Search and find what you need faster.

Posts Tagged ‘employer obligations’

Managing Off-Duty Misconduct: A Guide for Employers

Posted on: September 2nd, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Senior Associate Emma Cocker explores how employers can address employee misconduct that occurs outside working hours, and the legal and reputational implications that may follow, in People Management.

Emma’s piece was published in People Management, on 29 August 2025.

Off the clock, still on the hook? Managing misconduct outside the workplace

As festival season comes to a close, many workers are letting down their hair at the likes of Glastonbury, Reading and Download. For many, attending a festival is the chance to enjoy some music with friends, but for others it can mean excessive drinking, taking drugs and anti-social behaviour.

While some deem their non-workplace conduct irrelevant, for attendees whose transgressions are witnessed by their employers, colleagues or clients, the consequences can be serious. Being seen to be excessively drunk or high is not how most companies want their employees to behave in public. This year, antisemitic chanting put Glastonbury and the BBC front and centre of serious concerns, with Sir Ephraim Mirvis (the Chief Rabbi) attacking the BBC for airing ‘vile Jew hate’ by the punk rap duo Bob Vylan, followed by some extremely disturbing and concerning TV close-ups of some of the audience chanting, “Death, death to the IDF”. 

So, what are the repercussions for the errant few who are caught engaging in such behaviour and how should employers respond?

While not all off-duty behaviour warrants intervention, actions that are criminal, breach company policies, or cause reputational damage, can be grounds for disciplinary measures. Such action will firstly involve a disciplinary investigation to determine whether there is a case to answer. If there is, a disciplinary hearing should take place at which the decisionmaker will consider all relevant evidence before deciding whether and how to discipline an individual.

Factors for employers to consider in relation to off-duty misconduct include whether the employee’s actions affect their ability to do their job, damage the employer’s reputation or create a hostile environment for clients or colleagues. If there is a no apparent connection, employers may struggle to justify disciplinary actions and disciplining an employee for conduct that has no clear effect on the company could lead to legal claims, such as unfair or constructive dismissal.

Possible reputational damage is the consequence most often touted by employers in justification for disciplinary measures. However reputational damage can be difficult to assess, and the potential impact will vary depending on the employee’s role and the particular workplace. Case law has thrown up some surprising results, with employees being held to be unfairly dismissed after carrying out what most would consider to be egregious behaviour.

To avoid claims of unfair dismissal, employers must genuinely believe that the employee has committed an act which either has or may cause reputational damage. They need to be careful in assessing the severity of the misconduct, the actual or potential impact on their business, and the employee’s role. In determining the merits of each case, employers need to navigate the fine line between individuals’ rights to a private life and the workplace, simultaneously maintaining standards and respecting employee rights. Equally, employees need to know where the boundaries are and what their employers expect from them to avoid stepping over the line. As such, employers should develop conduct policies, outlining expected behaviour outside of work, which should be communicated to all employees to ensure they understand their responsibilities. Social media policies should also be developed to draw to employee’s attention the impact of online behaviour on the company’s reputation. Regular training on professional conduct and the potential impact of off-duty behaviour should also be offered. This will help to encourage a culture of respect and professionalism both within and outside the workplace. When problems do arise, employers must monitor behaviour fairly and address misconduct promptly.

To find out more about employer obligations and how we can help, please click here

The Employment Rights Bill: key considerations for businesses

Posted on: July 28th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

With the upcoming Employment Rights Bill progressing towards Royal Assent, Senior Associate Joanne Leach examines the key preparations employers and businesses should consider to ensure their workplace policies are both compliant and productive.

Joanne’s comments were published in ICAEW Insights, 28 July 2025, and can be found here.

“The Employment Rights Bill (ERB) will introduce sweeping reforms to UK employment law, when it becomes law, with phased implementation beginning when the Bill receives royal assent (likely to be in Autumn 2025) and gathering pace in April 2026, through to 2027.

“The Employment Rights Bill is the most comprehensive reform of UK employment law in a generation. For many employers, this won’t just be a policy update – it will require a cultural shift.

