Sacked Treasury adviser settles unfair dismissal claim – BBC News

‘A special advisor who was escorted out of Downing Street by police after a confrontation with Dominic Cummings has settled her unfair dismissal claim.’

Full Story

BBC News, 13th November 2020

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Whistleblowing time limits: one off acts vs continuing acts – 3PB

Posted November 12th, 2020 in contract of employment, news, time limits, unfair dismissal, whistleblowers by sally

‘Ikejiaku reinforces the distinction between a one-off act and a continuing act in the context of the imposition of a new contract, highlighting that this was a one off act with continuing consequences. Although the case concerned time limits in a whistleblowing detriment claim, the principles will extend across other areas, such as discrimination, in which unlawful detriments form the basis for claims.’

Full Story

3PB, 8th October, 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Does the failure to place a redundant employee on an existing “bank” workers list render a dismissal unfair? – 3PB

‘It was common ground between the parties that the claimant had been dismissed for a fair reason, namely redundancy. The point of contention arose from the fact that, at point of dismissal, the respondent had in place a list of workers upon whom it would call upon to
undertake adhoc work as and when needed.’

Full Story

3PB, 2nd October 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Disability, Delusions and Definitions – Parklane Plowden

‘Employees that suffer from a disability so defined are protected against various forms of discrimination because of that status. Employers facing claims of such discrimination must assess whether a Tribunal will find that the employee was in fact, during the relevant period, disabled and, if so, whether it knew or reasonably ought to have known of that fact. It is common for employers to concede the fact of disability.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden Chambers, 4th November 2020

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

‘No one questioned it’: teacher’s tribunal victory shines light on unfettered academy powers – The Guardian

Posted November 10th, 2020 in disciplinary procedures, education, news, teachers, trade unions, unfair dismissal by sally

‘Herefordshire academy conspired to sack drama teacher for her union activities.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 10th November 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Is there a different burden of proof in relation to misconduct cases in which there is a possibility that an employee who works with children may pose a danger? No, says the EAT in K v L UKEAT/0014/18/JW – 3PB

‘The Claimant had been employed by the respondents for 20 years as a teacher. On 30th December 2016 the Police entered his property having been granted a warrant to search for and seize computers in the possession of the Claimant. The warrant was based on intelligence that indecent images of a child or children had been downloaded to an IP address associated with the Claimant. The Claimant lived at the address with his son. One of the computers was found to have data that was of interest to the Police.’

Full Story

3PB, 2nd October 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Is there a different burden of proof in relation to misconduct cases in which there is a possibility that an employee who works with children may pose a danger? No, says the EAT in K v L UKEAT/0014/18/JW – 3PB

‘The Claimant had been employed by the respondents for 20 years as a teacher. On 30th December 2016 the Police entered his property having been granted a warrant to search for and seize computers in the possession of the Claimant. The warrant was based on intelligence that indecent images of a child or children had been downloaded to an IP address associated with the Claimant. The Claimant lived at the address with his son. One of the computers was found to have data that was of interest to the Police.’

Full Story

3PB, 2nd October 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Does the failure to place a redundant employee on an existing “bank” workers list render a dismissal unfair? – 3PB

Posted October 29th, 2020 in casual workers, employment tribunals, news, redundancy, unfair dismissal by sally

‘It was common ground between the parties that the claimant had been dismissed for a fair reason, namely redundancy. The point of contention arose from the fact that, at point of dismissal, the respondent had in place a list of workers upon whom it would call upon to undertake adhoc work as and when needed.’

Full Story

3PB, 2nd October 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Is it an error of law to consider the requirements of s6 EQA in a sequential order? No, says the EAT in Khorochilova v Euro Rep Ltd UKEAT/0266/19/DA – 3PB

‘Following her summary dismissal for gross misconduct, the Claimant brought various claims against her former employer, including a claim of disability discrimination. A preliminary hearing was listed in July 2017 to determine whether she was disabled at the material time. The Claimant identified her disability as ‘Mixed Personality Disorder’, which she said, made her ‘somewhat obsessive’ and a bit of a ‘perfectionist’. She relied upon a report prepared by a Consultant Psychiatrist, Dr Schuff, which had been prepared at some point in 2010. Dr Schuff declined to diagnose the Claimant as having a multiple personality disorder but described her as suffering with ‘problematic personality traits’. There was no reference to mixed personality disorder within the Claimant’s GP records until after she was dismissed.’

Full Story

3PB, 3rd August 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Was an employee who resigned as a result of a restructuring exercise constructively unfairly dismissed? – 3PB

Posted August 11th, 2020 in constructive dismissal, news, redundancy, unfair dismissal by sally

‘In a restructuring exercise the Respondent employer had sought to “map” the Claimant into a new role and did not treat her as redundant. The Claimant did not agree that her original role mapped to the new role and did not believe the new role was suitable for her. She considered it a role with lower status, fewer senior responsibilities, and a change of job content; she did not believe that it was 70% similar to her existing job. She resigned in protest, claiming constructive unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and a redundancy payment. The ET found that the new role was significantly different to the old role, and that the Respondent had breached the implied term of trust and confidence when it failed to consult, failed properly to assess the roles, and failed properly to address the Claimant’s grievance and appeal. The employer appealed. The EAT found that the ET was entitled to find that the Claimant was constructively dismissed. However, in finding that the dismissal was unfair, the ET had failed to direct itself that this was a separate issue, failed to address the issue of reason for dismissal and fairness, and/or failed to give proper reasons for its conclusion that the dismissal was unfair. There was, in fact, no disagreement between the parties that, if there was a dismissal, the reason was redundancy. The case would be remitted to the ET (to the same Employment Judge) to determine whether the dismissal on grounds of redundancy was unfair. The claims of wrongful dismissal and for a redundancy payment remained to be heard in the ET.’

Full Story

3PB, 3rd August 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Worker Status Sent Spinning: Case summary of Varnish v British Cycling – 3PB

‘Ms Varnish (the Claimant) is a talented cyclist. She holds world records for track cycling and has won medals at the European Championships, World Cup and Commonwealth Games. She entered into an “Athlete Agreements” with British Cycling (the Respondent). This agreement expressly stated that it was not a contract of employment, that the Respondent would develop an Individual Rider Plan and provide the Claimant with support required, and that the Claimant would, among other things, train to the best of her abilities. The agreement provided for suspension and termination by the Respondent in certain circumstances.’

Full Story

3PB, 3rd August 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Partner fired for ‘topping up’ fees overturns tribunal ruling – Legal Futures

‘The Employment Appeal Tribunal has overturned a ruling that a law firm was entitled to fire a partner who was accused of “topping up” legal aid fees with cash from a client’s father.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 7th August 2020

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Young CICA solicitor was not unfairly dismissed – Legal Futures

‘A young solicitor at the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA), who left only six months after completing her traineeship because her fixed-term contract (FTC) had expired, was not unfairly dismissed, an employment tribunal has ruled.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 20th July 2020

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Marriage discrimination: Gould v St Johns Downshire Hill UKEAT/0002/20/BA – 3PB

‘The Claimant, Mr Gould, was a vicar of an evangelical Christian church, St Johns, Downshire Hill, in Hampstead, London (the Respondent). In August 2016, he was dismissed from his role. The reason given by the Respondent was an irretrievable breakdown in relations between the Claimant and the Trustees, the Leadership Team, certain members of staff and other members of the congregation. The Claimant alleged that the reason for his dismissal was the breakdown of his marriage in May 2015. He brought a claim to the ET, alleging direct marriage discrimination, and that his dismissal was for a discriminatory reason and procedurally unfair.’

Full Story

3PB, 1st July 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Royal Mail postman caught urinating in public was unfairly dismissed, a tribunal has ruled – Daily Telegraph

Posted June 25th, 2020 in complaints, employment tribunals, news, postal service, unfair dismissal by sally

‘Royal Mail postmen should not be sacked if they are caught urinating during rounds, a tribunal has suggested, after one worker was dismissed for relieving himself in a lay-by.’

Full Story

Daily Telegraph, 23rd June 2020

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Wrongful dismissal – how not to go wrong: Cameron v East Coast Main Line Company Limited UKEAT/0212/19/BA – 3PB

‘In Cameron v East Coast Main Line Company Limited UKEAT/0212/19/BA,1 the EAT dealt with the question of whether length of service is a relevant consideration when asking whether a dismissal is wrongful.’

Full Story

3PB, 2nd June 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Changing contractual terms (or not!) in a TUPE Transfer – Ferguson and ors v Astrea Asset Management Ltd [2020] UKEAT0139/19 – 3PB

‘This was EAT decision involving 4 individuals – Mr F, Mr K, Mr L and Mr P. They were all directors of Lancer; Mr F and Mr K were employees of that company, and Mr L and Mr P were employed by companies which contracted their services to Lancer.’

Full Story

3PB, 2nd June 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Professional Regulation – Case Comment: Caroline Reilly V Teaching Regulation Agency and Secretary of State for Education (2020) EWHC 1188 (Admin) – Park Square Barristers

‘The appellant was the head teacher of a primary school in the West Midlands. She was dismissed from her post in July 2011 following disciplinary proceedings which arose in consequence of her failure to disclose the fact of her personal relationship with a man who had been convicted of offences involving the making and possessing of indecent images of children.’

Full Story

Park Square Barristers, 15th May 2020

Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk

The Implied Term of Trust and Confidence and the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme: a Reply – Old Square Chambers

‘On 14 April 2020, our colleague Stuart Brittenden published an article arguing that the implied term of mutual trust and confidence (“the implied term”) requires employers to make use of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (“CJRS”) for agency workers, zero-hour contract workers, and employees, generally.’

Full Story

Old Square Chambers, 19th May 2020

Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk

The Scope of the Last Straw Doctrine: Identifying The Camel’s Back. Williams v The Governing Body of Alderman Davies Church in Wales Primary School UKEAT/0109/19/LA – Parklane Plowden Chambers

‘After a period of mistreatment at the hands of his employer, encompassing a number of different acts or omissions, an employee resigns. The “trigger” for the resignation, the most recent incident (often identified as “the last straw”) has however been misinterpreted by the employee and is “entirely innocuous”; the employer did nothing wrong. The claim of constructive unfair dismissal fails, right?’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden Chambers, 12th May 2020

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk