News Feed
This case concerned whether an individual, who is expressly described as a self-employed contractor in his contract, is really a 'worker' (and thus entitled to certain rights including minimum wage and paid holiday) due to the true nature of the relationship between the parties.
In this case a chef was dismissed after refusing to mop up an area behind some fryers in the kitchen where he worked. He stated that he did not believe it to be safe as recent maintenance work had led to some electrical wiring being left exposed.
New laws protecting agency workers come into force on 1 October 2011. This checklist will help your business get up to speed with the new rights available to agency workers before the legislation is introduced.
Introduction
The Government has published draft guidance on the Agency Workers Regulations 2010, a summary of which is set below.
This increase in volume also seems to be accompanied by a corresponding increase in the complexity of claims.
The EAT has said contractual notice, whether verbal or written, begins the day after notice is given - and this can determine whether a claim is in time or not.
In what may turn out to be a landmark case the Employment Appeals Tribunal has handed down a judgement which indicates that even if a transferor does not have a specific transferee in contemplation, a dismissal in consideration of any potential transfer will be automatically unfair under Reg. 7(1) of the Transfer of Under Takings Protection of Employment Regulations 2006.
British Airways Plc v Ms Eliza Mak & Ors
The Court of Appeal has handed down its decision in the above case and confirmed that jurisdiction is conferred on an ET to hear race and age discrimination claims provided the Claimant does his or her work ‘partly’ in Great Britain.
In Fulcrum Pharma (Europe) Limited v Bonassera the EAT addressed the issue of 'bumping' and the circumstances when it is appropriate to include more junior employees in a pool for possible redundancy.
When presented with a Tribunal claim an employer’s first reaction is normally to fight the case to show that they have acted lawfully and to try and avoid having to pay out a large sum to an employee for an unmeritorious claim.
The day after a Christmas party can leave a lot of employees with a major headache due to the large intake of alcohol the night before! However in recent years many employers have also had a headache the next day; however this has nothing to do with alcohol consumption.
The EAT has given a helpful decision regarding payments for time spent on call, in the case of South Manchester Abbyfield Society and Ors.
In the above case, the EAT has warned claimants who bring discrimination claims in respect of allegedly discriminatory job advertisements, in which they are not genuinely interested in an attempt to get compensation for their claims are liable to face an order for costs.
The recent decision of the EAT in Fulcrum Pharma (Europe) Limited v Bonassera and another has confirmed that getting the right ‘pool’ of employees before commencing a redundancy exercise is crucial.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of an employee who was dismissed partly because of the way in which he promoted his spiritual beliefs at work and claimed that he was subjected to discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief.
It has long been known that what may seem like harmless fun at the Christmas Party can soon become claims of discrimination and harassment.
The Supreme Court has handed down its decision in the case of Gisada Syf v Barratt.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has handed down its decision in the case of Celebi v Compass and said that it was not.
The Government has announced that it plans to extend the right to request flexible working arrangements to parents of children under the age of 18 from April 2011.
The EAT has handed down its decision in the case of Wood v London Colney Parish Council.
In Nationwide Building Society v Benn and ors, the EAT held that employees who resigned in response to their jobs being downgraded and their bonus entitlements being reduced following a TUPE transfer were constructively dismissed.
In the case of Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd, the Scottish Court of Session held that an employee had demonstrated ‘strong connections’ with the UK, and could therefore proceed with a claim of unfair dismissal.
The recent case of J v DLA Piper UK LLP (UK/EAT/0263/09/RN) has clarified the proper approach for tribunals to take in cases of depression, where typically everything rests on the G.P.’s clinical assessment of the claimant’s condition.
In addition to the changes that are due tom come into effect in October 2010 with the introduction of the Equality Act, the way has also been paved for ‘caste discrimination’ to become unlawful.
It is standard practice within the care industry, where 24 hour staffing is required, to operate a sleep in system. Typically, employers pay a nominal shift allowance, rather than a higher hourly rate. However, unions are bringing claims on behalf of their members on the grounds of unlawful deduction of wages in relation to sleep ins.
It has long been the case that an employee can only claim ‘stigma damages’ if the employee’s difficulty in finding new employment is directly attributable to the dismissal and the recent case of Brown v Careham Hall has confirmed this.
The Equality Act 2010 is expected to come into force in October 2010 and will consolidate, harmonise and expand existing discrimination laws.
A new clause has been added to the Equality Bill to discourage employers from asking applicants about their health in the early stages of recruitment.
Employers should be wary when providing references for former employees, following the Employment Tribunal Appeals’ decision in the case of PWW v Bullimore.
Direct discrimination or harassment based on 'perceived' disability might well be illegal under the Framework Employment Directive. This may also be the position under existing UK law as regards employment. Discrimination by perception is to be more clearly covered by the new Equality Act 2010.
In J v DLA Piper LLP guidance was given as to how to determine whether a mental illness is a protected disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA).
In Heaven v Whitbread Group, the EAT has confirmed that the effective date of termination in a 'conditional resignation' claim depends on what happened between the parties. Their wishes, or subsequent agreement as to a different date, are irrelevant (applying Fitzgerald v University of Kent [2004] EWCA Civ 143).
In the case of Jelic v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, the Claimant developed chronic anxiety syndrome, and as such was considered to fall within the remit of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
In HM Land Registry v Grant, the Claimant, Grant claimed that he had been harassed by his manager on the grounds of his sexuality and had been subjected to direct discrimination.
In Geys v Societe Generale, it was held that an employer must specifically state when it is exercising its right to terminate an employees’ contracts with immediate effect. In order to terminate a contract lawfully in this manner, the employer must not only have a clause in the contract that allows them to terminate the contract and pay in lieu of notice, but they must also inform the employee that this is what they are doing.
Last year, in an ongoing dispute over changes to contracts of BA cabin crew, the High Court granted an injunction to prevent a strike over the Christmas period. A second ballot was held and members voted for strike action to take place between 18 May and 3 June 2010.
In Secretary of State for Justice and Mansfield, the EAT has held that whilst an employer is undertaking disciplinary proceedings against an employee at the same time as a criminal investigation is ongoing, the employer has a wide discretion to decide whether to continue with the disciplinary or postpone it, pending the outcome of the police investigation.
In the case of Dunn v AAH Ltd, the Court of Appeal held that an employee who had failed to follow instructions to report on risks within the operation of his company to head office in Germany was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct.
A BA employee who was not allowed to wear a crucifix at work has lost her appeal in her claim of religious discrimination.
In Bateman and Ors v Asda Stores Ltd, the EAT has held that employers can reserve the right to vary employees' contracts unilaterally.
The Social Security (Medical Evidence) and the Statutory Sick Pay (Medical Evidence) (Amendment) Regulations 2010 are due to come in force on 6 April 2010. The Regulations provide that ‘sick notes’ are to be replaced with ‘fit notes’.
You can also sign up for free email alerts whenever new legal updates happen by entering your email address below:
