Quantcast
Channel: | Global Workplace Insider

UK – What to expect in employment law in 2024

0
0

As we come to the end of 2023, there has been a rush on new employment legislation to come into effect in 2024. 

Holiday leave and pay

As mentioned here the Employment Rights (Amendment, Revocation and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2023 were laid before pParliament on 7 November 2023 and are due to come into force on 1 January 2024.  The regulations make various changes to the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR 1998).  In summary:

  • Carry over of leave:  The new regulations will restate the effect of retained EU case law regarding the carryover of holiday in certain situations.  As such, with effect from 1 January 2024, employers must ensure that their holiday policies allow for the following:
    • Where a worker is absent due to sickness and is unable to take all or some of their annual leave entitlement in a leave year, the worker is entitled to carry forward such untaken leave into the following leave year provided it is taken within 18 months from the end of the leave year in which the entitlement originally arose.  This only applies to the four week’s leave under regulation 13 WTR 1998.
    • Where a worker is absent as a result of the employer (i) failing to recognise a worker’s right to annual leave or payment; (ii) failing to give the worker a reasonable opportunity to take the leave or encourage them to do so; or (iii) failing to inform the worker that any leave not taken by the end of the leave year, which cannot be carried forward, will be lost, then the worker is entitled to carry forward any leave under regulation 13 WTR 1998 which is untaken in that leave year or has been taken but is not paid in accordance with the regulations. 
    • Where a worker is absent due to maternity or other forms of statutory leave and is unable to take some or all of their annual leave entitlement, then the worker is entitled to carry forward their leave both under regulation 13 and 13A WTR 1998 (being four weeks’ leave and the additional 1.6 weeks leave) into the following leave year. There appears to be no cut-off date by which that leave must be taken.
  • Simplifying the record keeping: With effect from 1 January 2024, the WTR 1998 will be amended to make it clear that an employer must keep records which are adequate to show whether the employer has complied with the limits regarding working time and rest time.  There is no set manner or format in which the records need to be kept and an employer does not need to record each worker’s daily working hours if it is able to demonstrate compliance with the regulations without doing so.
  • Normal remuneration: The regulations incorporate a definition of normal remuneration which should apply to the four weeks’ holiday to which a worker is entitled under regulation 13 WTR 1998.  From 1 January 2024, a worker will be entitled to be paid normal remuneration which will include the following:
    • payments, including commission payments, which are intrinsically linked to the performance of tasks which a worker is contractually obliged to carry out;
    • payments for professional or personal status relating to length of service, seniority or professional qualifications; and
    • payments, such as overtime payments, which have been regularly paid to a worker in the 52 weeks preceding the calculation.

Employers will need to ensure that their current procedures take into account such payments.  It will also be important for an employer to determine whether it will follow the statute and treat the payments for the four weeks’ leave under regulation 13 differently to the leave under regulation 13A which can continue to be paid at basic pay.

  • Irregular hours and part year workers: There are various new provisions relating to workers who work irregular hours or part year which are due to apply to leave years starting on or after 1 April 2024.  This includes:
    • providing for accrual of holiday pay based on 12.07% hours worked in the previous pay period;
    • rolled up holiday pay will be permitted for irregular hours and part year workers; and
    • part year or irregular hour workers will also be permitted to carry forward holiday

Employers should therefore start to review their workforce to determine if there are any irregular hour or part year workers.  It will be necessary to consider whether the current provisions for payment comply with the changes proposed and, if not, whether there will need to be any changes to the workers contractual terms.

Consultation under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2002 (TUPE)

The Employment Rights (Amendment, Revocation and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2023 also make changes to TUPE.  The requirement to elect employee representatives for information and consultation purposes will change so that where an employer has fewer than fifty employees or it is an employer of any size involved in a transfer of fewer than ten employees, the employer will be able to consult directly with employees, where no existing employee representatives are in place.  The change will apply for transfers taking place on or after 1 July 2024.

Carer’s leave

The Carer’s Leave Regulations 2024 were laid before Parliament on 11 December 2023 and are expected to come into force from 6April 2024.  The regulations provide that:

  • The right is a day one right.
  • Employees will be entitled to take carer’s leave where they have a dependant with a long-term care need and they are providing or arranging care for that dependent.  In addition, they must comply with the notice requirements.
  • A dependant is someone who is a spouse, civil partner, child or parent of the employee, or lives in the same household as the employee (other than by reason of being the employee’s boarder, employee, lodger or tenant), or reasonably relies on the employee to provide or arrange care.  A dependant will have a long-term care need if: (i) they have an illness or injury (whether physical or mental) that requires, or is likely to require, care for more than three months; (ii) they have a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010; or (iii) they require care for a reason connected with their old age. 
  • The employee is entitled to one week’s unpaid leave which can be taken either in one block or as single individual or half days.  The leave does not need to be taken on consecutive days.  The calculation of a week’s leave is decided by the number of days the employee is normally expected or required to work in a week at the time of making the request or calculated over a 52-week reference period where there are no usual working hours in a week. 
  • The notice provisions require the employee to give notice of their intention to take leave in writing, setting out their entitlement to take carer’s leave, and the days or part day that they wish to take the leave.  The period of notice given should be at least twice as many days as the number of days leave which are requested to be taken or, at least three days’ notice.
  • The employer can postpone the leave for a period for no more than one month if the taking of such leave would unduly disrupt the operation of their business.   This should be done in consultation with the employee and the employer must give notice of the postponement.
  • The leave is unpaid but an employee is entitled to all the terms and conditions of employment which would have applied if they had not been absent.
  • Where an employee returns to work after an isolated period of carer’s leave, then they are entitled to return to the position that they were employed in immediately before the absence. 
  • An employee who takes or seeks to take carer’s leave is protected from any detriment or dismissal by the employer.

Rights for employees in a redundancy situation who are on statutory leave

The draft Maternity Leave, Adoption Leave and Shared Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2024 were placed before Parliament on 11 December 2023 and are expected to come into force on 6April 2024.  

