‘The Employment Tribunal did not ’misdirect’ itself when it dismissed two interpreters’ claims for racial discrimination against the Ministry of Justice, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 17th May 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A 27-year-old woman working for a City firm in London says she was sent home for refusing to wear high heels. But is this legal, fair or healthy?’
BBC News, 11th May 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Leading construction firms have formally apologised to hundreds of trade unionists for putting them on an illegal blacklist and denying them work.’
The Guardian, 11th May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) – the practice of employees routinely using their personal laptops, mobiles and other internet connected devices for work – has become increasingly common over recent years, with one survey suggesting that BYOD has already been taken up by over half of UK workers. Using a single device at home and at work can pay dividends for both employees and employers in terms of convenience, increased efficiency and reduced cost. But there are also various risks that need to be managed, especially in the case of law firms which handle sensitive client data.’
Future of Law, 9th May 2016
Source: www.blog.lexisnexis.co.uk
‘Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling on childcare vouchers is at odds with the approach taken by most employers.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 9th May 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘New and expectant mothers are reporting increasing levels of unfair treatment at work, Citizens Advice has said.’
Full story
BBC News, 2nd May 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Waiting staff should receive their tips in full and it should be clearer to customers that gratuities are optional, the business secretary has said.’
BBC News, 2nd May 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A recent decision by the Court of Appeal provides a “helpful summary” of the circumstances in which employment terms set out in separate documents should be considered incorporated into employee’s contracts, according to an employment law expert.’
OUT-LAW.com, 26th Aoril 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A leading judge has claimed that overweight workers could soon have the power to tackle “fattist” discrimination in the workplace by suing colleagues who make inappropriate comments about body size.’
The Independent, 25th April 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Sparks and others v Department for Transport [2016] EWCA Civ 360
‘A provision in the employer’s staff handbook stated that where in any 12 month period the employee had taken a number of short term absences which together exceeded 21 working days, the employee’s line manager would discuss his attendance record with him, and only if those “trigger points” had been exceeded and the line manager had consequently acknowledged that there was a problem with the employee’s attendance would the line manager take the matter forward in accordance with the relevant attendance procedures. The handbook provided that all it provisions which applied to the particular employee and were apt for incorporation should be incorporated into the employee’s contract of employment. The provision in question was in a part of the handbook on ill health, which contained the following introductory words: “This chapter sets out your terms and conditions of employment relating to sick leave … [and] the management of poor attendance….” Seven employees, all of whom were employed by different agencies within the same government department and were subject to somewhat different but materially similar provisions, brought claims contending that those provisions were terms of the contracts of employment between them and their employer. The employer maintained that the provisions were not legally enforceable contractual terms but mere notes of guidance or good practice of no legal force. The provision in respect of cumulative short-term absences in the first employee’s documents was taken to determine the question between the employer and all the employees. The judge held that the provisions were terms of the employees’ contracts of employment, and made declarations to that effect. As a result the judge declared that a new policy of attendance management introduced by the employer in July 2012 had not been effective to vary the contractual terms of the employment contracts and was not contractually binding on the employees.’
WLR Daily, 14th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In English law there is a presumption in favour of freedom of contract. The penalty rule represents an exception to that principle. A properly drafted liquidated damages clause entitles the claimant to recover the amount stipulated in the clause even if the actual loss is less than the amount payable. The inclusion of the clause is intended to provide certainty, to make the recovery of damages easier and less costly and, from the opposite perspective, to limit liability.’
Littleton Chambers, 4th April 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘A High Court judge has ordered global firm King & Wood Mallesons to pay damages over negligent advice it gave to a commodities business intelligence firm – although they were only 5% of the sum claimed.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 7th April 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A second legal challenge has been made over the government’s decision to impose a new contract on junior doctors in England.’
BBC News, 4th April 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Three-quarters of pregnant women and new mothers experience discrimination at work and one in nine lose their job as a result, government-commissioned research has found.’
The Guardian, 22nd March 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The performance of sports managers is a constant subject of discussion both in the media and amongst fans, with many holding strong views over whether an individual is properly performing in their role.’
Littleton Chambers, 4th March 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Is an employer vicariously liable for the errant conduct of an employee who attacks a customer? Yes, according to the Supreme Court in unanimously giving judgment for the appellant in the case of Mr A M Mohamud (in substitution for Mr A Mohamud (deceased) v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11, handed down today.’
Park Square Barristers, 2nd March 2016
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Apollo Fuels Ltd and others; [2016] EWCA Civ 157
‘The employers leased cars to their employees to enable them to carry out their duties. The cars were leased on arm’s length commercial terms, including lease charges at full market value. The revenue concluded that the provision of the cars was a taxable benefit, for the purposes of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, and served notices of assessment for that tax on the employees. The First-tier Tribunal allowed the employees’ appeal, holding that the provision of the cars was a “benefit” which fell within section 114 of the 2003 Act with the result that Chapter 6 of Part 3 of the 2003 Act applied. That decision was affirmed by the Upper Tribunal.’
WLR Daily, 17th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Sports Direct boss Mike Ashley has been warned he could be in contempt of Parliament if he continues to refuse to appear in front of a committee of MPs. It sounds serious – but what could actually happen to him?’
BBC News, 16th March 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024