“The phased rollout gives employers time, but not an excuse to delay. Reviewing contracts, policies and training now will save significant disruption later.

“One of the biggest risks is inconsistency: applying new rules unevenly across teams or locations could open the door to discrimination claims.

“Handled well, implementation of these reforms could enhance retention, improve transparency, and position businesses as employers of choice. Implementation of the ERB won’t be just about compliance – it will be an opportunity to future-proof workforce strategy.

“The new right to request predictable hours will require a rethink for sectors reliant on casual labour but it also offers a chance to build more stable, engaged workforces.

“Agency workers will see meaningful gains in transparency and protection. Employers must ensure these workers are not overlooked in compliance planning.”

If you would like more advice on the changes brought by this Bill and your obligations as an employer, please contact our Employment team

Beyond the Crowd: The People Behind Events and the Contracts That Empower Them

Posted on: June 27th, 2025 by Alanah Lenten

As Glastonbury welcomed hundreds of thousands of festival-goers this summer, most of us were preoccupied with set times, glitter face paint, and avoiding sunstroke. But behind the scenes, it’s not just the headliners who deserve your attention. For founders, entrepreneurs, and anyone involved in running events—whether that’s a one-off music festival, tennis events involving copious amounts of strawberries and cream, or a touring experience—it’s crucial to understand who you’re hiring, how, and what that means legally.

The rise of the gig economy reshaped the employment landscape. It’s provided event organisers with the flexibility they require and permitted individuals to work on their terms. Employers have often assumed short-term or freelance roles offer a convenient solution to the running of large scale events. However, the gig economy is now itself being reshaped following legal challenges focusing on providing greater protection for those engaged in working arrangements that are a-typical. In 2017, 700 temporary workers were terminated by Glastonbury organisers after two days when they had reported promise of 2 weeks work, leaving them stranded having travelled from overseas to help with the Glastonbury clean up and left individuals out of pocket. This led to alleged mishandling of employment contracts and subsequently a tidal wave of negative PR for the organisers. 

So, as you plan your next big event, here’s what you need to consider about employment status; and why simply calling someone a “freelancer” doesn’t make it so.

From Headliner to Hospitality: Who’s Working Your Event?

Every successful event is powered by a complex team: from the riggers and sound engineers, to brand ambassadors, hospitality staff, and social media teams. Whether you’re a founder outsourcing your activation at a major event, or you’re hosting something yourself, you’ll likely be engaging a mix of:

  • Employees
  • Workers
  • Self-employed contractors

While the Government has proposed removing the worker status, for now, we retain the three. Employees have the most comprehensive employment rights, while workers have fewer (for example, they do not have protection from unfair dismissal). Self-employed contractors generally only have the rights contained within their agreements with their client.

Each status comes with different rights, responsibilities, and risks.

Why Getting It Wrong Isn’t an Option

It might seem harmless to take a “casual” approach for short-term or seasonal work. But misclassifying someone, intentionally or not, can result in serious consequences. And in an era of rising scrutiny, your event might be over in a weekend, but the consequences could last much longer.

Some of the most common pitfalls include:

  • Misuse of zero-hour contracts
    In 2017, the organisers of the Glastonbury Festival were accused of hiring 700 workers from across Europe on zero-hour contracts to act as litter pickers, cleaning the site after the festival had ended. The workers were expecting two weeks of paid employment. However, they were fired two days later, leaving hundreds stranded in the Somerset countryside and out of pocket.
  • Unpaid holiday pay and rest breaks
    Individuals are often required to work back-to-back 18-hour days, which could breach the legal minimum requirement of rest breaks prescribed by the Working Time Regulations 1998.
  • Health and safety breaches
    The performing arts union, Bectu, surveyed 100 music festival workers. The results were worrying; half of the people questioned reported feeling unsafe at work, and a third reported having experienced a risk to their physical safety.
  • Non-payment of tax and National Insurance
    A nightclub owner is due to be sentenced this year for deducting tax and National Insurance from employees’ salaries but failed to pass the money on to HMRC.
  • Employment tribunal claims for unfair dismissal or unlawful deductions
    In March 2022, P&O Ferries sacked 800 seafarers without notice, replacing them with cheaper agency workers. Many of the affected employees filed employment tribunal claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages. The company admitted it knowingly broke the law by not consulting unions or employees, which is required under UK employment law.