The regulations amend existing maternity, shared parental leave and adoption leave regulations to extend the existing right to be offered suitable alternative vacancies in a redundancy situation.  This means that, where an employee is on maternity, adoption or shared parental leave and a redundancy situation arises, the requirement to offer suitable alternative employment will apply during pregnancy as well as maternity and adoption leave and for an additional protected period of 18 months after the expected week of childbirth or the date that the child is placed for adoption.  For those taking shared parental leave, the additional protected period applies where those who are taking six or more consecutive weeks of shared parental leave but who have not taken maternity or adoption leave and will end 18 months after the date of birth of the child.  If an individual is taking less than six consecutive weeks of shared parental leave, then the current position will continue to apply (i.e. protection from redundancy where a redundancy situation arises while the employee is on shared parental leave).

The new regulations will apply where the employee’s statutory maternity leave period ends on or after 6 April 2024 and will apply regarding the protected period of pregnancy where the employer is informed of the pregnancy on or after 6 April 2024.

Flexible working

The Flexible Working (Amendment) Regulations 2023 were laid before Parliament on 11 December 2023 and are due to come into force on 6April 2024.  The Acas Statutory Code of Practice on Flexible Working has also been laid before Parliament on 11 December.

The regulations revoke regulation 3 of the Flexible Working Regulations 2014 which requires an employee to have been continually employed for a period of at least 26 weeks to be entitled to make a flexible working request.  This means that an employee will be entitled to make a request from day one of employment.

Other provisions relating to changes to flexible working are contained in the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023.  This Act requires a statutory instrument to bring the changes into force.  It is presumed that this will be with effect from 6 April 2024.

Employers should therefore ensure that they are ready to amend any flexible working policy they have in place to reflect these changes. 

Minimum service levels

The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 amends the Trade Union and Labour (Consolidation) Act 1992 so that minimum service levels (MSLs) can be applied during strikes in services within six key sectors.  These are health services, fire and rescue services, education services, transport services, nuclear installations and radioactive waste and border security. The Act came into force on 20 July 2023, but the specific minimum service levels for the particular sectors require secondary legislation. The regulations in relation to ambulance service and rail services came into force on 8 December 2023, and the regulations with regard to the border security services on 12 December 2023.

In addition, the Code of Practice (Reasonable Steps for Trade Unions) Order 2023 came into force on 8 December 2023.  The Order implements the Code of Practice which provides practical guidance for trade unions on the “reasonable steps” that they should take to be compliant with the new requirements.  This arises where an employer issues a work notice and the union must take “reasonable steps” to ensure that all member of that union who are identified within the work notice comply with the notice.  This enables the union to maintain statutory protection from proceedings in tort brought by the employer in relation to an act done by the union to induce a person to take part, or to continue to take part, in a strike.

Changes to Equality Act

The draft Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Regulations 2023 have been placed before Parliament.  They are due to come into force on 1 January 2024.   The regulations reproduce in domestic law the effects of retained EU law which will cease to apply on 31 December 2023.  This means that, effectively, there will be no change in the law and this will provide clarity to employers.  The areas covered in the regulations are as follows:

  • Direct discrimination related to pregnancy, maternity and breastfeeding – the provisions clarify that a woman may be able to bring a claim related to sex discrimination where the less favourable treatment is because she is breast feeding and that the protected period relating to discrimination will include periods on maternity leave which is equivalent to compulsory, ordinary or additional maternity leave.
  • Providing the right to claim indirect discrimination where a person without a relevant protected characteristic suffers substantively the same disadvantage as those with that protected characteristic (associative discrimination).
  • Providing for a liability equivalent to direct discrimination in the context of access to employment and occupation as regards public statements outside a recruitment process.
  • Codification of the right to equal pay where employees’ terms are attributable to a single source (Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union).
  • Clarifying the definition of disability in relation to employment and occupation, so that it takes into account a person’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities as reference to the individual’s ability to participate in their professional life on an equal basis with other workers.

Reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment

The Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 introduces a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees.  It also gives employment tribunals the power to uplift sexual harassment compensation by up to 25% where an employer is found to have breached that duty.  The new legislation is expected to come into force in October 2024.

We will be considering all these changes and more in our webinar on What to Expect in 2024 which is taking place in January. 


Proposed new paternity leave regulations

0
0

On 11 January 2023, the government published draft regulations to make changes to paternity leave legislation which will provide fathers and partners with greater flexibility when taking their paternity leave entitlement. 

The Paternity Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2024 are due to come into force on 8 March 2024 and will apply only to children whose expected week of birth or expected date of placement for adoption is on or after 6 April 2024.

The Regulations will:

  • Allow fathers and partners to choose to divide their statutory paternity leave into either two one-week blocks or a single period of either one week or two weeks.  Currently leave can only be taken in one block, meaning that if the father decides to take just one week of leave, then they currently lose the right to take the second week at a later date.
  • Extend the period during which fathers and partners can take the leave to any time during the first year after the birth or adoption of a child, rather than only within the first 56 days.
  • Fathers and partners must still give their employer a notice of their entitlement to take leave and a declaration that they satisfy the conditions for taking leave on or before the 15th week before the expected week of childbirth.  However, the new regulations shorten the period of notice to be given of the dates on which the father or partner would like to take their leave to 28 days’ notice.
  • A father or partner who has given an initial notice may also vary any leave dates if they give 28 days’ notice of the variation. 

Ahead of the Regulations coming into force, employers will need to review and update any paternity or family leave policies to reflect the new rules and mangers should be made aware that they may receive requests from employees to take paternity leave at shorter notice.

Preparing for new employment laws in 2024: an HR checklist

0
0

This year is set to be a busy one for employers and, in particular, HR professionals, with a number of new employment laws and developments coming into force throughout 2024.  This includes new rules on holiday leave and pay and the application of TUPE, changes to flexible working and increased protection from redundancy and sexual harassment (see our previous blog article, “UK – What to expect in employment law in 2024” for further details).

HR teams will need to keep on top of these changes and be ready to update internal processes, policies and, where applicable, contracts of employment, as well as implement training for managers and senior business partners. We have set out below a checklist of steps for employers and their HR teams to take:

Holiday leave and pay (from 1 January 2024)

  • New legislation outlines the circumstances in which untaken holiday can be carried over.  HR teams will need to review any holiday policies in place to ensure they allow for the carrying over of leave and ensure that policies and procedures clarify to workers that they should take their leave in the leave year and that such leave will be lost.
  • HR teams will need to implement or update record keeping processes to ensure compliance with new requirements to maintain ‘adequate’ records and ensure limits on working time and the taking of rest breaks have been complied with.  
  • New legislation set outs what should be included as ‘normal remuneration’ when calculating holiday pay (being commission payments, payments for professional or personal status and overtime payments).  HR teams should review holiday pay calculations and ensure correct elements of pay are included and work with any payroll providers to ensure that correct holiday pay is paid
  • HR teams should consider providing managers with training to ensure they are aware of and understand employees’ holiday rights and entitlements, and the obligation to inform employees if they have any outstanding holiday that needs to be taken before the end of the holiday year.

