Education Law Speed Read – 05/03/18
5th March, 2018
This week we look at the new Advanced Maths Premium and an important judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). A decision which brings clarification to the rights of agency workers under the Agency Worker Regulations 2010.
New Advanced Maths Premium
Last week Schools Minister Nick Gibb and Chief Secretary to the Treasury Elizabeth Truss announced a new Advanced Maths Premium that will apply from September 2018. It is hoped the premium will increase the number of students studying maths after GCSE.
The premium will see schools and colleges receive an extra £600 premium for each additional pupil taking the one-year AS Maths or the Core Maths qualification. In order to receive this payment, the number of additional students will be measured between the average of academic years 2015 to 2016 and 2016 to 2017 and academic year 2018 to 2019.
The premium follows the publication of Sir Adrian Smith’s review of 16-18 mathematics in July 2017, which identified a strong case for raising participation in advanced post-16 maths. The report highlighted a growing demand for mathematics and quantitative skills, which are increasingly required in all areas of the labour market.
Nick Gibbs has stated that “although maths remains the most popular subject at A level, this premium will open up the opportunity for even more young people to study advanced maths qualifications, providing them with the knowledge and skills for future success”. In addition, the Royal Society Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education has outlined maths as the key skill required by employers by 2030 and stated that “the UK cannot prosper without a numerically literate population”.
While this additional funding is welcomed, Paul Whiteman the general secretary of school leaders’ union NAHT has expressed concern that this could led to a narrower curriculum for pupils and has emphasised the need for a wide range of A Level subjects to remain available.
For full details of the funding calculation and mechanism please see the Department for Education Guidance here.
Kocur v Royal Mail
In Kocur v Royal Mail, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that agency workers, who had completed 12 weeks of work and were therefore entitled to the same basic terms as comparable employees, could not be compensated for less favourable holiday entitlement and rest breaks, by receiving a higher hourly rate of pay.
Background
Mr Kocur was an agency worker who worked at Royal Mail’s postal centre in Leeds. By June 2015, he had 12 weeks service at Royal Mail, which triggered his rights under the Agency Worker Regulations 2010 (AWR).
Under Regulation 5 of the AWR, agency workers with 12 weeks service are entitled to the same basic working conditions as other employees.
Mr Kocur raised grievances with Royal Mail, highlighting that he was being paid for 30 minutes of his 1 hour rest break when comparable employees were being paid for the whole hour and his holiday entitlement was 28 days’ compared to the employees’ 30.5 days.
Further, Mr Kocur was not provided with a swipe card for entering the mail centre and was not able to use the on-site fitness centre which Royal Mail’s employees could.
However, unlike employees who earned £9.60 an hour, Mr Kocur earned £10.50 an hour.
Employment Tribunal
Mr Kocur subsequently brought claims under the AWR to the Employment Tribunal.
The Employment Tribunal found that:
- Royal Mail had infringed his rights under the AWR in respect of the swipe card and membership of the fitness centre.
- His claim for payment for rest breaks and entitlement to annual leave were dismissed because his higher pay compensated for the fact that he received less favourable terms in respect of rest breaks and holiday.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal
On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that agency workers were entitled to the same basic terms as comparable employees on a ‘term-by-term’ basis. The Employment Tribunal had erred in comparing the overall package that Mr Kocur had received. Royal Mail could not use the extra pay to off-set the lower holiday.
Comment
The case is a reminder to employers that they must provide agency workers, who have 12 weeks service, with the same basic terms as their own employees and cannot rely on the fact that an agency workers’ overall package is broadly similar.
Employers can potentially consider other options such as ‘rolled-up’ holiday pay or payment of a lump sum on termination of the holiday assignment to offset a benefit but the payment mechanism would need to be set out transparently in advance.
If you have any queries on the above and how it will affect you, please do not hesitate to contact a member of our education team.
Please note that this briefing is designed to be informative, not advisory and represents our understanding of English law and practice as at the date indicated. We would always recommend that you should seek specific guidance on any particular legal issue.
This page may contain links that direct you to third party websites. We have no control over and are not responsible for the content, use by you or availability of those third party websites, for any products or services you buy through those sites or for the treatment of any personal information you provide to the third party.
