE In her decision on the case, which was not previously reported, WRC adjudication officer Bríd Deering cited evidence suggesting Mr Ali was working days of between nine and 10 hours during the week and between 7½ and eight hours at weekends. Mr Ali said he was provided with accommodation, shared with another worker, 'in a space adjacent to the stables and horses'. He said he received €350 in pay each week, €100 of it in cash and the rest by cheque. He said he was not paid any premiums for Sundays or public holidays, received no holidays or leave during the more than two years he was in the job, and had not been provided with any written terms of employment. He said he was told by another employee of Mr Mullins to sign a document containing terms, but felt these did not accurately reflect the work he did. However, he said he signed it because he was fearful of the consequences if he did not. Mr Ali said that having asked his employer several times about his work permit, and repeatedly being told he would be given it 'soon', he eventually approached the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment himself. Shortly afterwards, he said, WRC officials carried out the first of two inspections at the yard, which he said prompted Mr Mullins to dismiss him without notice. Mr Ali recalled telling his supervisor he would have nowhere to live if ejected from his accommodation. He said he was told his possessions would be thrown out if they were still there the following day. Mr Mullins failed to attend the WRC hearing and was not represented. He had sent an email the previous day saying he would not be able to attend. However, the adjudicating officer decided to proceed as she felt he had received sufficient notice and did not provide an adequate reason for not turning up. She found the claim to be well founded and awarded Mr Ali a total of €86,385.63 in back pay and compensation with respect to breaches of five different pieces of employment legislation. The WRC decision was on March 9th, 2023, but Mr Mullins only lodged his appeal on April 27th, after the 42-day window to do so had elapsed. At a Labour Court hearing on April 22nd last, Stephen O'Sullivan, instructed by Poe, Kiely, Hogan, Lanigan Solicitors, argued the filing of the appeal was delayed due to exceptional circumstances. Mr Mullins told the hearing he had resolved to appeal the decision on the day he received it, but it was very busy time with the Cheltenham and Fairyhouse festivals on. A close member of his family then became seriously ill, he too became ill, and his doctor died, he said. Under cross-examination, he said he could not recall if he had attended the Cheltenham Festival, but the court's decision quoted him as saying he 'imagined he attended some of it'. The court, chaired by Katie Connolly, said no exceptional circumstances had been established and that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