Part-year or irregular hour workers holiday entitlement (from 1 April 2024)

  • New rules will apply regarding the accrual of holiday in respect of part-year or irregular hour workers and allow employers to pay ‘rolled up’ holiday pay in certain circumstances.  HR teams will need to review the workforce to identify any part-year or irregular hour workers and ensure correct procedures are in place in respect of holiday entitlements and pay.
  • HR teams should consider whether to apply rolled up holiday pay in respect of those workers.
  • HR teams must also ensure contracts of employment for any part-year or irregular hour workers set out individual working patterns and arrangements.

Increase to statutory pay rates, including National Minimum Wage (from 1 April 2024)

  • Current rates are due to increase from 1 April 2024.  HR teams must ensure that all employees and workers aged 21 and over are being paid above National Minimum Wage. 

Flexible working (from 6 April 2024 for day one right)

  • Changes are being introduced to the flexible working regime, including making the right to request flexible working a “day one right” and allowing employees to make two requests in any 12-month period.  HR teams will need to review and update flexible working policies to reflect these changes, and review recruitment processes to ensure flexible working is considered at the outset of the employment relationship.
  • HR teams will need to communicate the changes to the workforce.
  • HR teams should provide training to managers or such other employees who handle flexible working requests on the changes, including the duty to consult with an employee before rejecting a flexible working request.

Carer’s leave (from 6 April 2024)

  • New legislation provides employees with the right to take one week of unpaid leave to provide or arrange for care for a dependant in any 12-month rolling period.  HR teams will need to draft or amend existing policies to provide for this new right and communicate the changes to the workforce. This should include consideration of how this may affect any existing policies.
  • HR teams should also provide managers with training to ensure they are aware of this new right and the potential implications of an individual having caring responsibilities.   
  • Employers may also want to consider whether to enhance this right by continuing to pay employees during any period of carer’s leave. 

Paternity leave (from 6 April 2024)

  • Changes are being introduced to the way in which paternity leave is exercised, including the requirements relating to notice and evidence and the period within which paternity leave must be taken.  HR teams will need to review and update existing policies to ensure they comply with new requirements and communicate the changes to the workforce.

Enhanced protection for pregnant mothers and those returning from family leave (from 6 April 2024)

  • New legislation will extend the redundancy protections that currently apply to employees on maternity, adoption and shared parental leave to employees who are pregnant or who have recently returned to work from such leave.  HR teams will need to review and update any redundancy procedure to reflect this.
  • HR teams should also provide managers or such other employees who are involved in redundancy consultation exercises with training about these new rules, to ensure they understand how to balance the different rights of employees among the protected group and manage competing priorities for suitable alternative vacancies. 

TUPE consultation (from 1 July 2024)

  • TUPE Regulations will be amended to allow direct consultation with employees (rather than with representatives) in situations where either the business has fewer than 50 employees or the proposed transfer involves fewer than 10 employees.  HR teams will need to review and update relevant policies and procedures.

Right to request a predictable work pattern (expected to come into force in September 2024)

  • New legislation provides workers and agency workers with the right to request more predictable terms and conditions of work after 2 weeks’ service where there is a lack of predictability to their work pattern.  HR teams should start considering who in their workforce may be able to make such a request and ensure that they have procedures in place for managers to deal with the requests.

Duty to prevent sexual harassment (expected to come into force in October 2024)

  • New legislation introduces a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees in the workplace.  HR teams should consider what steps can be taken to reduce the risk of sexual harassment in the workplace and how to demonstrate that such steps have been taken. 
  • HR teams should review any existing policies (including any speak up policy) to ensure they are up to date and effective and carry out training across the workforce. 
  • HR teams could also consider introducing a separate reporting channel for sexual harassment complaints. 
  • HR teams should provide training to managers or other select employees on how to deal with sexual harassment complaints and incidents.

If you would like any more information on the steps to be taken please contact your usual contact or speak with a member of the Employment Team.

Arbeitsrecht 2024: Was ändert sich?

0
0

Das deutsche Arbeitsrecht bringt im Jahr 2024 zahlreiche Neuerungen und geplante Änderungen, die Personalverantwortliche kennen sollten.

Neuerungen

Zum 1. Januar 2024 wurden die Rechengrößen in der Sozialversicherung turnusgemäß an die Einkommensentwicklung angepasst. Die aktuellen Rechengrößen finden sie hier. Der gesetzliche Mindestlohn wurde auf € 12,41 angehoben. Die Jahresverdienstgrenze für Minijobber liegt 2024 bei € 6.456 (€ 538/Monat).

Arbeitsunfähige Arbeitnehmer können sich bereits seit dem 7. Dezember 2023, ähnlich wie während der COVID19-Pandemie, telefonisch krankschreiben lassen, sofern keine schweren Symptome auftreten und die Erkrankten der Arztpraxis bekannt sind. Die telefonische Krankschreibung soll dauerhaft erhalten werden, wozu bis Ende Januar 2024 entsprechende Richtlinien vom Gemeinsamen Bundesausschuss ausgearbeitet werden sollen.

Die Meldung von Arbeitsunfällen und Berufskrankheiten kann nach der geänderten Unfallversicherungs-Anzeigeverordnung (UVAV) ab dem 1. Januar 2024 elektronisch an Berufsgenossenschaften und Unfallkassen mitgeteilt werden. Nach einer bis zum 31. Dezember 2027 geltenden Übergangsfrist wird die digitale Meldung dann für Arbeitgeber verpflichtend.

Das Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz gilt ab dem 1. Januar auch für Unternehmen mit mindestens 1.000 Arbeitnehmern. Indirekt sind allerdings auch kleine und mittlere Unternehmen betroffen, da das Gesetz von Großunternehmen verlangt, dass unmittelbare Zulieferer die Vorgaben ebenfalls einhalten und entlang der Lieferkette adressieren. Das Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle (BAFA) hat dazu ein Informationsblatt herausgegeben.

