We look at the key takeaways for employers from the EAT’s first decision on the fairness of a COVID-19 related dismissal on our website.
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
About Laura Anthony
Laura supports the team on a broad range of both contentious and non-contentious legal matters, acting for both employers and employees. Her experience includes: advising corporate bodies and senior-level individuals on a wide range of employment law issues; drafting and negotiating terms of employment contracts and consultancy agreements; advising on and negotiating settlement agreements for employers and exiting employees; reviewing and drafting employment policies and handbooks; advising employers on exiting strategies and the associated unfair and wrongful dismissal risks; and providing support on large corporate transactions.
You might also like...
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.
The UK’s new points-based immigration system – get ready!
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 […]