Hall v Xerox UK Limited
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) has decided it is not a breach of the Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 for an employer to purchase income replacement insurance that may not pay out to a fixed-term employee in circumstances where it would to a permanent employee.
The insurance provided income protection for employees who were off work for 26 weeks. But those on fixed-term contracts ceased to be members of the scheme at the end of their term. The Claimant was injured on 12th April 2012 and his contract ended on 20th July. Although his contract was extended, the insurer concluded that he had exited the scheme on the 20th July. He was therefore worse off than a permanent employee and brought a claim under the Fixed-Term Regulations.
Both the employment tribunal and EAT concluded that the act that disadvantaged the Claimant was that of the insurer, not the employer. For there to be less favourable treatment under the act, there must be an act or omission by the employer. In the alternative, the Claimant argued that the insurer was acting as the employer's agent. However, the EAT said that the insurer was unable to affect the employer's relations with others. Nor did it fulfil any of the employer’s obligations to its employees. It also fell well short of creating an agency relationship.
At Frettens, all of our solicitors offer a free initial meeting or chat on the phone to answer your questions. If this article raises issues for you or your business, please call us on 01202 499255 and Kate or Paul will be happy to discuss it with you.
Comments