Author: regine_mfpq35j8

The Equality Act provides that it is unlawful to discriminate against someone because of a protected characteristic. “Religion or belief” is one of the nine specified protected characteristics. “Gender reassignment” and “sex” are also protected characteristics. 

The Forstater case has become the most prominent case on the potential conflict between “gender-critical beliefs” and the rights of transgender and non-binary people, which remains a highly challenging area for employers.

Maya Forstater was a writer and researcher on sustainable development, working for CGD Europe, a not-for-profit think tank, as a visiting fellow and consultant.  She had an active social media presence, including a Twitter account and a personal blog, which predated her involvement with CGD.

Forstater worked for the Centre for Growth Development as a researcher and writer and was active on social media. From 2018, she began tweeting about gender and sex. After her colleagues complained that her tweets were transphobic her visiting fellowship was not renewed and she was not taken on as an employee. 

She brought a claim against her employer, claiming she had been discriminated against because of her philosophical beliefs.

Forstater lost her initial tribunal claim but that judgement was overturned in a landmark decision by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) last year.  The EAT decided that under the Equality Act 2010, Ms Forstater’s gender critical beliefs were protected as a ‘philosophical belief’ and concluded that although they “may well be profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others…. they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society”. 

The case went back to a fresh tribunal who recently ruled in her favour that her employer had discriminated her on the basis of her public views on transgenderism, sex and gender criticism by not renewing her contract.

Forstater is a co-founder of the campaign group Sex Matters, a not-for-profit organisation which states they “campaign, advocate and produce resources to promote clarity about sex in public policy, law and culture”. The employment tribunal found evidence that her activism had influenced her employer’s decision not to renew her contract or offer her employment. They also found that Forstater was victimised by her employer when her profile was taken off their website following her complaint.

Maya Forstater released a statement following the decision made by the employment tribunal that her case was important for “everyone who believes in the importance of truth and free speech”. 

What does this decision mean for employers? 

Firstly, this decision is not ‘legally binding’ on employers which means it doesn’t have to be followed in future tribunal cases featuring religion or belief discrimination. It could also be overturned on appeal.

Secondly, the EAT decision in Forstater reminds us that many philosophical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010 (EQA). This means employers need to be aware that disciplining someone for simply holding their belief, even if it may be offensive to other employees, may be regarded as unlawful direct discrimination by the employment tribunal. The only exception to this rule, is where the belief becomes extreme e.g., Nazism, Totalitarianism. 

The Forstater case does not mean that employees are free to exercise their views in the workplace without consequences.  If someone’s belief results in them bullying or harassing other employees, then disciplinary action (or even dismissal if the circumstances justify it) is likely to be fair and a tribunal would have little sympathy with a claim for religion or belief discrimination in this situation. For example, in another recent tribunal case a Christian doctor who held a strong belief about transgenderism and refused to use the preferred pronouns of transgender individuals, was found to have been fairly dismissed and his claim of discrimination failed. 

The Forstater decision, although likely to be unpopular with the transgender community, demonstrates the tricky balancing act employers must carry out between the competing rights of different groups in the workplace, and reminds us that free speech is a cornerstone of UK law.  

Weather conditions are set to change this week, with the Met Office forecasting heatwaves throughout and temperatures looking to soar to 37 degrees in some parts of the UK early next week. 

Unlike other European countries where it is normal for work to stop in the middle of the day during the hot summer and restart later in the day when it is cooler, the UK workforce will be expected to battle on in the heat.  But is there anything that employers can do to help?

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) who oversees Trade Unions across the UK have urged employers to make adjustments to the workplace in order to accommodate employees during these hot weather conditions. 

Hot weather causes many disadvantages for workers, not only can it lead to health issues such as dehydration, but outdoor workers are at a much higher risk of developing skin cancer (with them being 3 times more likely to develop the illness than on average).  Apart from health and safety, there is also a question over how productive employees can be in hot conditions.

Currently, there is no proposed law which governs a legal maximum temperature for the workplace, however, the employers must still ensure that the workplace temperature is “reasonable”, with 16 degrees as a minimum guideline.  They are also under a duty to provide a safe place of work.

