Who is the employer required to consult? Under the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consultation by Employers and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/349 (the Pension Consultation Regs), employers must consult with either: • representatives of members affected by the proposed pension changes ('affected members'), or • the affected members directly However, the Pension Consultation Regs have been drafted in such a way that the second option (ie direct consultation with affected members) is only available if: • the affected members have no representatives, whether: ◦ under existing arrangements, ie in the form of: ‣ recognised trade union representatives ‣ representatives who have been elected or appointed under the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations, SI 2004/3426, or ‣ representatives under an agreement between the employer and employees, or

The current system of civil and criminal penalties for employers who hire illegal workers covers employment commenced from 29 February 2008 under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (IANA 2006) (although there have been various changes to the regime since then). A person is an illegal worker if they are a person aged 16 or over who require leave to enter or remain under the Immigration Act 1971 and: • they have not been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK • their leave to enter or remain is not valid or has ceased

Prior to the decision of the High Court in Chhabra v West London Mental Health NH Trust, the position was always considered to be that it was an employer’s choice whether or not to pursue disciplinary proceedings. The remedy available to the employee for disciplinary proceedings that were wrongly or unfairly pursued lay after the event (ie the dismissal) with claims for unfair and wrongful dismissal and, if appropriate, for discrimination. However, the High Court in the Chhabra case was prepared to grant an injunction preventing the NHS Trust from pursuing gross misconduct proceedings and, indeed, preventing the pursuit of any disciplinary proceedings until a freshly-constituted investigation had been conducted. This was on the basis of the High Court’s assessment that Dr Chhabra’s conduct, even if proven, was not sufficiently serious to warrant summary dismissal, and given various significant procedural breaches. The decision

Under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), an employer cannot make any deductions from the wages of a worker unless: • the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of: ◦ a statutory provision, eg the requirement to make deductions for income tax or National Insurance contributions via Pay As You Earn, or ◦ a relevant provision of the worker's contract, eg where the employer provides a loan to the worker and has a contractual right to take money out of the worker's wages in repayment, or • the worker has previously signified in writing their agreement or consent to the deduction (ERA 1996, s 13(1)) Statutory sick pay (SSP) and statutory maternity pay (SMP) are included in the definition of ‘wages’

The statutory protection against deductions under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), s 13 can apply only to any deductions from 'wages'. For these purposes, ‘wages’ are defined as any sums payable to the worker in connection with his employment: • including those listed in section 27(1), ERA 1996 • excluding those listed in section 27(2), ERA 1996 Subsection 27(2)(d) ERA 1996 specifically excludes 'any payment referable to the worker's redundancy' from the definition of ‘wages’ for these purposes. It follows that the statutory protection against deductions under ERA 1996, s 13 does not

The statutory entitlement to holiday under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR 1998), SI 1998/1833 is to a total of 5.6 weeks’ annual leave each ‘leave year’, made up of: • a basic entitlement to a minimum of four weeks’ annual leave (20 days for a regular full-time worker) each leave year, implementing the right to annual leave under the Working Time Directive, Directive 2003/88/EC • an additional entitlement to 1.6 weeks’ annual leave (eight days for a regular full-time worker) each leave year, which is a right under domestic legislation only In the first year of an individual’s employment, this holiday entitlement is subject both to the pro-rata provisions of WTR 1998, SI 1998/1833, regs 13(5) and 13A(5), and the accrual provisions of WTR 1998, SI 1998/1833, reg 15A. In

Conduct is a potentially fair reason for dismissal under section 98(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996). In order to dismiss fairly for conduct, the conduct does not have to be of any particular character. It does not have to be 'reprehensible' or even 'culpable', and may cover a very wide range of potential wrongs, which may usefully be categorised into four distinct categories: • a refusal to obey a lawful and reasonable order of the employer • an infringement of the employer's disciplinary standards (this may constitute conduct which is either contrary to the organisation's disciplinary rules, or which otherwise contravenes the standards of behaviour commonly required by employers) • the commission of criminal offences, and • concealing offences in the past For further information, see Practice Note: Reason for dismissal—conduct. The Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures sets out basic principles of fairness when dealing with disciplinary (and grievance) matters. According to the Code, fairness and transparency are promoted

The answer to this will depend on why the employer wishes to dismiss the employee and the extent to which the employer wants to protect himself against what potentially could be very expensive claims by the employee—see Special protection for pregnant employees below. An employer may be able to dismiss, provided the reason for the dismissal, or for the proposed selection for redundancy (directly or indirectly and taking a broad view) is not the pregnancy or the fact that the employee will be taking maternity leave—see Establishing the reason for the dismissal/selection below. Some employers fall into the trap of trying to ‘dress up’ a dismissal as ostensibly for another reason, eg misconduct or poor performance or as a redundancy, when the reality is that the pregnancy has affected their motivation to some extent. Bear in mind that a decision to dismiss a pregnant employee will come under particular scrutiny if the matter comes before a tribunal. In practical terms, it may be simpler for the employer to hedge his bets about,

An employer always retains the right to terminate an employee's contract of employment. However, the circumstances in which the dismissal occurs will determine whether the employee has any potential legal claims that it may bring. In the circumstances of this question it is important to consider the risk of possible claims for: • unfair dismissal • breach of contract (ie wrongful dismissal), and • discrimination (ie prohibited conduct under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) Risk of unfair dismissal claim As to unfair dismissal, the right not to be unfairly dismissed will generally only arise when the employee, by the effective date of termination of their employment, has been continuously employed for a period of at least two years. However: • there are many exceptions to this requirement, eg there is no qualifying period if the reason or principal reason for dismissal is that the employee made a protected disclosure • where an employee is dismissed

It is possible to dismiss an employee while they are on long-term sick leave, but particular attention must be paid to the justification for the dismissal, the way it is implemented and its timing, to avoid claims such as unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. This answer assumes that the employee does not have a pregnancy- or maternity-related illness and that the real reason for dismissal is genuinely the long-term absence. See Reason for dismissal—capability. The following Practice Notes are particularly relevant: • Dealing with long-term or chronic sickness • Dealing with stress and mental ill health in the workplace Key points to consider at an early stage Key points that an employer who is considering dismissal should address include to: • make sure the absence is properly documented • consider the cause of the absence—is it work-related? • follow any existing sickness policies/procedures and Acas Guidance • check if early retirement or any PHI benefits may be available, as alternatives to dismissal • consider the actual impact of the absence on the employer's

An organisation with a sponsor licence must comply with a number of duties and responsibilities to maintain their ability to sponsor Tier 2 migrant workers. For further information, see Practice Note: Sponsor duties under Tiers 2 and 5 and adapting human resources systems. When sponsoring migrant workers, employers can either assign a ‘restricted’ or an ‘unrestricted’ Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) to the migrant. See Practice Note: Sponsoring a Skilled Worker. The Home Office guidance ‘Tier 2 and 5 of the points-based system: guidance for sponsors’ states at paragraph 15.16 that: ‘Some Tier 2 (General) migrants are subject to an annual limit. You must apply for a “restricted certificate of sponsorship (CoS)”

UK work permission is only required for work which is undertaken from inside of the UK. Therefore, whether or not the migrant is already working for the sponsor remotely from overseas should not impact on the success of any UK Skilled Worker visa application. Employers will of course need to factor in any tax or immigration considerations in relation to the country where the remote working is being carried out, as outlined in Practice Note Working remotely outside the UK—considerations for UK employers, and