Unternehmen, die von einem beschleunigten Strukturwandel (Demographie, Digitalisierung, Dekarbonisierung) und Nachholeffekten der COVID19-Pandemie betroffen sind, können ab dem 1. April 2024 durch ein sog. „Qualifizierungsgeld“ unterstützt werden, um Arbeitnehmer durch Qualifizierung im Unternehmen zu halten. Nach dem „Gesetz zur Stärkung der Aus- und Weiterbildungsförderung“ (BGBl. I Nr. 191 vom 20.07.2023) können Arbeitgeber unabhängig von der Betriebsgröße, Alter oder Qualifikation der Beschäftigten, diese für eine Weiterbildung freistellen und während dieser Zeit das Qualifizierungsgeld von der Agentur für Arbeit erhalten. Betriebe werden so von den Entgeltzahlungen entlastet, tragen dafür aber die Weiterbildungskosten. Fördervoraussetzungen für das Qualifizierungsgeld sind ein strukturwandelbedingter Qualifizierungsbedarf eines nicht unerheblichen Teils der Belegschaft und eine entsprechende Betriebsvereinbarung oder ein entsprechender betriebsbezogener Tarifvertrag. Das Qualifizierungsgeld wird unabhängig von der Betriebsgröße, dem Alter oder der Qualifikation der Beschäftigten gezahlt und als Entgeltersatz in Höhe von 60 Prozent beziehungsweise 67 Prozent des Nettoentgeltes, das durch die Weiterbildung entfällt, geleistet.

Gesetzesvorhaben

Der Gesetzentwurf zur Rechtssicherheit in der Betriebsratsvergütung (Zweites Gesetz zur Änderung des Betriebsverfassungsgesetzes, BR-Drs. 564/23) dürfte zeitnah in Kraft treten. Dabei soll gesetzlich klargestellt werden, dass zur Bestimmung der mit dem Betriebsratsmitglied vergleichbaren Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer auf den Zeitpunkt der Übernahme des Betriebsratsamts abzustellen ist. Bei Vorliegen eines sachlichen Grundes kann eine Neubestimmung der Vergleichsgruppe vorgenommen werden. Zudem können die Betriebsparteien in einer Betriebsvereinbarung ein Verfahren zur Festlegung vergleichbarer Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer regeln. Um einen Anreiz für mehr Transparenz zu schaffen, soll außerdem bestimmt werden, dass sowohl die Konkretisierung der Vergleichbarkeit in der Betriebsvereinbarung als auch die nachfolgende einvernehmliche Festlegung der konkreten Vergleichspersonen zwischen Arbeitgeber und Betriebsrat in Textform nur auf grobe Fehlerhaftigkeit überprüft werden kann. Des Weiteren werden im Einklang mit der Rechtsprechung die Maßstäbe des Begünstigungs- und Benachteiligungsverbots dahingehend konkretisiert, dass eine Begünstigung oder Benachteiligung im Hinblick auf das gezahlte Arbeitsentgelt nicht vorliegt, wenn das Betriebsratsmitglied die für die Gewährung des Arbeitsentgelts erforderlichen Anforderungen und Kriterien erfüllt und die Festlegung nicht ermessensfehlerhaft erfolgt.

Bisher konnte sich der deutsche Gesetzgeber nicht auf eine Änderung des Arbeitszeitgesetzes verständigen, um die bestehende Unsicherheit bei der Erfassung von Arbeitszeiten zu beseitigen. Arbeitgeber kritisieren einen erheblichen Mehraufwand, ein im vergangenen Frühjahr geleakter Referentenentwurf brachte keine Klarheit. Mit konkreten Vorgaben zur Arbeitszeiterfassung dürfte frühestens im zweiten Quartal zu rechnen sein.

Im Rahmen ihrer Digitalstrategie hat die Bundesregierung angekündigt, ein Beschäftigtendatenschutzgesetz vorzulegen, das Rechtsklarheit für Arbeitgeber und Arbeitnehmer schaffen und die Persönlichkeitsrechte der Arbeitnehmer effektiv schützen soll. Ob und mit welchen Regelungen dieses Gesetzesvorhaben umgesetzt wird, bleibt abzuwarten. Ebenso in den Hintergrund gerückt ist der Entwurf des „Gesetzes zur Einführung eines Freistellungsanspruchs für den Partner oder die Partnerin nach der Entbindung und zur Änderung anderer Gesetze im Bereich der familienbezogenen Leistungen“ vom März 2023. Ursprünglich für Januar 2024 geplant, sollte dieses sogenannte Familienstartzeit-Gesetz den Partnern oder Partnerinnen nach der Geburt eines Kindes einen bezahlter Freistellungsanspruch für zehn Arbeitstage gewähren, ohne dass dafür Urlaub oder Elternzeit in Anspruch genommen werden müssen (§ 25a MuSchG-E).

Bitte sprechen Sie uns gerne an, wenn wir Sie zu einem der genannten Themen beraten dürfen.

Germany: What to expect in 2024

0
0

German employment law will introduce new legislation bringing numerous changes in 2024 that HR managers should be aware of.

New legislation enters into force

The factors for calculating the levels in the social insurance system were adjusted on 1 January 2024. You can find the current rates and limits here. The statutory minimum wage was increased to €12.41. The annual earnings limit for mini-jobs (being a form of part-time employment allowing workers to earn a limited income without being subject to the usual full social security contributions) in 2024 has been raised to €6,456 (€538/month).

Since 7 December 2023, employees who are unable to work have been able to have their incapacity for work determined by telephone, similar to the position in the COVID-19 pandemic, provided that there are no severe symptoms and the patient is known to the doctor’s surgery. Sick leave by telephone is to be made permanent, with corresponding guidelines to be drawn up by the Federal Joint Committee by the end of January 2024.

According to the amended Accident Insurance Notification Ordinance (UVAV), notifications of accidents at work and occupational illnesses can now be submitted electronically to employers’ liability insurance associations and accident insurance funds from 1 January 2024. After a transitional period ending on 31 December 2027, digital reporting will then become mandatory for employers.

The German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG) will also apply to companies with at least 1,000 employees from 1 January 2024. However, small and medium-sized companies are also indirectly affected, as the law requires large companies to ensure that their direct suppliers also comply with the requirements and address them along the supply chain. The Federal Office of Economics and Export Control (BAFA) has published guidance to support this.

From 1 April 2024, companies affected by accelerated structural change (demographics, digitalisation, decarbonisation) and the catch-up effects of the COVID-19 pandemic can be supported by a “qualification allowance” to retain employees in the company through additional training. According to the “Act to Strengthen the Promotion of Initial and Continuing Vocational Training” (Federal Law Gazette I No. 191 of 20 July 2023), employers can release employees for training, regardless of the size of the company, the employee’s age or qualifications, and receive a training allowance from the Federal Employment Agency during this time. Companies are therefore relieved of the burden of paying wages, but bear the costs of further training. To qualify for the training allowance, a significant proportion of the workforce must be in need of training as a result of structural change and there must be a company agreement or company-level collective agreement to this effect. The training allowance is paid regardless of the size of the company, the age or qualifications of the employees and is paid as compensation for 60% or 67% of the net wage lost as a result of the training.

Outlook

The draft law on legal certainty in works council remuneration (Second Act to Amend the Works Constitution Act, BR-Drs. 564/23) is expected to come into force shortly. It is intended to clarify that the date on which the works council member takes up the position is to be used as the basis for determining which employees are a comparator to the works council member for determing the works council remuneration. If there is an objective reason, the comparative group can be redefined. In addition, the parties to the works council agreement can set out a procedure for determining comparable employees. In order to create more transparency, both the specification of comparability set out in the works agreement and any subsequent mutual agreement in writing between the employer and the works council can only be reviewed for gross errors. In addition, in line with case law, the draft legislation provides that there will be deemed to be no favouritism or discrimination with regard to the remuneration paid, if the works council member fulfils the conditions and criteria necessary to be awarded such remuneration and the determination is not based on an error of judgement.

So far, German lawmakers have been unable to agree on an amendment to the Working Hours Act that would remove the uncertainty surrounding the recording of working time. Employers have criticised the considerable additional work involved, and a draft bill leaked last spring did not provide any clarity. Concrete rules for recording working hours are not expected until the second quarter at the earliest.

As part of its digital strategy, the German government has announced that it will publish an Employee Data Protection Act to provide legal clarity for employers and employees and effectively protect the personal rights of employees. It remains to be seen whether and with what regulations this legislative proposal will be implemented.

The draft of the “Act on the introduction of a right to leave for the partner after the birth of a child and on the amendment of other laws in the area of family-related benefits” of March 2023 has also been postponed. Originally planned for January 2024, this Family Start Time Act was intended to grant partners paid leave of ten working days after the birth of a child without having to take annual leave or parental leave (§ 25a MuSchG-E).

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you would like advice on any of these topics.

Employment Tribunal claims and Sovereign Immunity

0
0

In The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau) v Ms A Alhayali the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered the situations in which embassies and other diplomatic missions can claim state immunity from employment-related claims.  

The EAT applied the recent Supreme Court case of Benkharbouche v Embassy of Sudan which had resulted in an amendment to the State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA 1978) to conclude that if an employee’s work is “sufficiently close” to the exercise of sovereign authority, the embassy or diplomatic mission would be able to claim immunity from employment-related claims under the SIA1978.

Whether an employment is “sufficiently close” to the exercise of sovereign authority is fact dependent. In this case, the claimant worked in the Saudi Arabian Embassy (the Embassy)’s Academic and Cultural Affairs departments. The EAT held that her role met the “sufficiently close” test – because “by sifting compliant and non-compliant guarantee requests, writing reports on funding requests and discussing art exhibits … she played a part, even if only a small one, in protecting the interests of the Saudi state and its nationals in the UK and in promoting Saudi culture in the UK”. Therefore, she participated in the public service of the Embassy, rather than only its private administration. Justice Bourne highlighted that this case was borderline, and that had the claimant had a more administrative role, such as being a member of cleaning staff, the Embassy would not have had immunity.

However, foreign states are not immune to claims for death or personal injury or loss of tangible property caused by an act or omission in the UK. The EAT held that this extends to psychiatric injury, and that therefore the Embassy was not immune from the Claimant’s claim that their discriminatory treatment had led to her suffering psychiatric injury.

Embassies and other diplomatic missions should bear in mind the limits to state immunity. Although it can be claimed in relation to certain disputes, it is likely limited to those disputes where the relevant state entered into the employment contract as an exercise of sovereign authority, or where the conduct complained of was conducted by the state in exercise of sovereign authority. It is not, therefore, a panacea for all employment claims, and will not apply at all to claims for psychological or physical injuries.

Aktuelles zur Massenentlassungsanzeige

0
0

BAG: Der geplante Kurswechsel des Sechstens Senats

Der für Insolvenzsachen zuständige Sechste Senat des Bundesarbeitsgerichts hat mit Beschluss vom 14. Dezember 2023 in dem Verfahren 6 AZR 157/22 (B) angekündigt, seine Rechtsprechung aufzugeben, wonach eine im Rahmen einer Massenentlassung nach § 17 Abs. 1 KSchG ausgesprochene Kündigung unwirksam ist, wenn im Zeitpunkt ihrer Erklärung eine Anzeige nach § 17 Abs. 1, Abs. 3 KSchG fehlt oder fehlerhaft ist. Eine Aufgabe dieser Rechtsprechung stünde jedoch im Widerspruch zur ständigen Rechtsprechung des Zweiten Senats des Bundesarbeitsgerichts, der bei Fehlern im Massenentlassungsanzeigeverfahren regelmäßig von der Unwirksamkeit aller anzeigepflichtigen Kündigungen ausgeht.

Vor diesem Hintergrund hat der erkennende Sechste Senat in den oben genannten Verfahren beim Zweiten Senat angefragt, ob dieser an seiner Rechtsauffassung festhält und den Rechtsstreit bis zur Beantwortung der Frage ausgesetzt. Die Rechtsfrage betrifft auch die Verfahren 6 AZR 155/21 (B) und 6 AZR 121/22 (B), die deshalb ebenfalls ausgesetzt wurden.

