Where there is a genuine entitlement to summarily dismiss, an employee cannot rely on the deeming provisions in the Employment Rights Act to get to two years’ qualifying service.
An employee who went on maternity leave was discriminated against and unfairly dismissed after her employer paused her training agreement to recoup expensive training costs.
An employee did not make protected disclosures when she complained to her employer about bullying, harassment, inappropriate behaviour and lack of managerial support over a safeguarding issue.
Where an employee was dismissed because the employer had a reasonable belief that they were not entitled to work in the UK, the employer should offer an appeal to allow the employee the chance to prove that at all relevant times they in fact had the right to work in the UK.
An employer breached its duty of care when it changed an employee’s personal password on his iCloud account.
A disabled employee who was disciplined for 60 days’ absence over a 12-month period was discriminated against because her absence arose from her disability and her employer had failed to establish that its action was a proportionate response to her absence.
Where there was no obligation to provide or accept work, and the other features of the relationship were not inconsistent with this, there was no contract of employment.
The Supreme Court has handed down its decision in the Pimlico Plumbers case which focussed specifically on the question of whether a plumber stated to be self-employed in his contract was in fact a worker. It unanimously upheld the decision of all the courts below that Mr Smith was indeed a worker.
An employer can never have reasonable or proper cause for breaching an express term of the employment contract or breaching the implied term of trust and confidence by imposing a significant unilateral pay cut on the employee.
A permanent, full-time employee was employed under the ‘same type of contract’ as a part-time employee on a zero-hours contract for the purposes of the Part-time Workers Regulations.
The summary dismissal of an employee for a series of misconduct issues was fair (although possibly wrongful), even though no single act amounted to gross misconduct and he had an unblemished disciplinary record.
Where an employer dismisses a disabled employee for misconduct caused by his or her disability, the dismissal can amount to unfavourable treatment because of something ‘arising from disability’ - even if the employer did not know that the disability caused the misconduct.
The context of unwanted conduct is important when deciding whether the conduct is ‘related to’ a protected characteristic.
The EAT reject an appeal by a courier company against a tribunal decision that one of its cycle couriers was a ‘worker’ entitled to paid holiday.
The ‘last straw’ doctrine in constructive dismissal cases allows a claimant to rely on the totality of an employer’s acts, even though earlier breaches by the employer may have been affirmed, so long as the final act forms part of a series.
Employees who continued to work following their employer’s imposition of a pay freeze did not thereby agree to a variation of contract, despite the fact that their tribunal claim wasn’t begun until two years later.
While men on shared parental leave cannot directly compare themselves with women on maternity leave, enhancing maternity pay but not shared parental pay may give rise to an indirect discrimination claim.
Where a contract is silent on when notice takes effect, it is effective when it’s actually received by the employee and they have read it (or had a reasonable opportunity to do so).
Except where there is a ‘red flag’ prompting further inquiry, such as an obvious error in the material or where information has come to light which casts a doubt on the reliability or integrity of the facts or opinions in the underlying material, there was no duty to examine the procedural fairness of investigations upon which facts and opinions in a reference were based.
Paying women on maternity leave and men on shared parental leave differently was not direct discrimination
- Page 1 of 5