‘An employment tribunal which decided to carry out its own internet research, apparently to help a litigant in person, has been condemned by Mr Justice Langstaff, president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).’
Litigation Futures, 20th November 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘“Why didn’t anyone in the know say something about it?” That’s the natural reaction of the public when some shocking new scandal – financial wrongdoing, patient neglect, child abuse – comes to light. The question highlights the role of the whistleblower. He or she can play a vital role in ensuring that something is done about activity which is illegal or dangerous. But the price which the whistleblower pays may be high – ostracism by colleagues, victimisation by the employer, dismissal, informal blacklisting by other employers who fear taking on a “troublemaker”.’
OUP Blog, 11th October 2014
Source: www.blog.oup.com
Dhunna v CreditSights Ltd: [2014] EWCA Civ 1238; [2014] WLR (D) 404
‘An employee who was working or based abroad at the time of his dismissal did not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of section 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which provided for the right not to be unfairly dismissed, or section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, which provided for the right to be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing, subject to the exception that he might fall within that jurisdiction if he had much stronger connections both with Great Britain and with British employment law than with any other system of law. In determining that question a comparison of the merits of the local employment law of the employee’s workplace at the time of his dismissal with that of the employment law applicable in Great Britain was not relevant or required.’
WLR Daily, 19th September 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘When Lord Hoffmann gave the only substantive judgment of the House of Lords in Lawson v. Serco Ltd [2006] ICR 250 it was no doubt envisaged that the knotty question of territorial jurisdiction of s.94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA 1996”)– the right not to be unfairly dismissed – would be resolved once and for all. It was, after all, the first time that their Lordships had considered the question, and they did so unanimously in the context of three co-joined appeals.’
Littleton Chambers, 22nd September 2014
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘A broker has lost a claim that he was bullied into leaving a City trading firm where “homophobic, racist and sexist” abuse was widespread, according to a report.’
The Independent, 10th September 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The point at which the new employer becomes responsible for the workers who have been transferred under TUPE rules is a question of fact, not the wishes or intentions of the parties, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd August 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A change in the working location of somebody who has changed employer through TUPE will only be grounds for a constructive dismissal claim if that change is “substantial” and causes “material detriment” to the worker.’
OUT-LAW.com, 26th August 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
IG Index Ltd v Cloete [2014] EWCA Civ 1128; [2014] WLR (D) 360
‘CPR r 31.22 applied to restrict the use of documents disclosed pursuant to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 and, their replacement, the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.’
WLR Daily, 31st July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A solicitor has won a High Court battle to prove he was an employee and not a partner at a firm subject to legal action.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 1st August 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Haringey council has had to pay out more than £600,000 to its former children’s services boss Sharon Shoesmith in compensation for unfair dismissal, unpaid wages, and pension contributions, according to reports.’
The Guardian, 23rd July 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A personal assistant sacked from her job at a successful property company by her boss after his wife found out about their affair has been awarded nearly £35,000 in damages. ‘
Daily Telegraph, 29th May 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Employees who were required to work in a different location after their work was outsourced were not exempted from legal protections aimed at such workers under pre-2014 rules, the UK’s employment appeal tribunal (EAT) has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 21st May 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Under Art 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950, freedom of association is protected. In Redfearn v UK it was held that the UK government had violated Mr Redfearn’s Art 11 right as the UK had not taken reasonable measures to protect employees such as him from dismissal on grounds of political affiliation. The government’s response, although following a suggestion of the court, could mean that the wider issues in Redfearn may yet have to be visited again.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 12th May 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘A Christian nursery nurse is claiming unfair dismissal after losing her job because she said she told a gay colleague the Bible regards the practice of homosexuality as a sin.’
The Guardian, 20th April 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘It was neither sex discrimination nor discrimination related to pregnancy or maternity leave to dismiss an employee for excessive absences due to post-natal depression that took place after her maternity leave had ended, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has found.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th March 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Britain’s biggest airport car parking company, Purple Parking, has admitted age discrimination against its workers after it sacked dozens of them for being too old.’
The Independent, 10th March 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Harini Iyengar explains the Court of Appeal’s conclusion in Jessemy v Rowstock Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 185 that victimisation of former employees remains unlawful even though “on any natural reading of the relevant provisions of the [Equality Act 2010], taken on their own and without reference to any contextual material, post-termination victimisation is not proscribed”.’
Employment Law Blog, 7th March 2014
Source: www.employment11kbw.com
Rowstock Ltd and another v Jessemey [2014] EWCA Civ 185; [2014] WLR (D) 101
‘The Court of Appeal so stated when allowing the appeal of the claimant, Mr P Jessemey, against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 5 March 2013 [2013] ICR 807 dismissing his appeal against a decision by the employment tribunal sitting at Reading to dismiss his claim against his former employer Rowstock Ltd and its director Mr Davis for victimisation pursuant to section 108 of the Equality Act 2010.’
WLR Daily, 26th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Redbridge London Borough Council v Dhinsa and another [2014] EWCA 178; [2014] WLR (D) 97
‘Section 200 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was apt to exclude a parks police constable from claiming unfair dismissal where the Parks Police Service employing him was a “constabulary maintained by virtue of an enactment”, since, for the purposes of section 200(2)(a) of the 1996 Act, all members of the Service were “constables” who had made an appropriate declaration before a Justice of the Peace and the Service was also maintained by virtue of two enactments.’
WLR Daily, 26th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In Hazel and Huggins v Manchester College [2014] EWCA Civ 72 the Court of Appeal has dismissed the College’s appeal against a majority Employment Tribunal decision that the dismissals of two lecturers at HMP Elmley in Kent, Mrs Hazel and Mrs Huggins (“H&H”) were not for an “economic technical or organisational” (ETO) reason that entailed a change in the workforce, but were because they refused to agree to new, reduced terms, and this was connected to a TUPE transfer, making their dismissals automatically unfair.’
Education Law Blog, 7th February 2014
Source: www.education11kbw.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024