It is important that organiser’s get employment status correct as:

  • There is implied obligation between employers and employees, such as the mutual duty of trust and confidence;
  • A number of core legal protections are only applicable to those classed as employees, such as unfair dismissal;
  • Only employees are covered by the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures;
  • The tax position of an individual depends on their employment status, as determined by HMRC.
  • Employers are vicariously liable for acts done by its employees in the course of their employment, and
  • There are different implications for handling personal data, under UK GDPR depending on an individuals employment status.

So how can you avoid these pitfalls?

5 Key Tests to Get Employment Status Right

If you organise one off, or short-term events,  you must remember employment status still applies and you cannot determine the nature of your relationship with the individuals you engage by simply putting a label on it. Proactive steps must be taken to assess the employment status of employees, workers, and self-employed contractors. To achieve this, it’s important to consider how the relationship operates on a day-to-day basis:

1. Control

The greater the company’s control over individuals, the more likely they are to be considered employees. Are you deciding when, where, and how they work? If so, they’re likely not self-employed.

2. Integration

The more integrated they are into the company, the more likely they are to be considered an employee. Are they part of your team, required to use your branding, attend meetings, and follow company policies and procedures?

3. Mutuality of Obligation

Are you obligated to provide work? Are they obligated to accept the work you offer? If so, this would indicate an employment status.

4. Personal Service

Is the individual required to perform the duties personally rather than having the right to send a substitute?  This is a characteristic typically associated with employment.

5. Financial Risk and Independence

The more financial risk an individual bears, the more it will indicate self-employed status. Are they using their own equipment, obtaining their own insurance, invoicing you, and handling their own tax?

To summarise, the more “yes” answers to the first four, and “no” to the last, the more likely you’re dealing with an employee or a worker and not a contractor.

So What Should You Do?

Assess the relationship honestly
Don’t rely on titles, look at how the role actually operates on a day to day basis. Use legal guidance or a checklist to help.

Put it in writing
Always issue the correct employment documentation which clearly reflects how the relationship operates in practice.

Provide a safe working environment
Think of rest breaks, access to toilets and water, and protection from excessive hours, these aren’t just “nice to haves”; they’re legal requirements. You have a duty to provide a safe working environment for all types of workers.

Budget for compliance
Proper contracts might cost more up front. But compare that to a tribunal claim, regulatory fine, HMRC fines and interest, and the reputational hit of being the next Glastonbury scandal.

The Encore: A Better Way to Power Events

In the post-pandemic world, festivals and live events face tighter margins than ever. But cutting corners on employment compliance is a false economy. The events industry depends on a passionate, skilled and often overworked workforce, treating them properly isn’t just the law, it’s good business.

If you’re a founder organising an event, outsourcing to an agency, or even hiring ad-hoc help for the summer season, take a moment to check your contracts. Because while you may not be the headline act, you’re responsible for the whole show.

Get in touch with Becci Collins if your employment contracts need reviewing.

Read the other articles in this edition here : The Fineprint – Edition 1 – July 2025 – Lawrence Stephens

 

 

 

 

 

Emma Cocker outlines how zero-hours contracts can contribute to sexual harassment in People Management

Posted on: March 18th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Senior Associate Emma Cocker discusses how the prevalence of zero-hours contracts at McDonald’s may have contributed to widespread sexual harassment, in People Management.

Emma’s article was published in People Management, 18 March 2025.

McDonald’s is in expansion mode, with ambitious plans for 200 new restaurants to add to its existing UK network of 1,450 outlets. However, this growth is somewhat overshadowed by persistent allegations of abuse and harassment from those working under the golden arches.

Following allegations by more than 100 current and former staff, a July 2023 BBC investigation into McDonald’s described working conditions as “a toxic culture of sexual assault, harassment, racism and bullying”. According to the BBC, workers as young as 17 had been abused, bullied, groped and harassed. 

