Disciplinary Déjà vu: Res Judicata and Trade Union Disciplinary Proceedings – Parklane Plowden

‘The case related to a complaint made against Mr McFadden, that he had inappropriately touched a woman at an anti-austerity march attended by Unite members. A complaint was raised with Unite and Mr McFadden was found to have breached the union’s rules on conduct “in the workplace”. He appealed through the union’s procedures and his appeal was unsuccessful. Thereafter, Mr McFadden made a complaint to the assistant certification officer [“ACO”]. The ACO determined that as the alleged conduct was outside the workplace, in a context where Mr McFadden was not acting as a representative of Unite, nor at an event organised by Unite, the complaint did not pertain to conduct that Unite could discipline him for and consequently the allegation was null and void. The ACO ordered Unite to reinstate McFadden to his positions held prior to the suspension.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden, 10th March 2021

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

Solicitor unfairly dismissed for refusing Covid variation to contract – Legal Futures

‘A solicitor fired after refusing a demand to vary her contract so her firm could furlough her or reduce her wages to help it cope with the impact of Covid has won a claim for unfair dismissal.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 15th April 2021

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Thousands in UK may have missed out on work rights redress, study finds – The Guardian

Posted April 15th, 2021 in compensation, employment tribunals, fees, news, statistics by sally

‘A four-year policy of charging workers up to £1,200 to take law-breaking bosses to court was based on misleading data, a study has found, meaning thousands of people may have wrongly missed out on redress for breaches of employment rights.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 14th April 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

Covid-19 related absence dismissal was not automatically unfair – St Philips Barristers

‘The Leeds Employment Tribunal has recently determined one of the first dismissals arising out of the coronavirus pandemic in Rogers v Leeds Laser Cuttings Ltd [2021] No. 1803829/2020, writes Jonathan Gidney.’

Full Story

St Philips Chambers, 25th March 2021

Source: st-philips.com

An erroneous decision to extend time under s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 – 3PB

‘The Honourable Mrs Justice Ellenbogen, sitting in the EAT, held that a tribunal had erred in extending time under s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 (“EqA 2010”), by failing to determine whether a claimant’s ignorance of his right to claim direct race discrimination was reasonable.’

Full Story

3PB, 2nd March 2021

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Cross – establishment comparisons are generally to be permitted save in exceptional circumstances: Asda Stores Ltd v. Brierley & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 44 – 3PB

‘This Equal Pay claim has been ongoing for some time already (since 2016) and is set to continue for some time yet. In short, the Supreme Court’s Judgment handed down 3 days ago (26th March 2021) is focused upon a narrow point, which whilst of importance and interest to both parties and their advisors, in no sense has brought closure to these proceedings which are likely to continue to attract media attention as the layers of equal value litigation unfold.’

Full Story

3PB, 29th March 2021

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

R.I.P Gig Economy? – 4 King’s Bench Walk

‘On February 19th, the Supreme Court dismissed Uber’s appeal upholding the decision of the Employment Tribunal: a ruling upheld both by the EAT and the Court of Appeal. Lord Leggatt’s judgment confirmed that the claimant Uber drivers were workers for the purposes of the Working Time Regulations, national minimum wage legislation, and the Employment Rights Act 1996. In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the Employment Tribunal to determine the claims on their merits.’

Full Story

4 King's Bench Walk, 4th March 2021

Source: www.4kbw.co.uk

Protected acts: beware a cautious approach – 3PB

‘R indicated that it wanted to arrange a Christmas dinner, and proposed a date for it. No objections were raised. Hotels and planes were consequently booked. Thereafter C (and a co-worker) indicated that the planned date did not suit them. R considered the matter but declined to change the date, various arrangements having already been made.’

