Employment Law Birmingham News

For free initial advice on all aspects of employment law, contact us today.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Login
Subscribe to this list via RSS Blog posts tagged in Discrimination Advice Lawyers Birmingham

A new report on why employment rates for people with schizophrenia remain so low (8% compared to the national average of 71%) and how these can be overcome has been published by The Work Foundation.

A lack of understanding, stigma, fear and discrimination towards people with schizophrenia are needlessly preventing tens of thousands of people from finding or keeping jobs.

The report outlines a detailed set of interventions that would help reduce the barriers to work and highlights how work brings clear health benefits to people with schizophrenia.

Those in paid employment are over five times more likely to achieve functional remission than those who are unemployed or in unpaid employment. The research conducted for the report shows people with a history of the condition are able and willing to work.

Sir Robin Murray, Chair of the Schizophrenia Commission said: “The picture of the jobs market, and the way it works against people with severe mental illness in the UK, is not pretty. But the report is ultimately optimistic because it indicates very clearly that the solutions to this problem are known, and that good practice exists.

“Our challenge is to embrace the lessons from this report and to redouble our efforts to support people living with schizophrenia to find their rightful place in the world of work.”

New figures from the Chartered Management Institute have revealed that the average female executive suffers a lifetime earnings gap of £423,390 when compared to a male worker with an identical career path.

With the current gap between male and female average pay at management level standing at £10,060 a year, a woman and a man entering executive roles aged 25 and working their way up the career ladder until retiring aged 60 would take home pre-tax totals of £1,092,940 and £1,516,330 respectively, based on today’s levels.

This year’s survey also reveals that the gender pay gap extends to annual rewards. At the 91 participating employers providing data on the payment of bonuses, women receive less than half what men are awarded in monetary terms – the average bonus for a male executive was £7,496, compared to £3,726 for a female executive.

News on the nature of the ‘management pipeline’ is also mixed. The figures show that the percentage of women in the executive workforce now stands at 57%. However, while at junior level the majority (69%) of executive workers are now female, a much smaller percentage have made it into top roles – just 40% of department heads are female and only one in four chief executives (24%).

The Supreme Court has given its ruling in the discrimination appeal case of Hewage v Grampian Health Board, which was on appeal from the Second Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session.

Mrs Hewage was born in Sri Lanka, and has been a British citizen since 1998. She commenced employment with Grampian Health Board (‘the Board’) in 1993 at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary as a consultant orthodontist. In 1996 she became Head of Service for the Orthodontic Department.

She resigned from her employment with the Board, and in September 2005 she commenced proceedings against the Board in which she claimed under section 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that she had been unfairly dismissed from that employment. She also claimed under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976 that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of her sex and race.

At a hearing before an employment tribunal, the Board conceded that Mrs Hewage had been constructively and unfairly dismissed. The tribunal held that she had been unlawfully discriminated against on a number of grounds of both sex and race.

In 2009 the Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘the EAT’) upheld an appeal by the Board and dismissed Mrs Hewage’s claims of discrimination. She appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Session, and the Second Division allowed her appeal and quashed the decision of the EAT. It remitted the case to the employment tribunal to decide whether, if it had had regard to the only issues which the court considered to be relevant to the claims of discrimination, it would have come to the same or a different conclusion. The Board appealed against that decision.

The Supreme Court has now unanimously dismissed the Board’s appeal, and affirmed that part of the Second Division’s interlocutor in which it allowed the appeal to the Inner House and quashed the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

We use cookies to improve our website and your experience when using it. Cookies used for the essential operation of the site have already been set. To find out more about the cookies we use and how to delete them, see our privacy policy.

I accept cookies from this site.

EU Cookie Directive Module Information