The investigation came off the back of McDonald’s signing an agreement with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in February 2023 in which it pledged to protect its staff from sexual harassment. The agreement was reached following concerns about how sexual harassment complaints made by McDonald’s staff were handled. McDonald’s accepted that it had “fallen short” and “deeply apologised”, confirming that every employee deserves to work in a safe, respectful and inclusive workplace. 

However, the problem persists. Appearing before MPs sitting on the business and trade select committee in January 2025, Alistair Macrow, CEO for McDonald’s UK and Ireland, told the committee that 29 people had been dismissed over the past 12 months as a result of sexual harassment allegations. Macrow was asked by the committee chair, Liam Byrne MP, whether McDonald’s had “basically now become a predator’s paradise”. Macrow said the allegations made by the BBC were “abhorrent, unacceptable and there is no place for them in McDonald’s”. He added that the company was determined there should be “no hiding place for bad actors”.

Despite Macrow’s pledges that appropriate action would be taken, the situation does not appear to have improved. Some 300 incidents have been reported to the EHRC, while 700-plus current and former employees are taking legal action against McDonald’s in which they accuse the firm of failing to protect them.

Employers’ responsibilities towards their staff are clearly outlined in the Equality Act 2010, which specifies that they have a statutory duty to protect all employees from discrimination and harassment, regardless of whether they are full time, part time or employed on a zero-hours basis. 

It is widely recognised that zero-hours workers are particularly vulnerable to experiencing discrimination and harassment. Workers engaged in this way face employment insecurity and often fear negative consequences if they complain about working conditions. The BBC states that, as of January 2025, almost 90 per cent of McDonald’s 170,000 UK workforce were on zero-hours contracts. This, along with a predominantly franchise model where local McDonald’s managers are usually responsible for staff recruitment, is likely to be a contributing factor to the present circumstances. 

Without a fixed hours guarantee and the right to reasonable notice of shift changes, vulnerable employees can be easily pressurised into complying with employer demands or find themselves facing financial losses they may not be able to bear.

Last October, the government introduced the employment rights bill, which is designed to bring ‘exploitative’ zero-hours contracts to an end. The draft bill includes a right to guaranteed hours, a right to reasonable notice of shifts and a right to payment for shifts cancelled or curtailed at short notice. It is hoped that these changes will go some way to fixing the power imbalance inherent in zero-hours contracts, whereby the employer holds much more power than the employee. 

Failure to provide a safe, harassment-free environment has led to significant adverse publicity for McDonald’s, putting a spotlight on the risks facing businesses that allow such behaviour to persist. At least in the case of McDonald’s, there appears to be a direct correlation between the use of zero-hours contracts and complaints of discrimination and harassment. As such, employers need to understand the consequences of failing to address potential claims of discrimination and harassment, and the relationship these claims have with zero-hours contracts. 

Moving forwards, people will pay close attention to what McDonald’s does in creating a safe working environment for its employees that is free from discrimination and harassment. In the meantime, much needs to be done to reassure the general public that things have changed, and how the company handles an escalating number of claims will also be closely monitored.

If you would like some advice on meeting your employer obligations regarding discrimination and harassment, please contact a member of the Employment team.

Emma Cocker explores the legal action against McDonald’s over harassment allegations, in Personnel Today

Posted on: February 11th, 2025 by Natasha Cox

Senior Associate Emma Cocker discusses the BBC investigation and subsequent legal action against McDonald’s over widespread allegations of harassment and abuse, and argues that it demonstrates how the employment insecurity of zero hour workers can create a toxic work culture, in Personnel Today. 

Emma’s article was published in Personnel Today, 10 February 2025. 

McDonald’s: zero hours culture feeds sexual harassment allegations

Sexual harassment allegations at the fast food giant came to the fore in 2023 and provide an example, argues Emma Cocker, of how insecure employment can contribute to power imbalances that create a toxic workplace culture.

Marking its 50th anniversary in the UK, McDonald’s announced plans last August to open more than 200 new restaurants in the UK and Ireland over the next four years. However, problems in its current national network of 1,450 outlets continue to loom large, with a deluge of allegations of employee harassment and abuse threatening to cloud the company’s agenda.