Zum Hintergrund:

  • Bevor ein Arbeitgeber einen Personalabbau oberhalb der in § 17 Abs. 1 KSchG normierten Schwellenwerte durchführen und innerhalb von 30 Kalendertagen eine entsprechende Anzahl von Arbeitnehmern entlassen will, ist er verpflichtet, zum einen den Betriebsrat nach § 17 Abs. 2 KSchG zu unterrichten (Konsultationsverfahren) und zum anderen, der zuständigen Agentur für Arbeit die beabsichtigten Entlassungen nach § 17 Abs. 1, 3 KSchG anzuzeigen (Massenentlassungsanzeige).
  • Für die Arbeitgeberseite hat sich die Durchführung dieser Verfahren immer wieder als fehleranfällig und risikoreich erwiesen. Dies insbesondere vor dem Hintergrund, dass Fehler im Konsultationsverfahren oder bei der Erstattung der Massenentlassungsanzeige nach ständiger Rechtsprechung des Bundesarbeitsgerichts in der Regel zur Unwirksamkeit aller ausgesprochenen anzeigepflichtigen Kündigungen führen. Ausnahmen bestehen im Wesentlichen nur insoweit, als Fehler im Konsultationsverfahren aus der Sphäre des Betriebsrats stammen oder Fehler bei der Massenentlassungsanzeige lediglich die sog. Soll-Angaben nach § 17 Abs. 3 Satz 5 KSchG betreffen.
  • Bereits im Mai 2023 äußerte der Sechste Senat des Bundesarbeitsgerichts Zweifel an diesem von der Rechtsprechung entwickelten Sanktionssystem. Im Allgemeinen müssen Sanktionen für Verstöße gegen Verbotsgesetze i.S. von § 134 BGB verschiedenen Prinzipien genügen. So muss eine Sanktion vornehmlich eine abschreckende Wirkung entfalten und effektiven Rechtsschutz bieten (effet utile); sie darf ferner nicht hinter Maßnahmen zurückbleiben, die das Recht für vergleichbare Sachverhalte vorhält (Äquivalenzgrundatz); und schließlich muss eine Sanktion verhältnismäßig, d.h. insbesondere zu ihrer Zweckerreichung erforderlich sein. Dies ist dann nicht mehr der Fall, wenn die Schwere eines Verstoßes und seine Rechtsfolge nicht mehr gleichgewichtig sind.
  • Ausgehend von diesen Maßstäben hatte der Sechste Senat des Bundesarbeitsgerichts Bedenken, ob das vorliegend in Streit stehende Sanktionssystem im Einklang mit der Systematik des Massenentlassungsschutzes steht, wie er durch die Massenentlassungsrichtlinie (MERL) vermittelt wird, oder es nicht vielmehr unverhältnismäßig sei, vgl. BAG, Beschluss vom 11. Mai 2023 – 6 AZR 157/22 (A) sowie ebenso in den Verfahren 6 AZR 482/21, 6 AZR 115/22 und 6 AZR 121/22. Die seinerzeitigen Verfahren behandelten Fehler im Verfahren der Massenentlassungsanzeige (nicht Konsultationsverfahren) und wurden bis zur Entscheidung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs (EuGH) in der Rechtssache C-134/22 (teilweise) ausgesetzt.
  • Am 13. Juli 2023 stellte der EuGH in seinem Urteil C-134/22 sodann klar, dass die Bestimmung Art. 2 Abs. 3 UAbs. 2 MERL (in Deutschland: § 17 Abs. 3 S.1 KSchG) keinen Individualschutz der von Massenentlassungen betroffenen Arbeitnehmer bezwecke. Die hiernach vorgesehene Übermittlung von Informationen (Abschrift der Mitteilung an den Betriebsrat) an die zuständige Behörde diene nur zu Informations- und Vorbereitungszwecken.
  • Offen blieb zu diesem Zeitpunkt, ob der Entscheidung des EuGH insoweit weitergehende Bedeutung zugemessen werden könne, als dass ihr weitergehende Aussagen zu Reichweite des Individual-/ Kollektivschutzes bzw. des vom nationalen Recht zu gewährleistenden Schutzumfangs entnommen werden können.

Dies beantwortete der Sechste Senat des Bundesarbeitsgerichts im Dezember 2023 für sich. Entschieden war damit jedoch noch nichts. Angesichts der Beantwortung der Divergenzanfrage durch den Zweiten Senat bzw. gar einer Einordnung der Thematik durch den Großen Senat, sowie letztlich einer etwaigen Neuausrichtung des Sanktionssystems durch den Sechsten Senat des Bundesarbeitsgerichts versprach es, spannend zu bleiben. So einig wie es manchen schien, sind sich die Senate jedoch nach wie vor nicht. Zwar „antwortete“ der Zweite Senat recht schnell, doch inhaltlich anders als erwartet.

EuGH: Vorabentscheidungsersuchen des Zweiten Senates

So nutzte der Zweite Senat des Bundesarbeitsgericht mit Beschluss vom 01.02.2024 – 2 AS 22/23 die Gelegenheit, den EuGH zu ersuchen, Fragen zur Auslegung der Massenentlassungsrichtlinie zu beantworten und bis zu dessen Entscheidung das Anfrageverfahren des Sechsten Senates auszusetzen.

Ausweislich seines Beschlusses vom 01.02.2024 geht der Zweite Senat von Folgendem aus:

  • Der Zweite Senat hält es in Übereinstimmung mit dem Sechsten Senat für möglich, dass die Nichtigkeit einer ohne ordnungsgemäße Massenentlassungsanzeige erklärten Kündigung nach § 134 BGB – auch unter Beachtung der Vorgaben des Unionsrechts – eine unverhältnismäßige Rechtsfolge darstellt. Jedoch könne er nicht selbst beurteilen, ob Art. 4 MERL in einem solchem Fall die „unrettbare“ Unwirksamkeit der Kündigung verlangt, oder nicht – deshalb sein Vorabentscheidungsersuchen nach Art. 267 AEUV.
  • Geboten ist aus Sicht des Zweiten Senats eine differenzierte Betrachtung: Entscheidend sei, ob der Arbeitgeber von einer erforderlichen Massenentlassungsanzeige gänzlich abgesehen oder eine solche (fehlerhaft) erstattet hat.
  • Dabei geht der Zweite Senat davon aus, dass das Arbeitsverhältnis eines im Zuge einer Massenentlassung gekündigten Arbeitnehmers erst aufgelöst sein kann, wenn die sog. Entlassungssperre nach § 18 KSchG abgelaufen ist. Diese sieht vor, dass anzeigepflichtige Entlassungen grundsätzlich nicht vor Ablauf eines Monats nach Eingang der Anzeige wirksam werden. Der EuGH soll also zum einen darüber entscheiden, ob es einer (fehlerfreien) Massenentlassungsanzeige bedarf, um den Fristbeginn dieser Entlassungssperre auszulösen. Zum anderen wünscht sich der Zweite Senat Klarheit darüber, ob die Entlassungssperre durch eine möglicherweise nachgeholte Massenentlassungsanzeige nachträglich beendet werden kann.
  • Der Zweite Senat vertritt darüber hinaus die Auffassung, dass allein die Agentur für Arbeit die Ordnungsgemäßheit einer arbeitgeberseits erstatteten Massenentlassungsanzeige überprüfen und das Ende der im konkreten Fall eingreifenden Entlassungssperre feststellen soll. Dies soll vom Arbeitnehmer nicht angefochten werden können und von den Arbeitsgerichten als bindend zugrunde zu legen sein.

