In this month’s alert we pick up on the latest guidance for employers on reducing the spread of COVID-19 and other respiratory illnesses.
Away from COVID-19 developments, we have seen several cases concerning privacy and confidentiality of documents, as well as a helpful Court of Appeal case for employers regarding detriment which falls short of dismissal for taking industrial action.
One other development to make readers aware of is that the Government has confirmed that mandatory pay gap reporting will not be introduced. Instead, guidance on voluntary ethnicity pay gap reporting will be published this summer with the aim of helping employers address some of the challenges around how to cut the data for ethnic groups to enable meaningful pay gap reporting.
1. New Government guidance: COVID-19 testing in adult social care
2. Privacy and confidentiality: Expectation of privacy in respect of criminal investigations
The Supreme Court has confirmed that an individual who is the subject of a criminal investigation will usually have a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the investigation until he or she is charged.
3. Industrial action: Protection from suffering a detriment for participating in industrial action
Overturning an EAT judgment, the Court of Appeal has held that UK legislation cannot be read as giving protection to employees against suffering detriment which falls short of dismissal for taking industrial action.
4. Privacy and confidentiality: No privacy in personal emails sent on business email accounts
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal in unsuccessful proceedings for misuse of private information and breach of confidence where an employee had sent personal emails from a business email account.
5. The press and employment tribunal proceedings: Employer ordered to provide tribunal documents to a journalist months after the hearing
The EAT has ordered an employer to provide copies of skeleton arguments, witness statements and other tribunal documents to the Guardian newspaper months after the hearing had ended.
6. Victimisation: “Detriment” should be given a wide meaning
The EAT has held that a tribunal should have interpreted the meaning of “detriment” widely when considering if a claimant has suffered victimisation.