In July 2023, a BBC investigation into working conditions at McDonald’s lifted the lid on what it described as “a toxic culture of sexual assault, harassment, racism and bullying” following allegations by more than 100 staff at UK retail outlets of the fast food chain. According to the BBC, workers, some of them as young as 17, had experience of being abused, bullied, groped and routinely harassed.

The BBC investigation was promoted by disclosures made by whistleblowers after McDonald’s signed a legally binding agreement with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in February 2023 in which it pledged to protect its staff from sexual harassment.

The EHRC agreement had itself been reached in response to concerns about the handling of sexual harassment complaints made by staff in its UK restaurants. McDonald’s confirmed that it had “fallen short” and it “deeply apologised”, adding that all employees deserved to work in a safe, respectful and inclusive workplace.

Last month, Alistair Macrow, CEO for McDonald’s UK & Ireland, appeared before MPs sitting on the Business and Trade Select Committee. He told them that 29 people had been dismissed over the past year following allegations of sexual harassment.

Liam Byrne MP, the chair of the Business and Trade Select Committee, asked Macrow if McDonald’s had “basically now become a predator’s paradise”. Macrow said the allegations raised by the BBC were “abhorrent, they are unacceptable and there is no place for them in McDonald’s”, and the company was determined to create a culture where there was “no hiding place for bad actors”.

Despite repeated pledges from Macrow that the firm was taking appropriate action to improve working conditions and clean up behaviour, the situation does not appear to have improved. Since its original investigation into the company was delivered, the EHRC has received 300 reports of harassment, while more than 700 current or former employees are taking legal action and accusing McDonald’s of failing to protect them.

The law in relation to employers’ responsibilities is unambiguous. Under the Equality Act 2010, employers have a statutory duty to  protect all staff from discrimination and harassment, regardless of whether they are employees or workers, and regardless of whether they are engaged on a full-time, part-time or casual basis. 

According to the BBC, 89% of McDonald’s 170,000 UK workers were on zero-hours contracts in January 2025, despite the firm’s 2017 announcement that workers would be offered the choice of a flexible or fixed contract offering minimum guaranteed hours. The minimum hours contracts were for a minimum of 30 hours, 16 hours or four hours a week, but most workers opted for flexibility.

Insecure employment

Like many zero-hours workers, McDonald’s staff face employment insecurity, which invariably leaves them reluctant to raise complaints because of fears they will become subject to detrimental treatment as a consequence. It therefore follows that the true extent of discrimination and harassment suffered by McDonald’s staff may be much higher than current figures suggest.

Zero-hours contracts, by their very nature, result in a power imbalance in which an employer holds significantly greater power than the individual. Without any guarantee as to the number or timetable of working hours, staff have little control over their income or schedule, putting them in a vulnerable position whereby they can be easily pressurised into complying with an employer’s demands, or face not being offered hours in future.

The abuse that arises from the inherent power imbalance that exists in zero-hours workplace relationships can lead to significant liabilities for businesses. Employers therefore need to be acutely aware of potential discrimination and harassment in the workplace and what may happen if they fail to address these issues. The ongoing issues at McDonald’s and the company’s abject failure to provide a safe, harassment-free environment have generated a raft of bad publicity which will ultimately affect profits. 

The UK government’s Employment Rights Bill aims to ensure that ‘exploitative’ zero-hours contracts will end. The bill includes measures which are designed to provide workers with greater security and predictability: a right to guaranteed hours, where the number of hours offered reflects that hours worked by the workers during a reference period (which is anticipated to be 12 weeks) along with a right to reasonable notice of shifts, and a right to payment for shifts cancelled or curtailed at short notice.

While these changes will not directly reduce instances of discrimination and harassment, they may help to eradicate the fears and insecurity faced by zero-hours workers. In the meantime, it is clear that McDonald’s still has a long way to go in providing a safe working environment that is free from discrimination and harassment – and in changing public perception that this is indeed the case. How the company handles the growing number of claims made against it will be carefully scrutinised.

If you would like some advice on meeting your employer obligations regarding discrimination and harassment, please contact a member of the Employment team.