Employment Edit: 17 October 2024

Employment Rights Bill

After its publication last week, the Employment Rights Bill continues to dominate the headlines in the HR and People space. For a recap of which of Labour’s proposals made it into the Bill and which were left out, you can find our initial briefing below.

Over the next few weeks, we’re going to provide more in-depth analysis of the proposals and what they mean for employers. Watch this space for our deeper dive updates on the Bill, designed to help you and your business navigate the changes ahead. In the meantime, if you would like to discuss how the Bill might impact your business, please contact Luke Bowery or your usual employment team contact.

‘This Bill means business’

On the topic of the Employment Rights Bill, Luke Bowery was pleased to contribute to a Personnel Today article exploring the impact of the Bill. Luke has also been quoted in The Times and featured in ‘legal comment of the week’ in Edward Fennell’s Legal Diary.

Preventing sexual harassment

The new duty for employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment at work comes into force in less than two weeks so the clock is ticking on employers’ preparations for this important change in the law. As it is a proactive duty, employers need to anticipate scenarios when their workers may be subject to sexual harassment and take pre-emptive action to prevent harassment from taking place.In our latest briefing, we look at the new duty and what employers can do to prepare.

Don’t forget to check out our short video, in which Huw Cooke discusses five key things you need to know about the new duty. We have also posted a new blog post, in which we pick out some important additions and clarifications contained in the updated EHRC technical guidance on sexual harassment and harassment at work.

Baldness comment was harassment related to sex

The EAT has upheld a male employee’s claim that he was subjected to harassment related to sex when a colleague called him a ‘bald [expletive]’ during an argument.

In order for a harassment claim to be made out, the unwanted conduct needs to be ‘related to the protected characteristic’ – in this case, sex. The respondent argued that the baldness comment was not ‘related to’ the claimant’s sex, as both men and woman may be bald. The tribunal rejected the respondent’s argument, noting that baldness is much more prevalent in men and that it is much more likely that the person on the receiving end of a remark about baldness would be male.

On appeal, the EAT upheld the harassment claim. It found that the tribunal was right to recognise that baldness is more prevalent in men and to conclude therefore that the comment was inherently related to sex. The EAT confirmed that the subject matter of the unwanted conduct does not need to be something that is exclusive to the person’s sex. The fact that someone of the opposite sex may share the same feature does not automatically defeat a harassment claim.

(British Bung Manufacturing Company Ltd and another v Finn)