1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

Vento bands increase announced

The Presidents of the Employment Tribunals in England & Wales and Scotland have issued new guidance updating the bands of awards for “injury to feelings”, in the event that employees suffer from discrimination in the workplace.

The compensation available for injury to feelings is divided into four categories, depending on the seriousness of the discrimination that occurred, known as the Vento bands. The increased Vento bands, which will be effective for any claims issued on or after 6 April 2018, will be as follows: £900 to £8,600 for less serious cases (the lower band), £8,600 to £25,700 for serious cases (the middle band) and £25,700 to £42,900 for the most serious cases (the upper band). Compensation over £42,900 can be awarded by the Employment Tribunal in exceptional cases.

This increase should act as a reminder for employers to make sure that they are taking all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination in the workplace, including implementing up-to-date equal opportunities and anti-bullying and harassment policies, and carrying out regular diversity training.

Vento bands increase announced

Tribunal cases on the rise

Tribunal cases have risen by two thirds since July this year, when the Supreme Court abolished tribunal fees in the landmark case of R (on the application of Unison) v. Lord Chancellor. That's an increase of 66 per cent.
Read more »
Tribunal cases on the rise

Timing and permission to amend an ET1

In the recent case of Galilee v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis the EAT held that the doctrine of 'relation back', whereby amendments take effect from the date of the original document which it amended, does not apply in the tribunal.
Read more »
Timing and permission to amend an ET1

Uber appeals to Supreme Court

Uber presented its application to the Supreme Court to appeal the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision that its drivers are workers and should have associated rights.
Read more »
Uber appeals to Supreme Court

Tribunal fee refund scheme is now open

Further to the Supreme Court decision in R (on the application of Unison) v. Lord Chancellor, which held tribunal fees were unlawful, the government has announced that the first claimants eligible for fee refunds will be able to apply from today. The government has also confirmed that fee refunds will include an interest payment of 0.5 per cent.
Read more »
Tribunal fee refund scheme is now open

Supreme Court rules that embassy staff are not excluded by state immunity

In the recent case of Benkharbouche v. Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs & Anor the Supreme Court agreed with the EAT and the Court of Appeal and unanimously held that sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) of the State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA) cannot protect embassies from Employment Tribunal claims brought by domestic staff in the UK.
Read more »
Supreme Court rules that embassy staff are not excluded by state immunity

President of the Employment Tribunals announces increase in the Vento Bands

Following a recent consultation, the President of the Employment Tribunals has announced a rise in the compensation that employees can recover for 'injury to feelings', in the event that they suffer from discrimination in the workplace.
Read more »
President of the Employment Tribunals announces increase in the Vento Bands

Tribunal fees are unlawful: extension of time granted

Following the Supreme Court's decision in R (on the application of Unison) v. Lord Chancellor (Unison) there was speculation as to whether there would be an influx of applications requesting an extension of time on the basis that, if it were not for the illegal fees, the cases would have been brought in time. The first of these cases has now been brought.
Read more »
Tribunal fees are unlawful: extension of time granted

Supreme Court holds Employment Tribunal fees unlawful

It's rare for employment law to make "breaking news" headlines (unless you count President Trump's attacks on his own staff). But that's what happened, if briefly, with yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court that the Employment Tribunal fees regime introduced controversially in 2013 was unlawful.
Read more »
Supreme Court holds Employment Tribunal fees unlawful

Can employees doing different work bring their equal pay claims on the same claim form?

In the recent decision of Farmah & ors v. Birmingham City Council & ors, the EAT held that claimants could not bring equal pay claims on the same ET1 form where they were carrying out different work. Rule 9 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 (the Rules) states that two or more claimants “may make their claims on the same claim form if their claims are based on the same set of facts”.

Three of the appellants were retail staff doing different jobs in supermarkets and claiming that they were performing equal work to men working in distribution centres. The women all included their claims in the same claim form. Some of the affected men argued in the same ET1 that, if the women were successful, they did equal work with the female claimants. The remaining two appellants undertook different jobs in local government and claimed their work was equal to that of men performing a variety of jobs. The respondents argued that the claims should be struck out on the basis that they did not comply with Rule 9 of the Rules.

The EAT found the fact that the claimants were performing different work and, even if based on the same comparator, did not satisfy the definition under Rule 9 of the Rules. Therefore, the use of a single claim form was in breach of Rule 9. Under Rule 6 of the Rules, wrongly including claims by two or more claimants in the same claim form is an irregularity and the Tribunal is a permitted to “take such action as it considers just” as a consequence, up to and including striking out the claims.

The full case report can be found here: Farmah & ors v Birmingham City Council & ors.

Can employees doing different work bring their equal pay claims on the same claim form?