- 01423 724121 (Mobile 07590 351 659)
What Martin can do for you
The majority of Martin’s clients are health or social care organisations and he acts in the full range of claims before employment tribunals.
Martin frequently defends factually complex and also legally novel claims, particularly in relation to disability, sex and sexual orientation discrimination and whistle-blowing allegations.
His advice practise includes executive and senior manager terminations, discrimination issues, TUPE, reorganisations, complex disciplinary matters and concerns with doctors (MHPS).
Martin also provides bespoke training on employment topics ranging from TUPE and related procurement preparation, equal opportunities to disciplinary investigations and appeals.
Main areas of expertise
- Disability discrimination
- Sexual orientation discrimination
- Sex and race discrimination
- Unfair dismissals
- Industrial action
The clients he works with
- NHS trusts and foundation trusts
- Social care providers
- Community healthcare organisations
- Clinical commissioning groups
- Large retail organisations
- Employment Lawyers Association
“When nearing the conclusion of an outsourced contract we needed rapid advice about staffing and TUPE implications. Martin Cheyne and the Hempsons’ employment team provided very rapid and pragmatic support and advice, helping us get exactly the outcome we wanted.” (Richard Cliff, Trust Solicitor, Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust)
Sleep-ins have become a difficult and worrying problem for many social care providers in recent years. It is an issue live in current politics and one which is subject to regulatory intervention and litigation.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal examined the transfer of care of an individual (CE) between two service providers to determine whether his carers TUPE transferred. They did not - they were found not to be part of a team whose “principal purpose” was CE’s care. What steps should you be taking in advance of potential transfers?
Consideration of reasonable adjustments as part of a performance management process – a helpful reminder!
The recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) case of South Staffordshire & Shropshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v Billingsley serves as a reminder to employers to make reasonable adjustments during a performance management process and also to give them a chance to work. It also neatly summarises the extent of the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
This is a regular and vexing question. It usually comes about after a convoluted experience of delays in arranging a disciplinary hearing. The EAT in Nabili v Norfolk Community Health & Care NHS Trust have considered the issue further. The question is partially answered by examining this: would the employee’s attendance be futile in understanding the disciplinary case.
The Supreme Court has held the current fee regime for employment tribunal fees to be unlawful and prevents access to justice.
The long awaited appeal by Mencap has now been considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). This appeal is based on the way care is provided, predominantly in the social care sector but also has an impact on healthcare providers too. In recognition of the importance to the sector, this appeal was heard by Mrs Justice Simler, the President of the EAT, and brought together three separate appeals. Mencap operate their sleep-ins in common with most social care providers and pay a mostly flat rate sleep-in payment. They were unsuccessful in arguing that the hours during sleep-in shifts were not to be taken into account in calculating the National Minimum Wage.
Welcome to the latest edition of Hempsons’ Social Care newsbrief, a round-up of some of the hot legal topics in the social care sector.
A recent ECJ case has set out that employers can be ordered to provide paid holidays to even apparently self-employed contractors. The ECJ went on to provide that backpay holiday claims could stretch back to the worker’s commencement.
On 26 July 2017, HM Revenue and Customs (‘HMRC’) suspended enforcement action against employers in the social care sector in relation to the National Minimum Wage (‘NMW’)/National Living Wage (‘NLW’). This decision followed on from the decision in the Mencap case (Focus Care Agency Limited v Roberts, Frudd v The Partington Group Limited, and Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson Blake, 2017). The decision that a care worker could be “working” whilst asleep highlighted a significant liability in the care sector, where workers traditionally have been paid a fixed sleep-in allowance, and were often paid below the NMW/NLW.