Full Story

3PB, 2nd March 2021

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

No TUPE protection for staff after firm’s owner made bankrupt – Legal Futures

‘There was no protection for staff under the TUPE after the sole owner of a law firm was made bankrupt and the practice taken over, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 8th April 2021

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Law firm did not discriminate against menopausal apprentice – Legal Futures

‘A law firm did not discriminate against a legal secretary turned apprentice with menopausal symptoms on the grounds of disability or sex, an employment tribunal has ruled.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 6th April 2021

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Tribunal: Law firm’s part-time FD was worker, not self-employed – Legal Futures

‘An accountant who acted as a law firm’s part-time finance director through a company was a worker and not self-employed, even though he had another client, an employment tribunal has ruled.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 29th March 2021

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Supreme Court: Carers not entitled to minimum wage when asleep – Law Society’s Gazette

‘Care workers who “sleep-in” are not entitled to the national minimum wage when they are in bed, the Supreme Court has ruled.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 19th March 2021

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Clapham vigil policing investigator is suing Home Office for sex and race bias – The Guardian

‘The investigator helping coordinate the official inquiry into the Metropolitan police’s handling of the Sarah Everard vigil and concerns over women’s safety is suing the Home Office for sex discrimination over claims that he has been penalised for being a “white man”, the Observer can reveal.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 21st March 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

Does a Compulsory Retirement Age Infringe Human Rights Law? – by Hugh Collins – UK Labour Law Blog

‘An employer’s compulsory retirement scheme requires the dismissal of an employee for no other reason than the employee has attained a specified retirement age. The retirement age may be fixed in the terms of the contract of employment, a staff handbook, a collective agreement, or other regulations that determine the rules governing a particular retirement age. Although compulsory retirement used to be lawful, since 2011 the position in the United Kingdom (UK) is that an employee dismissed in accordance with an employer’s policy of a compulsory retirement age can bring a claim either for unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 or (for workers as well as employees) for age discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. Following Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes [2012] UKSC 16, an employer can justify the age discrimination of a compulsory retirement age as a proportionate measure in pursuit of a legitimate aim, such as preserving the promotion prospects of younger staff or the avoidance of intrusive surveillance of the job performance of older staff.’

Full Story

UK Labour Law Blog, 17th March 2021

Source: uklabourlawblog.com

Courts close in on gig economy firms globally as workers seek rights – The Guardian

‘Gig economy companies, including Uber and Deliveroo, have faced at least 40 major legal challenges around the world as delivery drivers and riders try to improve their rights.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 17th March 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

Multiple employment claims shoot up as Covid hits working conditions – Law Society’s Gazette

‘Multiple claims in the employment tribunal nearly doubled towards the end of 2020 as the effects of the pandemic took effect. Statistics published this week by the Ministry of Justice show 29,000 claims were made by more than one person based on the same set of facts in the final three months of last year. This is 82% up on the same period in 2019.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 12th March 2021

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Splitting liability between transferees: McTear & Mitie v Amey & Others – Cloisters

‘In McTear & Mitie v Amey & Others the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the controversial decision of the CJEU in Govaerts applies in domestic law – including to Service Provision Changes (‘SPCs’) under TUPE. This means that the contract of employment of a given employee who transfers pursuant to a SPC may as a matter of law be split between multiple transferees.’

Full Story

Cloisters, 2nd March 2021

Source: www.cloisters.com

For Whom the Bell Tolls: “Contract” in the Gig Economy – Oxford Human Rights Hub

‘Are Uber drivers ‘limb (b) workers’ and so entitled to fundamental statutory rights such as the minimum wage and working time protections? In a decision of fundamental significance, six Justices of the United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC) upheld the original Employment Tribunal (ET) decision that the drivers were ‘limb (b) workers. In reaching this conclusion, the UKSC endorsed the ‘purposive’ approach that had been set down in the earlier case of Autoclenz v Belcher by Lord Clarke.’

Full Story

Oxford Human Rights Hub, 7th March 2021

Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk

Court of Appeal rejects appeal by ex-magistrate over dismissal for views on adoption by same-sex couple – Local Government Lawyer

‘A magistrate and NHS trust board member who was dismissed over his views – based on his beliefs as a Christian – about the appropriateness of the adoption of a child by a same-sex couple, has lost two cases in the Court of Appeal.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 4th March 2021

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Low Pay Commission to review minimum wage exemption for domestic staff – The Guardian

‘The government has asked the Low Pay Commission to review a rule exempting live-in domestic workers from minimum wage regulations. It comes after an employment tribunal in December found that the exemption was discriminatory against women. The tribunal heard extensive evidence that women are far more likely to be employed as family workers than men.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 7th March 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com