Fazit

Damit heißt es erneut: „Abwarten“ – Diesmal auf eine Entscheidung des EuGH. Es bleibt aber zu hoffen, dass der EuGH endgültig und umfassend Klarheit zu schaffen vermag.

Germany: Collective redundancy notifications

0
0

German Federal Labour Court: The planned change of direction of the Sixth Senate

In its decision of December 14, 2023 in case 6 AZR 157/22 (B), the Sixth Senate of the German Federal Labour Court, which is responsible for insolvency matters, announced that it would depart from existing case law pursuant to which a dismissal in the context of a collective redundancy pursuant to Section 17 (1) of the German Dismissal Protection Act (Kündigungsschutzgesetz – KSchG) is held to be invalid where a notification pursuant to Section 17 (1), (3) KSchG is missing or incorrect at the time of its declaration. However, deviating from this case law would contradict the established case law of the Second Senate of Germany’s Federal Labor Court, which holds that all notifiable dismissals are invalid in the event of errors in the mass dismissal notification procedure.

As a result, the Sixth Senate in the above-mentioned proceedings asked the Second Senate whether it would adhere to its legal opinion and so stayed the proceedings until the question was answered. The legal question also concerned other proceedings 6 AZR 155/21 (B) and 6 AZR 121/22 (B), which were therefore also stayed.

Background:

  • Where an employer intends to reduce the number of staff above the thresholds set out in Section 17 (1) KSchG and dismiss a corresponding number of employees within 30 calendar days, it is obliged to comply with obligations set out in the legislation, such as informing the works council in accordance with Section 17 (2) KSchG (the consultation procedure) and notifying the competent employment agency of the intended redundancies in accordance with Section 17 (1), (3) KSchG (mass redundancy notification).
  • Implementing these requirements has repeatedly proved to be error-prone and risky for employers. This is particularly important as, according to established case law of the Federal Labor Court, errors in the consultation procedure or in the mass redundancy notification will generally result in the dismissals being held invalid. There are exceptions essentially only where the error in the consultation procedure originates from the works council or errors in the collective redundancy notification relate to information which is not mandatory (Section 17 (3) sentence 5 KSchG).
  • In May 2023, the Sixth Senate of the Federal Labor Court expressed doubts about this system of sanctions developed by case law. In general, sanctions for violations of laws within the meaning of Section 134 of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch – BGB) must satisfy various principles. For example, a sanction shall primarily have a deterrent effect and offer effective legal protection (effet utile). In addition, it must not fall short of measures that the law provides for comparable situations (principle of equivalence). Finally, a sanction must be proportionate, i.e. in particular necessary to achieve its purpose. This is not the case if the severity of an infringement and its legal consequences are not of equal weight.
  • Based on these principles, the Sixth Senate of the Federal Labour Court had doubts as to whether the sanctions in such a dispute was in line with the system of mass redundancy protection as conveyed by the Mass Redundancy Directive (MERL) or whether it was disproportionate, (decision of May 2023 – 6 AZR 157/22 (A) as well as within the proceedings 6 AZR 482/21, 6 AZR 115/22 and 6 AZR 121/22). Those proceedings involved errors in the redundancy notification procedure (not consultation procedure) and were (partially) stayed until the decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in case C-134/22.
  • On July 13, 2023, the ECJ gave its ruling, clarifying that the provision of Art. 2 (3) subpara. 2 MERL (in Germany: Section 17 (3) sentence 1 KSchG) was not intended to provide individual protection for employees affected by collective redundancies. The transmission of information to the competent authority provided for in this provision was for information and preparatory purposes only.

At that time, it remained unclear whether the ECJ’s decision could be considered to have any further significance regarding the scope of individual/collective protection or the scope of protection to be guaranteed by national law. The Sixth Senate of the Federal Labor Court answered this question for itself in December 2023 by announcing its intention to deviate from the previous position, but asked the Second Senate whether it would uphold its previous interpretation of the law. The Second Senate has “answered” quite quickly, but the content was different than expected.

European Court of Justice: Uncertainty of the Second Senate and request for preliminary ruling

On February 1, 2024 (2 AS 22/23), the Second Senate of the German Federal Labour Court took the opportunity to ask the ECJ to answer questions on the interpretation of the Collective Redundancies Directive and to suspend the inquiry proceedings of the Sixth Senate until a decision had been reached.

In its decision of February 1, 2024, the Second Senate set out the following:

  • Agreeing with the Sixth Senate, the Second Senate considers it possible that a dismissal being declared void where there has been a failure in the notification of mass dismissal pursuant to Section 134 BGB constitutes a disproportionate legal consequence. However, it could not itself determine whether or not Art. 4 MERL requires the “irrevocable” invalidity of the termination in such a case – hence its request for a preliminary ruling under Art. 267 TFEU.
  • In the opinion of the Second Senate, a distinction is required between situations where the employer completely refrained from issuing the required mass dismissal notification and those where it incorrectly issued such a notification.
  • The Second Senate assumes that the employment of an employee dismissed in the course of a mass dismissal can only be terminated once ban on dismissals pursuant to Section 18 KSchG has expired. This provision stipulates that notifiable dismissals do not become effective until one month after receipt of the notification. The ECJ must therefore decide whether an (error-free) mass dismissal notification is required to trigger the start of this dismissal ban. In addition, the Second Senate seeks clarity as to whether the ban on dismissals can be ended retroactively by a subsequent correct notification of mass dismissal.
  • The Second Senate is also of the opinion that only the competent employment agency should be able to review whether a mass dismissal notification has been correctly submitted by the employer and so determine the end of the dismissal ban that applies in the specific case. An employee should not be able to contest any such determination and it should also be considered binding by the labor courts.

