In the first of a series, this article examines the impact of the Derby case on how local authorities should apply and charities can claim business rate relief.
Under the Equality Act 2010 (the “Act”) an employer has a duty to make reasonable adjustments to help disabled job applicants, employees and former employees in certain circumstances. It is important to remember however that the statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments will only arise if the individual in question has a disability within the meaning of the Act.
The duty to make reasonable adjustments will, therefore, arise where the employer knows (or ought reasonably to know) that a person has a disability and the disabled person is placed at a substantial disadvantage compared to those who are not disabled by:
- an employer’s provision, criterion or practice;
- a physical feature of the employer’s premises; or
- an employer’s failure to provide an auxiliary aid.
If the above applies, the employer must take such steps as it is reasonable to take to avoid the disadvantage. The EHRC Employment Statutory Code of Practice, which Employment Tribunals must take into account if it appears relevant, contains a non-exhaustive list of potential adjustments that employers might need to make to avoid any such disadvantage. One of the possible adjustments highlighted is “transferring the disabled person to fill an existing vacancy”.
In the case of G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd v Powell, EAT considered the extent to which an employer may be required to maintain a disabled employee’s existing salary level when transferring them to a new role, as a reasonable adjustment.
Mr Powell worked for G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd (G4S) as a single-line maintenance engineer. He suffered with back pain, and in 2012 it was confirmed that he was no longer fit for jobs involving heavy lifting or work in confined spaces – it was accepted that in the circumstances he was disabled under the Act.
After a period of sickness absence, Mr Powell began to work as a key runner, a new role created by G4S supporting a single-line maintenance engineer. When Mr Powell was moved into this role, he retained his existing salary as a single-line maintenance engineer. No formal agreements were entered into, but Mr Powell understood the change of role to be long-term.
In 2013, G4S was considering discontinuing the key runner role for organisational reasons, and Mr Powell was to look through a list of alternative vacancies. Subsequently, G4S decided to make the key runner role permanent, but at a lower rate of pay to reflect the fact that it did not require engineering skills. Mr Powell did not accept the proposed salary reduction and therefore was dismissed from his employment. Mr Powell issued a claim that there had been an agreed variation to his contract of employment when he started the key runner role that entitled him to his original salary on a permanent basis.
The EAT decision
The Employment Tribunal determined that G4S was required, as a reasonable adjustment under the Act, to employ Mr Powell as a key runner at his original rate of pay. This decision was appealed by G4S to EAT, who upheld the Employment Tribunal’s decision. EAT found that the Employment Tribunal was entitled to conclude that under the circumstances of this case G4S was required, as a reasonable adjustment, to continue employing Mr Powell in a more junior role involving less physical activity, preserving his existing rate of pay on an indefinite basis.
EAT highlighted, however, that whether or not pay protection would constitute a reasonable adjustment as part of a package of measures needed to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
The effect of this decision is that protecting a disabled employee’s pay when they are re-deployed should always be considered, and should not be automatically discounted. The reasonableness of potential adjustments must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The question will always be whether it is reasonable for the employer in question to have to take that step. The financial considerations will always have to be weighed in the balance by the employer against the financial and other resources available to it. It is therefore not the case that pay protection needs to be offered by all employers in all the circumstances. Councils with positive employment practices should take particular note of their obligations in this regard.
“Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2018/19” published by the CQC, has found that although improvements have been made, healthcare services need to do more to comply with their human rights duties.
The IPPR North report says that this Parliament must be the “Devolution Parliament” to truly “level up” the country.
On 20 January 2020, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) issued Advice for Building Owners of Multi-storey, Multi-occupied Residential Buildings.
The Society for Computers and Law (SCL) has introduced an Adjudication Scheme for IT Projects and Services.
The board of a housing services company was reportedly dismissed in December 2019 following the discovery of a variety of safety and hygiene issues in the properties they manage.
The Heat Network (Metering and Billing) Regulations 2014 (the Regulations) place certain responsibilities on anyone supplying and charging for heating, cooling or hot water (the heat supplier).
In our latest Company Secretary Update, we focus on the Queen’s Speech over Christmas and the recommendations and commitments in relation to housing.
So after two days of legal argument, the Supreme Court have now retired to reach their decision in the joined cases of Tomlinson-Blake v the Royal Mencap Society and Shannon v Rampersad.
Anthony Collins Solicitors has revealed details of its annual social impact, including advising on funding deals for building 19,603 new homes and setting up 90 new charities.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.