1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

‘Egregiously unfair’ dismissal costs employer £30,000

The employer, Michelin, dismissed their employee who was signed off with stress.
Read more »
‘Egregiously unfair’ dismissal costs employer £30,000

Non-renewal of fixed-term contracts – be careful!

The recent case of Royal Surrey County NHS Foundation Trust v. Drzymala highlights how important it is to handle the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract properly.
Read more »
Non-renewal of fixed-term contracts – be careful!

Timing and permission to amend an ET1

In the recent case of Galilee v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis the EAT held that the doctrine of 'relation back', whereby amendments take effect from the date of the original document which it amended, does not apply in the tribunal.
Read more »
Timing and permission to amend an ET1

EAT finds you cannot cherry pick from without prejudice conversations

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), in the recent case of Graham v. Agilitas IT Solutions Ltd. (Agilitas), ruled that an employer cannot rely on parts of a without prejudice conversation held in accordance with s.111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) and/or the "common law" without prejudice rule, whilst at the same time seeking to use the without prejudice rule as a shield in reference to that same conversation. S.111A of the ERA permits discussions between an employer and an employee with a view to terminating employment on agreed terms to remain confidential and inadmissible in proceedings before a tribunal for unfair dismissal.
Read more »
EAT finds you cannot cherry pick from without prejudice conversations

Supreme Court rules that embassy staff are not excluded by state immunity

In the recent case of Benkharbouche v. Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs & Anor the Supreme Court agreed with the EAT and the Court of Appeal and unanimously held that sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) of the State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA) cannot protect embassies from Employment Tribunal claims brought by domestic staff in the UK.
Read more »
Supreme Court rules that embassy staff are not excluded by state immunity

Increase in limits

This week new limits applying to certain awards of employment tribunals, and other amounts payable under employment legislation, have been increased.

The increases apply where the event giving rise to the entitlement to compensation or other payments occurred on or after 6 April 2017. Limits previously in force are preserved in relation to cases where the relevant event was before 6 April 2017.

Key new relevant limits are as follows:

  • Minimum basic award in cases where a dismissal is unfair by virtue of health and safety, employee representative, trade union, or occupational pension trustee reasons: Old limit – £5,853; New limit – £5,970
  • Limit on amount of guarantee payment payable to an employee in respect of any day: Old limit – £26.00; New limit – £27.00
  • Limit on amount of compensatory award for unfair dismissal: Old limit – £78,962; New limit – £80,541
  • Maximum amount of “a week’s pay” for the purpose of calculating a redundancy payment or for various awards including the basic or additional award of compensation for unfair dismissal: Old limit – £479; New limit – £489
Increase in limits

Perry’s Motor Sales Ltd v. Edwards

This case involved a Claimant that had been dismissed for gross misconduct taken together with an existing final written warning. The misconduct (on both occasions) was in relation to invoicing issues with the latter incident involving the Claimant making a false submission. The Employment Tribunal (ET) found that the Claimant’s dismissal was unfair, but that the Claimant had contributed to his dismissal by 50 per cent and therefore ordered the compensation be reduced accordingly.

However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has found that the ET had erred in its finding of unfair dismissal because it:

  • determined an issue that the Claimant had not raised in his claim form, namely the validity of the earlier warning;
  • had applied the wrong test – it asked whether the warning was within the range of reasonable responses rather than whether the warning had been issued because of a hidden agenda, was manifestly inappropriate and/or was issued without grounds; and
  • substituted its own view for that of the reasonable employer.

The case has now been remitted to a different tribunal for rehearing.

Despite the ET’s incorrect approach, this is a good reminder for employers to ensure that the reason(s) for any warning is clearly documented so there cannot be any concern that a warning is issued without clear grounds.

Perry’s Motor Sales Ltd v. Edwards

Insight: UK Employment Law Round-up – December 2016

Employment Round Up THUMBNAIL Welcome to the December edition of our employment law round-up. In this edition, we couldn’t fail to give you an update on the most important piece of constitutional litigation of our time, which has been heard by the Supreme Court on Article 50. Other festive treats include a summary of recent restrictive covenants cases (first published on HR-Inform) and unfair dismissal litigation. We have also given you our take on calculating rest breaks for workers, and the dangers of using employees’ personal data unlawfully.

Read the full newsletter here.

Insight: UK Employment Law Round-up – December 2016

Insight: UK Employment Law Round-up – November 2016

Employment Round Up THUMBNAIL In this issue we look at a recent Court of Appeal decision focusing on sexual orientation protection following a refusal to bake a cake decorated with a gay rights message. We also look at the rights of breastfeeding mothers at work, and Asda’s equal pay claim case, which may lead to further claims against Asda. We consider Tribunal decisions deciding employment status and rest break rights. We review the importance of having clear guidelines on job descriptions, and proposals to provide an entitlement to bereavement leave. Finally, we give an update on changes to the Immigration Rules.

Read the full newsletter here.

Insight: UK Employment Law Round-up – November 2016

Calling HR: time to give your views on the work, health and disability green paper on “improving lives”

The government has produced a consultation paper, “Work, health and disability: improving lives”. The paper highlights the following striking statistics:

  • 1.8 million employees on average have a long-term sickness absence of four weeks or more in a year;
  •  ill health among working-age people costs the economy £100 billion;
  • sickness absence costs employers £9 billion a year;
  • there has been an increase of over 400,000 in the number of working-age disabled people in the UK since 2013, taking the total to more than 7 million;
  • 8 per cent of employers report they have recruited a person with a disability or long-term health condition over a year; and
  • less then half (48 per cent) of disabled people are in employment, compared to 80 per cent of the non-disabled population.

Over 3.3 million disabled people are now in work; however, many disabled people find employers reluctant to give them a chance. Disabled people also struggle with the interplay between work and the benefits system, which is not tailored to helping them stay in work. The government paper signals a desire for change (although this change may not happen overnight). The paper seeks employers’ views on areas including:

  • the key barriers preventing employers of all sizes and sectors recruiting and keeping the talent of disabled people and people with health conditions;
  • information that it would be reasonable for employers to be aware of to address the health needs of their employees;
  • reform of statutory sick pay to encourage a phased return to work;
  • how to ensure that all healthcare professionals recognise the value of work and consider work during consultations with working-age patients; and
  • the role of doctors in providing work and health information, making a judgement on fitness for work and providing sickness certification.

Views are sought from various respondents including both large and small employers, people with health conditions and disabled people, families, friends, teachers and carers. The consultation closes on 17 February 2017. Responses can be filed here.

Calling HR: time to give your views on the work, health and disability green paper on “improving lives”