‘This decision exemplifies the stricter approach the courts are now taking in disciplinary cases where the regulated person fails to attend a hearing.’
Blackstone Chambers, 13th May 2020
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘It is to be expected that the current pandemic will result in employers seeking to rely on economic hard times with a view to curtailing employees’ claims for loss of earnings and financial benefits. This will typically be through reliance on the contention that the employees would have been dismissed in any event and any compensation for loss of remuneration should therefore, be extinguished or reduced. In some cases, there will be genuine grounds for such a stance, whilst opportunism could be the driver in others. Thus far, there is no indication that significant job losses are predicted in central and local government and in public services sector. What is said hereafter is applicable principally to employment outside the public sector. This article deals both with ordinary unfair dismissal claim and claims in Great Britain based on protected status where there is no cap on compensation.’
Parklane Plowden, 7th April 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘An employment tribunal has expressed its “incredulity” at the way a solicitor’s former secretary befriended one of his clients and ended up in the client’s will.’
Legal Futures, 21st April 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Most of us are now up to speed (as far as possible) with the principle, and maybe practice, of furlough, but one thing that has yet to be tested is the ability of unfair dismissal protection to safeguard employees that are unable to attend or carry out work in line with current guidelines. At one point (specifically, 23.03.2020), there was a proposal to introduce provisions creating an automatic unfair dismissal where that dismissal was for ‘coronavirus-related’ reasons, and where the employer was entitled to reimbursement of statutory sick pay or payment under the coronavirus job retention scheme. That would have been to ensure that businesses being forced to close would also not result in mass job losses when funding to retain those jobs was available as an alternative to dismissal. At the date of writing, that proposal has not progressed, nor is there any other proposal to safeguard employees from any other ‘coronavirus-related’ dismissal. Whilst ordinary unfair dismissal principles will assist those employees with at least two years’ continuous employment, I wanted to consider a couple of options potentially open to employees not qualifying for that protection.’
St John's Chambers, 16th April 2020
Source: stjohnsbuildings.com
‘If your employer dismisses you as a result of you being unable to work due to you being in the shield group then you may have a claim for automatic unfair dismissal under s100(1)(d) or (e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”), no minimum qualifying period of employment is required to bring this claim.’
Doughty Street Chambers, 14th April 2020
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
‘Tracey Robinson (‘C’) was hired by Mr Cathcart on behalf of the Crown Prince Ras-alKhaimah (‘the Sheikh’) in 2007 to carry out a number of duties including looking after the Sheikh’s children and properties in the UK. The contract clearly stipulated that C was responsible for paying her own tax.’
3PB, 2nd March 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘Mr Ishola was employed by the respondent (TfL) as a customer services administrator. He was at all material times a disabled person suffering with depression and migraines. He raised a grievance about the conduct of a colleague in April 2015 which was not upheld, shortly after which he went on long-term sick leave. The sickness absence was managed by the respondent through a process of referrals to occupational health doctors and management review meetings. Ms Bhaimia was appointed as the “People Management Adviser” (or PMA) responsible for dealing with the claimant. The task of managing his absence on sick leave was given to Mr Walters.’
3PB, 2nd March 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘This appeal concerned a provision about long term disability benefit (“LTDB”) which formed part of the Claimant’s contract of employment. It provided for the employee to receive a Disability Income of 2/3rds of his Base Annual Salary less the State Invalidity Pension should he be absent from, and unable to, work due to sickness or injury for a continuous period of twenty-six weeks or more, which would commence twenty-six weeks after the start of his absence and continue until the earlier date of his “return to work, death or retirement”.’
3PB, 2nd March 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘The Claimant (“C”), at the time of his dismissal, had worked for the Respondent (“R”) for a number of years and was employed as a Deputy Team Leader in the family intervention programme. He had been seconded however to a role within the Acton Team as a Support Worker. The complainant, referred to in the Judgment as “SR”, was a university student who was undertaking a 3-month work placement with R within the Ealing Team. She had shadowed C on 2 occasions but wasn’t mentored or supervised by him.’
3PB, 2nd March 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘A doctor who lost his job after making whistleblowing disclosures has been awarded more than £857,000 by an Employment Tribunal.’
Local Government Lawyer, 19th March 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Do the words “return to work” in a long-term disability scheme mean return to any work or the work that the employee was undertaking prior to going on long term sickness?’
Old Square Chambers, 24th February 2020
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘A woman is to receive nearly £400,000 from the Department for Work and Pensions after a judge ruled that her colleagues there had deliberately created a “hostile environment” of racism and ageism that forced her out of work.’
The Guardian, 25th February 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The dispute arose from the claimant’s back problems, which, it was agreed, made her disabled within the Equality Act 2010. She was unable to travel far and wanted to work mainly from home. This caused difficulty because her role, auditing the performance of National Health Service bodies, was “client facing” and required her to visit those bodies. She was eventually dismissed for reason of ill-health capability after an occupational health report and negotiations with her union representative. The respondent was concerned that she was not meeting her financial targets, i.e. the required amount of chargeable time billed to the respondent’s clients. These receipts from clients funded her salary. There were not enough clients within the short travelling distance from her home that she could manage.’
3PB, 7th February 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘A refuse collector has lost his claim for disability discrimination against Bristol Waste, a wholly-owned operation of Bristol City Council.’
Local Government Lawyer, 20th February 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The claimant was employed by the respondent from 1994 until November 2014 as a Probation Service Officer (“PSO”). In 2014 there was an incident at the claimant’s home involving the claimant, her then partner, and her daughter, who was then a teenager. It was alleged that the claimant had been violent towards her daughter, something she had always vehemently denied. Social Services became involved and her daughter was placed on the Child Protection Register (“CPR”).’
3PB, 7th February 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘The Claimant, Mr Casamitjana, was dismissed from his role at the League Against Cruel Sports in April 2018 after disclosing to colleagues that the company’s pension funds were being invested ‘unethically’. This was considered by the Respondent to be contrary to a management instruction not to provide financial advice to his colleagues. The Claimant brought claims of indirect discrimination, direct discrimination/harassment and victimisation by reference to his belief in ethical veganism, and PIDA detriment and dismissal, and wrongful dismissal.’
3PB, 7th February 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘Do the principles set down by the Supreme Court decision in the landmark decision in Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti (in which Simon Gorton QC and Jack Mitchell acted for the Royal Mail) apply to the assessment of whether an employer acted reasonably in dismissing an employee for the purposes of s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996?’
Old Square Chambers, 17th February 2020
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘There are a number of ways in which this judgment opens the door to arguments about its wider impact.’
UKSC Blog, 17th February 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘If an employee is dismissed on bogus grounds invented by someone more senior than her in the business, that person’s true reason for acting as they did will be the real reason for the dismissal, even if the decision to dismiss was made by another person acting in good faith in reliance on the bogus grounds.’
UKSC Blog, 17th February 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024