37 ministers from the House of Commons have also signed a motion which, if successful, would implement a legal duty upon employers to take reasonable action for the wellbeing of their employees such as having ventilation installed, and allowing employees to be away from areas which causes excessive heat in temperature. 

The TUC boss Frances O’Grady says ‘nobody should be made to suffer in the heat for the sake of keeping up appearances’. 

What can employers do to support their employees in the heatwave? 

Employers are encouraged to allow their employees to have later starts or finish early in order to avoid the extreme heat when commuting. Employers should also consider giving their employees flexible hours or work from home options if possible, as well as a more relaxed dress code in these conditions. 

Other measures could include providing ice creams or cooling drinks to keep people cool through the day. 

Small measures like this can be key to employee wellbeing and engagement which ultimately contributes to business success, so well worth implementing.

When the ITV This Morning menopause bus started its tour, the first stop was Birmingham, where Lisa Snowdon was at the Bullring shopping centre speaking to families affected by the menopause as well as one of our clients The Night Owl, a local business who are leading the way by implementing a menopause policy to help their female staff.

Watch the whole interview here.

It was a pleasure to be featured on This Morning to discuss our Menopause policy as part of their Menopause bus tour around the UK❤️

If you missed it, you can watch it back on ITV Hub here 👉 https://t.co/9VASggG72K pic.twitter.com/quEP1lk5VE

— The Night Owl (@thenightowlbham) July 12, 2022

The 4-day working week. To employees this sounds like a dream, but to employers it can come with its fair share of complexities. Launched at the start of June, some UK companies will be trialing a 4-day working week for six months. Pilot schemes have already taken place in Spain, Ireland and Iceland. With the main focus being on the social, emotional and physical implications of this change, we will address some of the legal implications that could impact your business if you opt to change to a 4-day working week. 

The 4-day week pilot scheme – what is it?

Essentially instead of working five days a week, participants will be dropping a day, whilst maintaining the same rate of pay and productivity levels. 

Supporting the pilot, The 4 Day Week Campaign points out that the standard 9-5, 5 day working week is outdated and no longer fit for purpose. They also say that the concept of the weekend was invented a century ago and an update to working hours is long overdue.

Whilst this is the first time the 4-day working week is being trialed in the UK, the notion isn’t new. Back in the 1950s, President Nixon stated that this change was ‘inevitable’, and after the pandemic many employers and employees have reassessed their working patterns. The country of Iceland pivoted to (mostly) a national 4-day work week last year, as a reaction to the pandemic and around 85% of workers in Iceland are currently, or on the way to, working four days a week instead of five. 

With most of the UK working population forced to work from home from May 2020, traditional working times were adapted to help accommodate caring for children, being at home 24/7 and working online. This proved that flexible working is realistic, and you don’t have to work the usual 9am-5pm Monday to Friday to be as productive as in the office, leading to many employees changing what they value in an employer. 

Arguments for:

There is a strong case for a 4-day working week, with many workers feeling ‘burnt out’, arguments for boosting tourism and smaller carbon footprints, being cited among the reasons and benefits. 

A significant argument for reducing the working week is that it will increase productivity. In comparison to the majority of Europe, the UK works longer hours yet still has a lower productivity rate, for example the UK’s productivity rate is 15% below that of France, so maybe it is time for a change. Evidence from a trial run in Japan’s Microsoft office shows that when hours were reduced by 20% productivity increased by 40%. By cutting a day, experts are claiming that productivity will be increased and there will be fewer distractions. 

Offering a 4-day working week is also said to attract and retain talent within an organisation. Post-pandemic, staff may look for an employer who is willing to offer flexible and hybrid working. It can be seen as an incentive to only be working for 4 days instead of 5 without having a reduction of pay and this will be a pull factor for many job seekers and will also prevent current employees from seeking employment elsewhere.

Covid-19 highlighted how important mental health is and reducing the working week will have positive impacts on people’s mental as well as physical health. Health and Safety Executive 2018 data reported that a quarter of all sick days taken were related to being overworked. By implementing this change, it is hoped that the extra day off will help relieve stress, rejuvenate people and give people more time to spend with their families and enjoying hobbies. 

Arguments against:

Whilst it might seem like a great idea at first glance, attention should be brought to the drawbacks which come with reducing the working week. For example, it will not fit every business model and sectors such as the education or healthcare industries would undoubtedly find it difficult to function on a 4-day week. These businesses which cannot offer a 4-day working week might lose staff to other sectors which could result in a shortage of workers and increased job vacancies. 

Not all staff members will want to reduce their hours too and if this is the case, will companies be prepared to pay those working 5 days overtime to avoid disparity? What about part time staff? It is arguable that their pay should be increased to level them up with full time employees if the 4-day week is implemented. This could all lead to increased costs for the organisation. Alongside this, team management and interaction would be more difficult where days off are scattered through the week.

The UK already has one of the lowest productivity rates in Europe and this could easily worsen by switching to a 4-day working week. The idea that 5 days of work can be fitted into 4 days assumes that productivity will increase, but this is not guaranteed especially for employees who already struggle to get their allocated work done in 5 days. The change may create more work for employees working 5 days or on colleagues’ days off. It may also increase stress levels as staff may feel forced to work longer hours over 4 days in order to complete tasks. 

Legal implications:

The legal implications of a 4-day working week should be considered before implementing it into your organisation – it isn’t as simple as just staying home on a Friday. 

Attention needs to be brought to what will happen with holiday entitlement. With a day being cut, would annual leave entitlement be reduced by 20% to reflect working 4 days? This would take full time workers with 20 days off, or even less if bank holidays are included within their usual 28 days’ leave. These changes would need to be addressed in employment contracts to become terms of employment. 

It is also unclear what will happen with part-time staff. There are a few options which could be considered such as cutting their hours in line with full time workers’ hours but keeping their pay the same. Companies might also opt to increase their pay or adjust their annual leave, or a combination of the above options. 

Workers who are self-employed or on zero-hour contracts may not benefit from a 4-day working week and wider policy changes would be needed to accommodate all types of workers. This is not one size fits all concept and crucial for organisations to discuss it with their employees to find a solution that suits everyone. 

If productivity does decrease as a result of switching to 4 days, companies should put in place measures to minimise this risk of falling behind on work. This can be done in many ways such as reducing the amount of (unnecessary) meetings or the length of meetings and sharing the workload out. If employees are struggling to stay on track whilst working 5 days, then maybe an internal review is needed to see where the system is failing. 

As the trial proceeds, it is important to bear in mind that if you’re thinking of making this switch, your experience will be different to others’ and it’s essential to find a solution that works best for your company. Whist it could be a gamechanger for the working culture in the UK, the future of the 4-day working week is by no means certain at this stage – we await the trial outcome with interest. 

Check out our Linkedin Poll: Are you in favour of a 4-day working week?

Let’s set the scene. Your business is your baby – you’ve helped it grow through the early stages; watched it mature as the years go on; and finally, you’re letting it go off to venture out on its own – it’s now time to sell. The date is set, the value is right, and all that’s left is to sign the papers – but the buyer starts asking questions about whether the business truly owns the intellectual property (IP). It becomes clear they’ve done their IP homework. Confusion fogs your mind, and you start backtracking, trying to remember who worked on the IP – it was only your employees and that *lightbulb moment* INTERN! The fog begins to clear, and you remember where you went wrong.

A common mistake people make when developing their company’s IP is forgetting who worked on it. The general rule is that the creator of IP owns it and therefore using it without their permission can result in infringement. This can lead to all sorts of headaches, not to mention costs, which is why it’s so important to take measures to prevent ever reaching this situation.

Despite what you may hear, it is all about status, but not in the hierarchical sense. If the intern has the status of ‘employee’, this is less of an issue as an employment contract can act as an assignment document, transferring any IP produced by the intern, during their course of employment, to the company. 

However, if the intern does not have ‘employee’ status, which is usually the case, then special care must be taken before they create any new IP. Interns carrying out research and development should sign a contract before starting which clearly expresses that any IP they create will belong to the company. If they’ve already started work, as soon as it is practicable, you should ask them to sign an assignment document which will transfer any IP they have created or will create in the future to the company. It is also wise to have interns sign a non-disclosure agreement/confidentiality agreement to protect the business’ commercially sensitive information.  

