Disciplinary procedures
Balancing beliefs in the workplace: lessons from Higgs v. Farmor’s School
New employer considerations amid the UK government’s introduction of a “failure to prevent fraud” offence
Acas publishes new advice on staff suspensions at work
ACAS Code applied to sham redundancy procedures
The last straw: what does it take to break the camel’s back?
Investigations: getting the balance right
We are reminded by a recent decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) that the purpose of an investigation should […]
Covert recordings: "For the times they are a-changing"
Almost everyone carries around with them a recording device nowadays, in the form of a smartphone or wearable technology. Where […]
Is it still viable to run an internal disciplinary process alongside criminal proceedings?
The Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust v. Gregg [2019] EWCA Civ […]
Disciplinary investigations: Common sense and even-handedness should prevail
In the recent Employment Tribunal (ET) case of Ball v. First Essex Bus Limited, the claimant, a 60-year-old bus driver […]
Context is key in claims of harassment
In the recent case of Evans v. Xactly Corporation Limited the EAT considered whether calling an employee a “fat ginger […]
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.