When Is Whistleblowing in the Public Interest? – No. 5 Chambers
‘Jack Feeny explores the new law in relation to protected disclosures following the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013.’
No. 5 Chambers, 19th September 2014
Source: www.no5.com
Category: employment tribunals
Unfair Dismissal, Territorial Jurisdiction and the Higgs Boson – Littleton Chambers
‘When Lord Hoffmann gave the only substantive judgment of the House of Lords in Lawson v. Serco Ltd [2006] ICR 250 it was no doubt envisaged that the knotty question of territorial jurisdiction of s.94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA 1996”)– the right not to be unfairly dismissed – would be resolved once and for all. It was, after all, the first time that their Lordships had considered the question, and they did so unanimously in the context of three co-joined appeals.’
Littleton Chambers, 22nd September 2014
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
Lawful Age Discrimination? – No. 5 Chambers
‘Caroline Jennings reviews the recent EAT case of Palmer v RBS UKEAT/0083/14 which concerns whether or not a statutory restriction on eligibility for early retirement benefits could amount to age discrimination.’
No. 5 Chambers, 19th September 2014
Source: www.no5.com
Black female Met Police firearms officer who won £40k at tribunal has all charges against her dropped – The Independent
‘PC Carol Howard was arrested and bailed for more than a year over eight different allegations, including assault, witness intimidation and possession of an indecent image of a child.’
The Independent, 23rd September 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Should you ever sue your boss for discrimination? – Daily Telegraph
‘Former police officer Carol Howard has won £37,000 from the Met, after two years fighting her case against racial and gender discrimination. A victory, yes, but hard won. So is it ever worth suing your boss? Radhika Sanghani asks the legal experts.’
Daily Telegraph, 4th September 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Proving and Disproving Discrimination – Cloisters
‘This talk looks at the legal and practical tools available to employment lawyers to prove or disprove direct discrimination and harassment, exploring in particular three areas:
How judges apply the burden of proof s136(2)(3) EA 2010.
What is the role of Comparators in light of the Supreme Court decision of Hewage v Grampian Health Board [2012] ICR 1054, SC.
What role does knowledge of the protected characteristic now play in light of IPC Media Ltd v Millar [2013] IRLR 707.’
Cloisters, 29th August 2014
Source: www.cloisters.com
Met discriminated against black female police officer, tribunal finds – The Guardian
‘Scotland Yard subjected a black female officer to “vindictive … spiteful … insulting, malicious and oppressive” treatment and greeted her victory against the force in a discrimination case by trying to smear her name, a tribunal has found.’
The Guardian, 2nd September 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
EAT: employee who might be dismissed for gross misconduct may still be entitled to claim constructive dismissal – OUT-LAW.com
‘An employee is not prevented from resigning and bringing a constructive dismissal claim against a former employer by the fact that the employer may have been preparing a gross misconduct case against him, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 27th August 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
Timing of a TUPE transfer determined by facts, not wishes or intentions of parties, says EAT – OUT-LAW.com
‘The point at which the new employer becomes responsible for the workers who have been transferred under TUPE rules is a question of fact, not the wishes or intentions of the parties, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd August 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
Additional travel time for transferred workers was not “substantial change” to their “material detriment” – OUT-LAW.com
‘A change in the working location of somebody who has changed employer through TUPE will only be grounds for a constructive dismissal claim if that change is “substantial” and causes “material detriment” to the worker.’
OUT-LAW.com, 26th August 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
IG Index Ltd v Cloete – WLR Daily
IG Index Ltd v Cloete [2014] EWCA Civ 1128; [2014] WLR (D) 360
‘CPR r 31.22 applied to restrict the use of documents disclosed pursuant to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 and, their replacement, the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.’
WLR Daily, 31st July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Solicitor was ‘employee’ and not partner, High Court rules – Law Society’s Gazette
‘A solicitor has won a High Court battle to prove he was an employee and not a partner at a firm subject to legal action.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 1st August 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Employment tribunal cases drop significantly, but claims that go forward tend to be more expensive, says expert – OUT-LAW.com
‘The number of claims referred to employment tribunals may have dropped by as much as 79% in the year since fees were introduced, according to figures produced for the Trade Unions Congress (TUC).’
Full story
OUT-LAW.com, 31st July 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
Black female officer discriminated against by Met Police, tribunal finds – Daily Telegraph
‘Britain’s biggest force faces a large compensation claim as a tribunal rules Carol Howard was treated unfairly because of her sex and race.’
Daily Telegraph, 1st July 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Agbenowossi-Koffi v Donvand Ltd (t/a Gullivers Travel Associates) – WLR Daily
‘Where a claim of race discrimination had been dismissed on limitation grounds those allegations could not be repeated in a second claim together with additional allegations which could have been included in the first claim but had not been, in order to avoid the limitation defence by founding a claim based on conduct extending over a period of time. The second claim was an abuse of process.’
WLR Daily, 24th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Dreadlock holiday pay – Hardwicke Chambers
’10cc were a great band – from a decade of great bands of course – “Dreadlock holiday” an iconic track and I don’t like cricket, no no, I love it. So what a joy to be able to reference this title to a very significant employment case reported last week. How come? Well the pun starts here: (1) the case is Lock v British Gas Trading Limited (2) it is all about holiday pay and (3) employers will dread its implications.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 10th June 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Burrell v Micheldever Tyre Services Ltd – WLR Daily
Burrell v Micheldever Tyre Services Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 716; [2014] WLR (D) 241
‘The Employment Appeal Tribunal could contain the application of the conventional approach to remittal in a number of ways, namely by (i) being robust when applying that approach, (ii) encouraging parties to consent to the Appeal Tribunal disposing of the case itself and (iii) limiting the scope of any remittal made.’
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal: EAT’s role is not to rule on employment cases on their merits – OUT-LAW.com
‘The role of the UK’s Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) is generally limited to ruling on the lawfulness of an employment tribunal’s decisions rather than making its own assessment of a case, the Court of Appeal has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 4th June 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
Bone v North Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust – WLR Daily
Bone v North Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2014] EWCA Civ 652; [2014] WLR (D) 214
‘It was not necessary in a claim for detriment under section 146(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for the independence of the relevant trade union to be established in order for an employment tribunal to have jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 15th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Requirement to work in different location not pre-2014 TUPE “workforce” change, says EAT – OUT-LAW.com
‘Employees who were required to work in a different location after their work was outsourced were not exempted from legal protections aimed at such workers under pre-2014 rules, the UK’s employment appeal tribunal (EAT) has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 21st May 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
