Elaine’s blog

The Information Commissioner has provided guidance on what information can be released to the new employer in anticipation of a business transfer. This information is known as “employee liability information” (even thought it might be understood by the transfer parties to be employer liability information, but never mind). This information is not different in essence from that which we already understood to be the case but, it’s good to know the Information Commissioner’s own terminology as follows:

• identity (usually the name) and age of the employees who will transfer;
• information contained in their “statement of employment particulars” such as written statement of pay, hours of work, holidays and so on usually contained in the employee’s offer letter or contract of employment);
• details of any disciplinary action taken against an employee in the last two years;
• details of any grievance action raised by an employee in the last two years;
• details of any legal action (before the court or employment tribunal) brought against the employer by an employee in the last two years and information about any potential legal action;
• information about any relevant collective agreements.

The information must be provided by the outgoing employer at least two weeks before the transfer is completed.

This month the Cabinet Office published a joint statement signed by the TUC and CBI and voluntary sector bodies intent on boosting basic skills training and trade union membership through the process of letting government contracts for services.

The 16-page document states that the government will use its power as a procuring body to boost basic skills and trade union rights. As the union bosses and disaffected Labour politicians meet in Warwick, it makes you wonder what else will emerge on the next union shopping list to turn New Labour back to the Old.

The news comes weeks after the publication of the draft Equality Bill which would give public bodies an overarching equality duty, forcing them to publish statistics on their gender pay gaps, as well as their levels of ethnic minority and disabled person employment. Private firms bidding for government contracts would also have to publish such figures.

The Bill would also ban gagging clauses so that work colleagues can compare wages and challenge employers who unlawfully pay them less. It will be interesting to see if workmates do start to open up about their earnings, or whether our traditional cultural reserve and concern for privacy will still hold us back from raising the level of envy and division in our workplaces.

If passed in its current form, the new law would allow employers to take positive action by choosing a minority candidate over a majority one as long as they are equally qualified for the job. This of course begs the question as to whether recruiting panels are ever faced with two candidates who appear so evenly balanced that the equality criterion alone can be relied upon to reach a decision. As a candidate, I would much rather know that I got the job because I outshone the other, rather than getting it because I am female – what sort of a throw-back is that ? But perhaps I am underestimating the persistent problem which the unequal pay statistics demonstrates. Apparently, even in 2008 women are paid on average 12.6% less per hour than men, while disabled people are two-and-a-half times more likely to be out of work, and ethnic minorities one-fifth less likely to find work. I guess I should shut up and allow the efforts of well-meaning politicians to continue to surface.