‘The boss behind a banned cancer “wonder drug” has been found guilty of sex discrimination after writing “Red lipstick, heels – good” on his personal assistant’s job application.’
Daily Telegraph, 17th November 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The father of three sisters who brought employment claims against an award-winning chef has said tribunal fees could put people off filing a dispute.’
BBC News, 9th November 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In Ramphal v Department for Transport, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) provided clear guidance on the extent of the role that human resources (HR) departments may legitimately perform during a disciplinary procedure.’
Littleton Chambers, 7th October 2015
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Kiani v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 776 (21 July 2015). In my last post on UKHRB I commented on developments in UK, ECHR and EU jurisprudence relating to procedural fairness in the context of national security.
The developments in this recent case offer some further interesting thoughts on the topic.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th August 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Gillingham and their chairman, Paul Scally, have each been fined £75,000 for “race victimisation” relating to the departure of the striker Mark McCammon in 2011.’
The Guardian, 31st July 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Kiani v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 776; [2015] WLR (D) 325
‘The requirements of the right to a fair trial in article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms depended on the context and all the circumstances of the case. In a security case an individual was not entitled to full article 6 rights if to accord him such rights would jeopardise the efficacy of the vetting regime itself. The same approach was taken under European Union law.’
WLR Daily, 21st July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘It has long been accepted that the issue of whether an employee is “assigned” to an undertaking or part of an undertaking (and thus is subject to a relevant transfer for the purposes of the TUPE Regulations 2006) is a difficult and multifactorial question the outcome of which can often be difficult to predict.’
Littleton Chambers, 18th July 2015
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
Sharpe v Bishop of Worcester (in his corporate capacity) [2015] EWCA Civ 399; [2015] WLR (D) 196
‘In determining the question of whether a person was a “worker” within the meaning of section 43K(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the words “terms on which he is or was engaged to do the work” required the person to have a contract with the person of whom he was said to be a “worker”.’
WLR Daily, 30th April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A former member of staff at a school in Merseyside was not entitled to compensation when he was dismissed from his role, as his full-time work as the elected mayor of Liverpool was incompatible with him continuing as an employee, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 17th April 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In Anderson v Chesterfield High School UKEAT/0206/14/MC, Mr Anderson is currently the elected Mayor of Liverpool. This is an executive post and regarded as full-time. The position carries with it an annual allowance of almost £80,000. He had previously held positions as Councillor of Liverpool City Council, the Leader of the opposition on the Council and ultimately at the time of his election as Mayor, Leader of the Council, which was in effect a full-time post with an annual allowance of approximately £50,000.’
Education Law Blog, 16th April 2015
Source: www.education11kbw.com
‘A middle-aged accountant who said he was forced to dress up as Father Christmas and branded an “old buffer” has won his claim for unfair dismissal.’
BBC News, 6th March 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Domestic workers employed as members of the service staff of foreign diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom were entitled to bring proceedings asserting their employment rights against the employer state, in claims including unfair dismissal and breach of working time provisions, and such claims were not barred by the doctrine of state immunity pursuant to provisions in the State Immunity Act 1978.’
WLR Daily, 5th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Ian Smith reports on basic & immutable problems of employment law that require complex answers.’
New Law Journal, 17th February 2015
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘A single employee responsible for the management of a company’s property portfolio in the Netherlands was an “organised grouping of employees”, covered by UK employment law protections when the service she provided was outsourced to another company.’
OUT-LAW.com, 17th February 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A vicar who claimed he was the victim of four years of harassment has appeared at the Court of Appeal over whether he has the right to bring an action for unfair dismissal.’
Full story
BBC News, 11th February 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘An experienced doctor, who has questioned the official explanation for the death of weapons expert David Kelly, was dismissed by text and email while on a family holiday after he blew the whistle about alleged discrepancies in the dispensing of strong painkillers at an army base.’
The Guardian, 30th January 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘If you are an advisor who only occasionally dabbles with tax issues in settlements for fear of having to delve into murky tax law, take note of a recent decision providing a lucid summary of the relevant principles. The case is also a cautionary tale for claimants challenging tax assessments as the claimant’s unsuccessful challenge before the First-Tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) resulted in a tax bill larger than the one sent to him by HMRC. If Oti-Obhihara [2011] IRLR 386 and Orthet v Vince Cain [2005] ICR 374 ring a distant bell from advising on settlements past, they should now be retuned to the sound of alarm bells as the FTT in Moorthy v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 834 (TC) has doubted their correctness.’
Cloisters, 12th December 2014
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘Was there gross misconduct? If there was, did it justify dismissal? Those were issues before Judge Eady QC in Burdett v Aviva Employment Services Ltd, UKEAT/0439/13/JOJ, a case concerned with both unfair dismissal and discrimination arising from disability. The employee had committed assaults in the workplace. However, this was because of his disability. He suffered from a paranoid schizophrenic illness. The ET was judged to have been in error in finding gross misconduct. They had failed to engage with the question of blameworthiness. The ET was also found to have been in error in assuming that dismissal will necessarily fall within the range of reasonable responses in a gross misconduct case.’
Employment Law Blog, 20th November 2014
Source: www.employment11kbw.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024