In a UK tribunal ruling described as “revolutionary” for sectors with high staff turnover, it was found that three UK hotel employees should have been given a statement of employment conditions during their first month of work.
Until now, it was always understood that the requisite period was two months.
The case centres on waiting staff who were employed by the Maritime Hotel in Portland, Dorset, which is part of Maritime Hotels Ltd. All three had relatively short periods of employment that commenced on various dates from 21 April 2016.
The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) heard that all three were dismissed on 7 July 2016 when they objected to “persistent shortfalls in their wages, late payment and a falsification of their wage slips”.
These claims were initially brought before an employment tribunal in August 2017. The plaintiffs complained that they were not given a Section One statement of their terms and conditions at any time during the course of their employment or thereafter.
The tribunal at the time ruled that Maritime Hotels failed to provide this statement for two claimants but not for a third, Miss J Woronowicz, who was employed for only six weeks. It also found that the first two were automatically unfairly dismissed and ordered they be awarded an amount representing four weeks’ pay.
Woronowicz likewise succeeded in her claim for automatic unfair dismissal, and the tribunal decided to increase her award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 as she did not have two months of continuous employment at the hotel. Two months is the amount of time given by section 1(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for an employer to provide a statement on the terms and conditions of an employee’s work.
But the EAT decided the tribunal had been wrong to conclude that a worker with more than one, but less than two months’, service was not entitled to such a statement. Judge Stacey pointed out that section 2(6) of the Employment Rights Act indicates the right to a statement of employment particulars exists even if a person’s employment ends before the two-month period is up.
Melanie Stancliffe, employment partner at Irwin Mitchell, told People Management that the judgment was “revolutionary” as it had “reinterpreted what the law on this [area] is”.
“What this judge has essentially said is employees are entitled to have a statement of their employment particulars after one month, and the further one is a grace period for the employers to provide this,” she said.
Stancliffe added that the ruling would have an impact on employers in industries, such as hospitality or retail, that experienced relatively high staff turnover. This meant employers should provide employees with statements as soon as possible.
The EAT also found the original tribunal was wrong to conclude that the reasons for the claimants’ dismissal did not constitute direct race discrimination. The three were of Polish origin, and the tribunal heard they were “not well-treated by their employers” and were “frequently sworn at” by sole director and one of two shareholders of Maritime Hotels, Mr N Doherty. Judge Stacey remitted these claims to be reheard at a new tribunal.
Emma Woollacott is a freelance business journalist. Her work has appeared in a wide range of publications, including the Guardian, the Times, Forbes and the BBC.
OTHER STORIES THAT MAY INTEREST YOU
UK's new executive pay gap regulations come into force this month
In a UK tribunal ruling described as “revolutionary” for sectors with high staff turnover, it was found that three UK hotel employees should have been given a statement of employment conditions during their first month of work.
Until now, it was always understood that the requisite period was two months.
The case centres on waiting staff who were employed by the Maritime Hotel in Portland, Dorset, which is part of Maritime Hotels Ltd. All three had relatively short periods of employment that commenced on various dates from 21 April 2016.
The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) heard that all three were dismissed on 7 July 2016 when they objected to “persistent shortfalls in their wages, late payment and a falsification of their wage slips”.
These claims were initially brought before an employment tribunal in August 2017. The plaintiffs complained that they were not given a Section One statement of their terms and conditions at any time during the course of their employment or thereafter.
The tribunal at the time ruled that Maritime Hotels failed to provide this statement for two claimants but not for a third, Miss J Woronowicz, who was employed for only six weeks. It also found that the first two were automatically unfairly dismissed and ordered they be awarded an amount representing four weeks’ pay.
Woronowicz likewise succeeded in her claim for automatic unfair dismissal, and the tribunal decided to increase her award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 as she did not have two months of continuous employment at the hotel. Two months is the amount of time given by section 1(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for an employer to provide a statement on the terms and conditions of an employee’s work.
But the EAT decided the tribunal had been wrong to conclude that a worker with more than one, but less than two months’, service was not entitled to such a statement. Judge Stacey pointed out that section 2(6) of the Employment Rights Act indicates the right to a statement of employment particulars exists even if a person’s employment ends before the two-month period is up.
Melanie Stancliffe, employment partner at Irwin Mitchell, told People Management that the judgment was “revolutionary” as it had “reinterpreted what the law on this [area] is”.
“What this judge has essentially said is employees are entitled to have a statement of their employment particulars after one month, and the further one is a grace period for the employers to provide this,” she said.
Stancliffe added that the ruling would have an impact on employers in industries, such as hospitality or retail, that experienced relatively high staff turnover. This meant employers should provide employees with statements as soon as possible.
The EAT also found the original tribunal was wrong to conclude that the reasons for the claimants’ dismissal did not constitute direct race discrimination. The three were of Polish origin, and the tribunal heard they were “not well-treated by their employers” and were “frequently sworn at” by sole director and one of two shareholders of Maritime Hotels, Mr N Doherty. Judge Stacey remitted these claims to be reheard at a new tribunal.
Emma Woollacott is a freelance business journalist. Her work has appeared in a wide range of publications, including the Guardian, the Times, Forbes and the BBC.
OTHER STORIES THAT MAY INTEREST YOU
UK's new executive pay gap regulations come into force this month
