Hand Morgan & Owen Employment Bulletin – October 2016

Hand Morgan & Owen Employment Bulletin – October 2016


ACAS has produced an excellent publication for those who are looking to employ under 18s.

Some headline points include;

• Young workers should not normally work at night – there are some exceptions
• Young workers should not work more than 8 hours a day and 40 hours per week
• They should have a rest of at least 30 minutes if their working day lasts more than 4.5 hours
• They must have 12 hours of rest between daily shifts
• They are entitled to 2 days off per week.

Note also that young people who have not achieved a level 3 in training must stay in education or training at least part time until they are 18 years old.

This training requirement can be met by;

• Full time education
• Full time training
• Work based learning for example an apprenticeship
• Educational training which is work based.

For more detail upon the working time regulations, night work limits, equality and health and safety relating specifically to younger workers go to the ACAS website and seek Employing younger workers – an ACAS guide which may be downloaded.


Daniel Barnett Barrister has published a case summary prepared by Ed McFarlane upon the case of G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd v Powell. In this case the Employment Appeal Tribunal came down in favour of a disabled employee in his claim that his employer had failed in the duty to make reasonable adjustments.

The employer had moved the employee from an engineering role maintaining cash machines to a less skilled position. Subsequently the employer intimated that it was going to reduce the employee’s pay. The Claimant refused to accept this amendment and the Employment Tribunal and subsequently the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the principle of making reasonable adjustments extended to maintaining pay at the level of an engineer rather than the less skilled role. However the Tribunal emphasised that the assessment of a reasonable adjustment will be fact based and the decision is not a one size fits all solution.


Barrister Barnaby Large of No. 18 Barristers Chambers brings to the attention of Daniel Barnett the case of Arriva London North Ltd v Maseya a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

In this case Arriva managed to overturn the finding of the Employment Tribunal that their case was struck out. In its Judgment, however, the Employment Tribunal emphasised that it was possible for, in this case a defence, to be struck out if the proceedings had been conducted in a scandalous and unreasonable manner.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal emphasised that such a striking out would be a weapon of last resort and the Tribunal should ask itself whether the party’s conduct had rendered a fair trial impossible.


We have written in earlier bulletins about protected conversations and we are indebted to Ed McFarlane bringing to the attention of Daniel Barnett a significant decision in the Employment Tribunal on protected conversations.

In the case of Faithorn Farrell Timms LLP v Bailey whether evidence could be heard was debated in the context of common law “without prejudice” principles and “protected conversations” under section 111A of the Employment Relations Act.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal reiterated that the law relating to without prejudice discussions did not apply to protected conversations. Also that the law relating to protected conversations related to unfair dismissal claims only.

Further it held that the protection of section 111A went as far as the fact of the conversations taking place as well as the content. When section 111A applies the protection is therefore much greater than protection afforded by the common law on the without prejudice principle.
11 October 2016
If you would like to read other articles, fact sheets and bulletins on Employment Law go to our Employment page.

For advice and assistance in respect of Employment matters contact Patrick Nelson, Associate on 01785 211411.

The contents of this article are for the purpose of general awareness only. They do not purport to constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this article was published. Readers should not act on the basis of the information included and should take appropriate professional advice upon their own particular circumstances.

Posted in: