4 Day Working Week
Further to our article on the fact that the Scottish Government is to launch a £10 million pilot scheme in order to trial a 4 day working week, a 6 month trial has now been launched by the campaign group, 4 Day Week Global, which is being run in conjunction with Oxford and Cambridge academics and others.
Six companies have joined the 4 day working week trial so far, with organisers hoping to recruit a total of 30 employers in total.
Under the 6 month trial, employees of the participating employers would work a 4 day working week without the loss of any pay, to determine whether the 4 day working week brought about an increase in productivity, as well as improvements in health, wellbeing, work life balance, and staff retention
Commenting on the 4 day working week trial, Brendan Burchell, a social sciences professor at Cambridge University, stated: “With the social and environmental benefits of the shorter working week becoming clearer, grassroots support more widespread, and technology available to maintain productivity, the time has come for more organisations to take the leap and unravel the practicalities.”
The 4 day working week pilot programme manager for 4 Day Week Global, Joe O’Connor, added that the 4 day working week “challenges the current model of work and helps companies move away from simply measuring how long people are ‘at work’, to a sharper focus on the output being produced. 2022 will be the year that heralds in this bold new future of work.”
Flexible Working Tribunal Cases Increase By 52%
As we highlighted in a recent article, the employment tribunal backlog has now reached the highest level in a decade, with Claimant’s now having to wait 14 months on average for their case to reach a tribunal hearing.
One type of case that has seen a large increase in the numbers that have been commenced in the employment tribunal is in relation to flexible working. According to GQ Littler, the number of flexible working cases increased from 127 in 2019/20 to 193 in 2020/21, an increase of 51.97%. Much of the increase in the number of flexible working claims is likely to have been fuelled by employees who have been working from home either on a part-time or full-time basis during the Covid-19 pandemic, who do not now wish to return to full time office working for a number of reasons, such as caring responsibilities, medical conditions, etc
The Forstater Case: EAT To Rule On Two Further Cases With Similar Issues
Following the ruling in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in the case of Maya Forstater v CGD Europe and Others: UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ, that gender-critical views constitute protected beliefs, two cases containing similar issues are due to be heard by the EAT soon.
The first of these two cases is the case of Mrs K Higgs v Farmor’s School: 1401264/2019. The Claimant in this case was unsuccessful at first instance in arguing that she was directly discriminated against on the grounds of religion or belief, and that she was harassed. Nevertheless, the Tribunal decision predated the Forstater ruling in the EAT.
Employment judge Derek Reed held at first instance at the Bristol Employment Tribunal that the dismissal "was the result of a genuine belief on the part of the school that she had committed gross misconduct"
Nevertheless, the Claimant, Mrs Higgs, launched an immediate appeal to the EAT, with the assistance of the Christian Legal Centre. In setting out her reasons for appealing, Mrs Higgs, stated: “I strongly maintain that I lost my job because of my Christian beliefs, beliefs which our society does not appear to tolerate or even understand anymore….These views were compared to that of a ‘pro-Nazi right wing extremist’, which is highly offensive to me and millions of Christians across the world…. I have to continue to fight for justice so that no one else has to go through what I have.”
The second case is the case of Dr David Mackereth v The Department for Work and Pensions and Advanced Personnel Management Group (UK) Ltd: 1304602/2018. That Claimant was unsuccessful in arguing at first instance that he was directly and indirectly discriminated against on the grounds of religion or belief, and that he was harassed. Again, however, the Tribunal decision predates the Forstater ruling of the EAT
At first instance in the Birmingham Employment Tribunal, Employment Judge Perry held: “Irrespective of our determinations above, all three heads, belief in Genesis 1:27, lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism in our judgment are incompatible with human dignity and conflict with the fundamental rights of others, specifically here, transgender individuals.”
The Claimant, Dr Mackereth immediately launched an appeal to the EAT, with the assistance of the Christian Legal Centre.
Commenting on the appeal, Roger Kiska from the Christian Legal Centre, stated that the Forstater Judgment has “far reaching consequences…. one of the key elements that both Dr Mackereth and Maya Forstater’s cases share is that the ET refused to recognise the belief that sex is determined at birth and that transgender people therefore cannot change sex was not worthy of respect in a democratic society. On this point alone, Dr Makcereth’s case should be remitted back to the ET."
Kiska added: "In fact, what was particularly shocking in the ET’s treatment of the Mackereth case was that it specially found that Dr Mackereth’s belief in Genesis 1:27 and God’s creation order was not worthy of respect in a democratic society. The Forstater judgment also assists Dr Mackereth by holding that the lack of belief in ‘gender identity belief’ is protected. Arguably, the DWP was trying to compel Dr Mackereth to acquiesce to these beliefs or lose his job.”
