Employment E-Missive No.9
-------------------------

by Charles Price, LLB.(hons)LLM, barrister

Pendragon Chambers,
Swansea
SA1 5RG
Tel: (01792) 411188
Fax: (01792 411189
DX 39572, Swansea

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Charles Price specialises in employment and personal injury law and
practises across England and Wales.
This e-mail is for academic purposes only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

1)Sunday Premiums May Breach Discrimination Law
2)Data Protection - Restrictions on Right to Demand Information
3)Practise Matters


Employers Who Pay Sunday Premiums Risk Breach of Religious Discrimination
Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

With the present low unemployment, employers are finding themselves offering
incentives to attract the Sunday worker. They often do this by paying wage
premiums to staff. Employers, however should be aware however, that in doing
so they may be acting in breach of the new religious discrimination laws.

Sunday premiums on the Christian Sabbath day could be unlawful if an
employer fails to treat others with different religious Sabbath days the
same way.

From 2 December, UK employers will no longer be able to discriminate,
directly or indirectly, on the grounds of religious belief, similar
philosophical belief or sexual orientation in employment and vocational
training. The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, SI
2003/1660 also prevent victimisation and harassment in the employment field
by reason of "any religion, religious belief,". Sunday pay premiums could
certainly be regarded as direct or indirect discrimination.

Accordingly, this argument applies equally to premiums paid to employees who
work on Christmas day. If an employer does not pay premiums to other
employees with different religious beliefs for days they work which have
special significance in their particular faiths, they could be breaking the
law.

Regulations (click on: http://www.hmso.gov.uk


Other Areas Covered Under the Regulations:
----------------------------------------------

Section 26 also expressly states that Seikhs do not have to wear safety hats
on building sites.

Section 12 makes it unlawful for a barrister or barrister's clerk, in
relation to a pupil or tenant in the set of chambers in question, to
discriminate against him for his or her religious beliefs or(a)in respect of
any terms applicable to him as a pupil or tenant.


Right to Demand Personal Information Hit
-------------------------------------------
Durant v Financial Services Authority COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)8th
December 2003
[2003] EWCA Civ 1746

Since the emergence of the Data Protection Act 1988, individuals have had
carte-blanche to demand any information, which simply refers to them or
contains their name. This has been a revelation for many, who previously
have had difficulty in discovering exactly what a information a data
controller had about them. On the other hand, the new law has been abused by
those who simply wanted to delay legal proceedings by burdening their
ex-employer with the often colossal task of collecting from the archives any
information, which happened to refer to the employee. The Court of Appeal
recently determined the scope of the Data Protection Act 1998 in the case
of, Durant v Financial Services Authority.

This case provides guidance on the extent to which employers are obliged to
provide copies of employees' 'personal data'. In essence it drastically
curtails the right of employees to demand information by means of a data
protection request. Mere mention of a subject's name in a document does not
make the information in that document 'personal data'. For the disclosure
obligation to arise, the information must be significantly biographical and
should have the data subject as its focus. In this case, information stored
by the FSA concerning a complaint by Mr Durant about Barclays Bank was
deemed as not constituting personal data which the FSA was obliged to
disclose to Mr Durant (paras 26-28). Mummery LJ described Mr Durant's
application and appeal as "misconceived".

Durant v Financial Services Authority
CApp. (CIVIL DIVISION)8th December 2003
[2003] EWCA Civ 1746

http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2136/durant-v-fsa.htm


Practise Matters - Easy Access Expert Witness Directory
-------------------------------------------------------

www.witnessdirectory.com was inaugurated in 1999 to offer solicitors a free
source of expert witnesses, Witness Directory is now one of the fastest
growing expert directories on the web. Lawyers from around the world visit
WitnessDirectory.com in order to locate the world's most knowledgeable
experts. It now ranks at the top of major search engines such as Alta Vista
and Yahoo.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

This e-mail is sent to over 300 employment lawyers. Please contact me if
another employment lawyer would like this service or if you have any other
comments!