The Department for Education (DfE) has published a supplementary guide for agency workers who are supply teachers.
The guide is available at the DfE website.
Prudent HR decisions are based on up-to-date information. Trotman's Employment Law Alerts (TELA) was an email news service that quickly informed HR professionals about the latest employment law developments. This is proven by the publication dates of the news items shown below. TELA provided accurate; concise; in-depth; and practical coverage of topical employment law developments. See @tonytrotman on X (formerly known as Twitter) for the latest employment law developments.
2 August 2011
Supplementary guide on Agency Workers Regulations
Avoiding liability for a discriminatory act
An employer will avoid liability for a discriminatory act if it took reasonable steps to prevent the act - before the act was committed by a worker.
But the employer will be liable for a discriminatory act - if it took those steps - after the act had been committed by a worker: Fox v Ocean City Recruitment Ltd [EAT/0035/11].
Further information about how an employer can avoid liability for a discriminatory act can be found in paragraphs 10.50 – 10.52 of the Equality Act 2010: Employment Statutory Code of Practice.
Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear discrimination claim
Mr Martin was employed by Waltham Forest (WF). He also lived in WF. WF prosecuted Mr Martin for making fraudulent claims for housing benefit and council tax benefit.
Mr Martin claimed that WF’s decision to prosecute him (instead of imposing an administrative penalty on him) amounted to unlawful racial discrimination.
The EAT held that WF’s decision to prosecute Mr Martin (instead of imposing an administrative penalty on him) was not an act of discrimination in the employment field. Therefore, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear Mr Martin’s claim.
London Borough of Waltham Forest v Martin [EAT/0069/11]
But the employer will be liable for a discriminatory act - if it took those steps - after the act had been committed by a worker: Fox v Ocean City Recruitment Ltd [EAT/0035/11].
Further information about how an employer can avoid liability for a discriminatory act can be found in paragraphs 10.50 – 10.52 of the Equality Act 2010: Employment Statutory Code of Practice.
Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear discrimination claim
Mr Martin was employed by Waltham Forest (WF). He also lived in WF. WF prosecuted Mr Martin for making fraudulent claims for housing benefit and council tax benefit.
Mr Martin claimed that WF’s decision to prosecute him (instead of imposing an administrative penalty on him) amounted to unlawful racial discrimination.
The EAT held that WF’s decision to prosecute Mr Martin (instead of imposing an administrative penalty on him) was not an act of discrimination in the employment field. Therefore, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear Mr Martin’s claim.
London Borough of Waltham Forest v Martin [EAT/0069/11]