Interns are a valuable resource, they’re a way of identifying future talent, and they help the business grow. It is therefore imperative that work they do during their internship belongs to the company and steps are taken to ensure things don’t go awry.

Intellectual Property (IP) is one of the most valuable assets of a business, yet most SMEs do not invest time and money into making sure that these valuable assets are protected from a legal standpoint.  As a result, they may find themselves involved in legal disputes with other businesses for trade mark or copyright infringement, or suffer financial loss due to employees and contractors retaining IP or giving it away.  In this article we discuss the important role IP plays in SME growth and how to make sure your business is getting the most out of your IP.

Identify your IP 

The first step to ensuring your business IP is protected, is identifying your existing and potential IP.

This can be done using helpful free tools such as the gov.uk IP Health Check or the British Library Business and IP Centre . However, one of the best ways to identify your IP and its value is via an IP Audit.  This comprehensive assessment is carried out by legal professionals who identify the IP assets in your key products and services and the legal rights associated with them, as well as any conflicting IP already in existence which may cause financial or legal issues for your business (e.g.  a competitor’s registered trade mark) now or in the future.  

IP audits also help identify existing IP in potential new markets or territories.  Identifying these things at an early stage, could help avoid future wasted cost and disruption.  

How to protect your IP 

Once you have identified your IP, it is important to identify the best way to protect it.  Whether you need to protect your brand by trade marking your logo or patent a new invention, securing your IP fosters business growth and earning potential in the competitive market.   

While some IP rights such as copyright do not require registration, others like trade marks and patents require official registration through government IP offices and may need to be renewed from time to time.  The easiest way to manage your registered IP is by working with IP professionals who understand the formalities and official requirements.

Do SMEs need to protect their IP? 

Unfortunately, most SMEs think that they are not big enough to start thinking about their IP.  However, a 2019 EPO/EUIPO study found that SMEs that apply for patents, trade marks or designs are 21% more likely to grow and succeed than those that don’t.  An updated 2021 study found that less than 9% of SMEs owned at least one of the three main IP rights (patent, trade mark or design) meaning most SMEs are not making the most of their existing IP.  

Getting Started

Securing IP is the foundation of business growth. Protecting your IP not only gives your business a competitive advantage but allows you to profit from those wishing to access your IP using licences and royalties. 

If you’d like to learn about the role IP plays in your business, please get in touch with Des Burley from Burley law who is an IP specialist and works closely with the UKIPO to help businesses and entrepreneurs understand and secure their IP.  

Des will be hosting a webinar on World IP Day (Tuesday, 26 April) to discuss the importance of IP and innovation.  All are welcome to attend and learn about the important role IP plays in building your business.  

Have you ever wondered why the tax year runs from 6^th April to 5^th April? It is odd that it doesn’t follow the regular calendar year (starting on 1^st Jan) like most other things. But why is this?

The story is somewhat confusing as it involves The Virgin Mary, Julius Caesar and Pope Gregory VIII. But we are going to attempt to simplify it…

So, to begin with the tax year used to run from 25^th March to the 24^th March and this was because the 25^th March was Lady Day – 9 months before Jesus was born. Easy enough to follow so far. 

At this time the Julian Calendar was being used and there were 365.25 days a year (increasing to 366 every four years i.e. every leap year).  However, this was inaccurate, as a year was actually 11 minutes shorter than assumed. It’s getting a bit tricky now.

To fix this, the Gregorian Calendar was introduced by Pope Gregory VIII in 1582 which said that only if the year was divisible by 400 will it be a leap year, making a year 365.2425 days long. 

The UK was a bit slow to catch up (taking nearly 200 years) and because of the delay, they were 11 days out of sync. And to fix this, they just skipped 11 days (making Wednesday 2^nd September being followed by Thursday 14^thSeptember). But they also didn’t want to miss out on tax, so they added 11 days onto 24^th March, making the tax year end on 4^th April.

Then comes the year 1800, which was supposed to be a leap year according to the Julian Calendar but not to the Gregorian Calendar (it wasn’t divisible by 400). Again, not wanting to miss out on any tax, the UK added an extra day making the tax year end on 5^th April instead. That wasn’t too hard to follow…