Prior to the general election, the Government announced that it had accepted the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission (LPC) on new rates for the National Minimum Wage (NMW) that will come into force on 1 October 2010.

As announced last year, the adult rate of the NMW is to be extended to 21-year-olds when the new rates come into effect.

The revised rates are as follows:

" The adult hourly rate of the NMW will increase from £5.80 to £5.93;
" The development rate (which will cover workers aged 18-20 years) will increase from £4.83 to £4.92; and
" The rate for workers aged 16 and 17 will increase from £3.57 to £3.64.

The Government also announced that it had accepted the LPC's recommendation to introduce an apprentice minimum wage of £2.50 per hour. The new rate will apply to those apprentices who are under 19 or those who are aged 19 and over but in the first year of their apprenticeship.

In addition, the LPC recommended that there should be specific guidance on the NMW for the entertainment sector and that HM Revenue and Customs should investigate whether contract and agency cleaners in the hotel sector are receiving their entitlement under the NMW Regulations for their hours worked.

From 1 October 2010, the accommodation offset will rise from £4.51 per day to £4.61.

Compromise Agreements and Independent Legal Advice

There are specific rules that normally apply when an employer makes a settlement by way of a compromise agreement in order to prevent an employee from taking action on a particular matter at the Employment Tribunal (ET) at a future date. One such rule is that for the agreement to be valid, the employee must have received independent legal advice.

In McWilliam and others v Glasgow City Council, the Scottish ET ruled as to what constitutes advice in this context.

Faced with a large number of equal pay claims, Glasgow City Council wished to settle the claims by reaching compromise agreements with the employees concerned. To this end, it made arrangements with local law firms to act for the claimants. The participating law firms gave presentations and held group advisory sessions informing the employees of the terms and effect of the compromise agreements and the full settlement offer. The employees were also offered one-to-one consultations, but the solicitors made it clear that they could not advise individual employees as to whether or not it was a good idea for them to sign their agreement.

Even though they had reached compromise agreements with their employer, Mrs McWilliam and several other employees tried to bring equal pay claims against the Council that related to the specific period covered by the agreements. Their contention was that the advice they had been given before signing the agreements did not constitute independent legal advice.

The ET disagreed. In its view, all that is required to satisfy the requirements of Section 77 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is that the claimant is advised what the terms of the compromise agreement are and what is their effect. It is not necessary for the advice to include an assessment of whether or not the offered agreement is a good deal. Whilst it is clearly desirable that the advice given enables the employee to make an informed decision, that is not what Section 77 requires. The advice given in this case was therefore legally valid and the ET had no jurisdiction to hear equal pay claims relating to the period covered by the compromise agreements.

The ET was also satisfied on the question of the independence of the solicitors instructed by the Council. It found that even though the Council paid their fees -
a situation that is not uncommon when a compromise agreement is reached - the facts of the case showed that the payments were for advice given to the employees, not the Council, and there was no question that the advice given was not impartial.

If you are contemplating entering into a compromise agreement, we can advise you to ensure that all relevant claims are compromised.

Time Off Work for Public Duties

Employers have a statutory duty to allow their employees reasonable time off work to carry out public duties. Such duties include acting as a justice of the peace, as a prison visitor, as a member of a local authority or relevant health or education body, as a member of a police authority etc. A full list can be found in the Employment Rights Act 1996, Section 50.

If you are faced with a request for time off work to carry out public duties, the amount of time you allow the employee to take, when the time is taken and subject to what conditions must be 'reasonable in all the circumstances'. When reaching your decision, three specific questions should be asked. These are:

" how much time off is needed for the employee to perform the duty in question and how much time is needed to perform the duties of the office overall?

" how much time off for public duties has the employee already been granted?

" what is the effect on your business of the employee taking the time off work?

If you refuse a request, an employee generally has three months in which to present a complaint to the Employment Tribunal (ET). If the ET finds that the refusal was not reasonable given all the circumstances, it has the power to award 'just and equitable' compensation.

For further information or help, please contact Natalie Bell.