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 […]
Unfair dismissal
Dismissal of pilot with anxiety-related sickness absences held to be procedurally unfair
In Matthew Guest v. Flybe Limited, the Birmingham Employment Tribunal considered whether the dismissal of a pilot who had various […]
Does giving notice amount to an unambiguous act of resignation from employment?
An employee giving notice does not necessarily amount to an unambiguous act of resignation from employment, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found in East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust v Levy.
Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018]
A recent case has considered the issue of what amounts to a protected disclosure. In Kilraine v. London Borough of Wandsworth [2018], the Court of Appeal guided Employment Tribunals in such cases to focus on determining whether there was a "protected disclosure" and whether the disclosed information, showed or tended to show that one or more of the six specified types of malpractice had taken place or was likely to take place – for example a breach of a legal obligation.
Can the menopause constitute a disability?
A recent Employment Tribunal's ruling suggests that the physical and psychological effects of the menopause could constitute a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (the 2010 Act) Ms Davies, a court officer for the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service, had experienced the onset of the menopause resulting in her becoming severely anaemic, stressed and anxious, and experiencing memory loss.
'Egregiously unfair' dismissal costs employer £30,000
The employer, Michelin, dismissed their employee who was signed off with stress.
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.
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.
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.
Increase in limits
This week new limits applying to certain awards of employment tribunals, and other amounts payable under employment legislation, have been […]
Insight: UK Employment Law Round-up – December 2016
Welcome to the December edition of our employment law round-up. In this edition, we couldn’t fail to give you an […]
Insight: UK Employment Law Round-up – November 2016
In this issue we look at a recent Court of Appeal decision focusing on sexual orientation protection following a refusal […]