Employment Law Cases

Where a ‘protected conversation’ is pleaded, a tribunal must consider all the points of impropriety raised, both from the employer and from the employee.

An employer can be ‘proposing to dismiss’ staff for collective redundancy purposes even where the proposal is provisional and other options are still in play.

Payments due under a PHI scheme in an employment contract could continue to be payable as ‘wages’ after the employee's dismissal.

A conditional job offer created a binding employment contract which required reasonable notice to terminate it.

An employee could have a reasonable belief that her disclosures were made in the public interest, even if her sole motive had been to discredit a colleague.

An employer’s failure to harmonise the terms and conditions of staff transferred in under TUPE amounted to indirect race discrimination.

Severe defects of an internal appeal rendered capability dismissal unfair.

A volunteer in the Maritime and Coastguard Agency was a worker when undertaking remunerated activities, despite copious references in his documentation to him being a volunteer.

Employers do not have to consider past dismissals when deciding whether the threshold to trigger collective redundancy consultation obligations has been reached.

Redeployment is not a disability-related reasonable adjustment if the employee doesn’t meet the essential criteria for the role.

The Jhuti approach of looking behind a decision maker’s reason for dismissal should not be applied to ‘detriment of dismissal’ claims.

A misconduct dismissal was fair, notwithstanding apparent procedural failures.

Disclosures made to an investigating auditor appointed by the employer were protected under whistleblowing legislation.

A tribunal was entitled to find an organised grouping of employees for the purposes of a TUPE service provision change despite limited evidence being presented.

Travel from home to work sites was not ‘time work’ for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015 reg. 30 and did not fall within the reg. 34 exceptions that would treat such travel as working time.

A fair redundancy dismissal requires proper consideration of alternative employment.

An employee’s claim against his employer in negligence, based on the way his employer had handled a harassment complaint against him, succeeded as it breached the duty of care owed to him by his employer.

Part-time worker discrimination is limited to instances where the part-time status is the ‘sole’ reason for the alleged discriminatory treatment.

While it was arguable that two HR consultants, appointed to investigate grievances and conduct a disciplinary hearing, were acting as an employer’s agents when undertaking those functions, it was not arguable that the employer’s reliance on their work when deciding to dismiss an employee meant that the consultants were co-liable as agents.

An employee who was contractually required to work variable shift lengths was not entitled to additional pay for working beyond his average weekly hours.