Statutory payment rates for 2013/14

The statutory payment rates for 2013/14 are as follows.

• The weekly rate of Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) is £86.70.

• The weekly rate of Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) is 90% of the employee's average weekly earnings for the first six weeks - followed by the lower of 90% of average weekly earnings or £136.78 per week for the remaining weeks of the maternity pay period.
• The weekly rate of Statutory Paternity Pay (SPP) or Statutory Adoption Pay (SAP) is the lower of 90% of the employee's average weekly earnings or £136.78 per week.
• The payment of SSP, SMP, SPP, or SAP is subject to the employee's average earnings being at least £109.00 per week.

Source: Department for Work and Pensions

Tribunal awards will increase from 1 February 2013

From 1 February 2013, tribunal awards will be increased by the Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 2012.

The main increases are:

• The maximum amount of a week’s pay will increase from £430 to £450.
• The maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal will increase from £72,300 to £74,200.

• The daily limit on a guarantee payment will increase from £23.50 to £24.20.

In September 2012, the Government published a consultation paper about reducing the maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal. The Government’s response to the consultation paper is expected in Spring 2013.

Court of Appeal clarifies holiday rules for sick workers

In NHS Leeds v Larner [2012] EWCA Civ 1034, the holiday year ran from 1 April to 31 March. Mrs Larner was sick from 5 January 2009 until she was dismissed on 8 April 2010.

The Court of Appeal ruled that Mrs Larner was entitled to be paid for her 2009/10 holidays - although she neither asked to take those holidays during 2009/10 – nor carry forward those holidays to the next holiday year [see para. 96].

The Court of Appeal also said that the facts in the Larner case were different from the facts in the Fraser case, i.e. there was no evidence that Mrs Fraser had been unable to take her holidays [see paras. 46 – 47]. Also see Holidays: use it or lose it.

Legislation for no-smoking signs to be simplified

No-smoking signs in workplaces in England

From 1 October 2012, a person (e.g. an employer) who occupies or manages smoke-free premises must ensure that at least one legible no-smoking sign is displayed on those premises.

The legal requirements for a no-smoking sign under reg. 2 of the Smoke-free (Signs) Regulations 2007 (SSR) will be abolished, e.g. from 1 October 2012, a no-smoking sign will not be required to be at least A5 size.

No-smoking signs in work vehicles

From 1 October 2012, a person who manages a smoke-free vehicle must ensure that at least one legible no-smoking sign is displayed in the vehicle.

The legal requirements for a no-smoking sign under reg. 3 of the SSR 2007 will be abolished, e.g. from 1 October 2012, a no-smoking sign will not be required to display a no-smoking symbol.

Source: The Smoke-free (Signs) Regulations 2012 [SI 2012/1536].

Rehabilitation periods for criminal convictions

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 confirms that the rehabilitation periods for criminal convictions will be reduced: see Spent Convictions.

Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Act 2012

The Department of Business Innovation & Skills (BIS) has published a guide on the Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Act 2012. The guide is available on the BIS website.

Age discrimination must be justified

In Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2012] UKSC 15, West Yorkshire Police introduced a requirement that a legal advisor must have a law degree in order to enter the highest pay grade. Mr Homer, aged 61, was unable to obtain a law degree before he retired. Mr Homer claimed that the requirement amounted to unlawful indirect age discrimination.

The Supreme Court ruled that the requirement amounted to indirect age discrimination. But it remitted the case to the tribunal to reconsider whether the discrimination was lawful or justified.

Retirement Age

In Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership) [2012] UKSC 16, Mr Seldon claimed that a retirement age of 65 amounted to unlawful direct discrimination. 

The Supreme Court (SC) said that the retirement age had three legitimate aims, i.e. staff retention; workplace planning; and performance management. Staff retention and workplace planning were directly related to the legitimate aim of sharing employment between generations of workers [see para. 56]. Performance management was directly related to the legitimate aim of avoiding the need to dismiss older workers on the grounds of poor performance [see para. 57].

The SC remitted the case to the tribunal to determine if the retirement age of 65 was a proportionate means of avoiding the need to dismiss older workers on the grounds of poor performance [see para. 68]. But the SC warned that if the employer already had performance management procedures in place - it may not be legitimate to avoid managing the performance of its older workers [see para. 61].

The Supreme Court also provided a list of legitimate aims that may be used to justify a direct age discrimination claim [see para. 50(4)].

Qualifying period for unfair dismissal

The Unfair Dismissal and Statement of Reasons for Dismissal (Variation of Qualifying Period) Order 2012 [SI 2012/989], confirms that the qualifying period (QP) for unfair dismissal and a statement of reasons for dismissal will increase from one year to two years.

The two-year QP will apply to an employee whose employment began on or after 6 April 2012.

From 6 April 2012, an employment judge can sit alone for an unfair dismissal claim: Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (Tribunal Composition) Order 2012 [SI 2012/988].