Conclusion

So once again it’s a case of “wait and see” – this time for a decision from the ECJ. Hope remains, however, that the ECJ will be able to provide final and comprehensive clarity on the issue of German mass dismissals.


Territorial Jurisdiction – where is the employee’s base?

0
0

 

In Yacht Management Company Ltd v Gordon the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld a decision of the Employment Tribunal, that there were numerous factors to support the Tribunal’s conclusion that it had jurisdiction to hear a claim of unfair dismissal brought by the employee because the seafarer’s “base” was her home in Aberdeen, Great Britain despite the fact that her “tours of duty” on the yacht all began and ended outside Great Britain and the yacht did not enter a UK port or UK waters at any time during her employment.

Facts

The employer, Yacht Management Company Ltd (YMC Ltd) is a company registered in Guernsey. It does not carry out any business within the United Kingdom and the majority of YMC Ltd’s business services such as human resources, administration, payroll and management are mainly carried out in either Spain or France.

The employee, Ms Gordon (G) was interviewed virtually in 2019 for the position of “Second Stewardess” with YMC Ltd. The interview was conducted at her home in Aberdeen and those interviewing her were in Germany. G’s employment contract stated that her normal place of work would be on the vessel on voyages worldwide, or wherever required by YMC Ltd for the proper performance of her duties. All of G’s travel expenses between her home and the vessel were paid for by YMC Ltd, in accordance with her contract. G was paid her salary in Euros into a UK bank account and she completed tax returns to HMRC as a resident of Scotland. At no time during G’s employment did the vessel ever enter a UK port or UK waters.

The employment contract between YMC Ltd and G was governed and construed in accordance with the courts of England and Wales and any disputes or claims arising from it would be under the jurisdiction of the England and Wales Courts.

In 2021, YMC Ltd made the decision to make G’s role redundant; this decision was made in Spain and an email was sent to G informing her of her redundancy, this was followed by a letter sent from Spain to her home in Aberdeen. G’s redundancy payment was calculated on the basis of UK law.

Once she had been made redundant, G claimed unfair dismissal and a claim under the Equality Act 2010. At a preliminary hearing to determine territorial jurisdiction, the employment judge recognised that the key question was where the employee’s base was and ultimately concluded that her “base” was Aberdeen, so the Tribunal did have jurisdiction to hear the claim. YMC Ltd appealed this decision.

EAT decision

The EAT relied on previous case law examining territorial jurisdiction applicable to peripatetic employees.  Rather than simply considering the place of work when confirming the “base” of an employee, it is important to consider the entire factual matrix, such as employment contracts, the place of residence and who is paying for travel expenses to and from the place where work begins. In this case the contractual term relating to hours of work suggested that if travelling to the vessel was necessary for the performance of her duties, it was working time.  In addition, the contract provided that the whole costs of journeys to and from the vessel including taxi fares and air fares were met by the employer.  As a result, it was clear that the time spent travelling to and from Aberdeen was working time under the contract and so part of her duties. In addition to the conclusion of where she commenced and ended her duties there were other factors which could be applied under the multi-factor test to determine her base:  the location of her bank account; her accounting to HMRC for tax; the governing law of the contract: the choice of forum for disputes; the basis on which the redundancy pay was calculated; and the employer’s contractual responsibility for all travel expenses incurred between her home and the vessel.  The EAT rejected YMC Ltd’s arguments, refusing the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s decision that G’s claim for unfair dismissal fell under the jurisdiction of England and Wales, despite the vessel never entering UK waters.

What should employers do?

Employers should ensure that they are considering the wider context of an employee’s circumstances which may contribute to where their “base” is considered to be. It is also important to recognise that although an employee may not work in the UK or within UK waters, if the connection between the UK and the employment relationship is “sufficiently strong” then the courts may have jurisdiction over any claim which may arise.

Thank you to Izzy James for help in drafting this blog post.

Employment: What is coming into force in April 2024?

0
0

As we highlighted in our previous post (What to expect in employment law in 2024), 2023 saw the introduction of several significant employment legislative changes. Just to remind you of the changes due to come into effect in April.

Holiday Leave and Pay:

Provisions for irregular hours and part-year workers apply to leave years starting on or after 1 April 2024. These provisions will affect how holiday pay accrues and is carried forward for workers with irregular hours or part-year employment and will allow employers the option to pay rolled-up holiday pay.

Carer’s Leave:

From 6 April 2024, employees will have the right to unpaid leave to care for dependents with long-term care needs, with specific notice provisions and protection against detriment or dismissal.

Rights for Employees on Statutory Leave in Redundancy Situations:

There are amendments to maternity, adoption, and shared parental leave regulations apply to situations where the statutory maternity leave period ends on or after 6 April 2024.  This extends the period over which there is priority for being offered any alternative employment.

Flexible Working:

From 6 April 2024, the requirement for employees to have 26 weeks of continuous employment before requesting flexible working will no longer apply, allowing requests from day one of employment.  Employees will also be entitled to make two flexible working requests in any 12-month period and the employer must notify the worker of the outcome within two months rather than three months.

Paternity Leave:

Changes to paternity leave legislation to grant fathers and partners more flexibility in taking their entitlement to paternity leave will apply to those with children expected to be born or placed for adoption on or after 6 April 2024. The changes will allow the employee to choose to take either one or two week single period of leave or two non-consecutive periods of leave of one week.  It also allows employees to take the leave within a period of leave and changes the notification of the date of leave to 28 days.

Changes to National Minimum Wage (NMW):

From 1 April 2024 there will be the usual increases in the hourly rates of NMW.  The Government has also announced that all workers that the NMW band for 21–22-year-olds will be abolished, with all employees aged 21 and over entitled to an increased National Living Wage of £11.44.

Changes to compensation limits and statutory payments:

From 6 April 2024 there will be an increase to the compensation limits and for certain tribunal awards and other statutory payments. The new limits will increase the limit on a week’s pay from £643 to £700 (which will impact the level of statutory redundancy payment and basic unfair dismissal award); and the maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal is increased from £105,707 to £115,115.

What should employers do?

These changes reflect a comprehensive overhaul of employment legislation, with implications for both employers and employees.  For a reminder of the steps that employers should be taking please see our checklist (Preparing for new employment laws in 2024: an HR checklist | Global Workplace Insider).

Thank you to Salma Khatab for help in drafting this blog post.



Latest Images