An ex-employee’s victimisation claim was covered by a COT3 settlement agreement because of the precise wording used.
Unknown future discrimination claims cannot be compromised by a settlement agreement, which is restricted to complaints known to the parties at the time of settling.
An employer’s imposition of a pay award, at a time when negotiations with the union were stalled, was an unlawful inducement.
Workers are not protected against being subject to a detriment by their employer for participating in industrial action.
Regulation 13 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 gives agency workers a right to be informed of vacancies in the same terms as permanent workers: it does not give them a right to apply.
An employer was neither directly or vicariously liable for injuries inflicted on one of its contractors by one of its employees playing a practical joke.
An employee had not agreed to an extension to the normal three-month time frame for deciding flexible working requests when he agreed to attend an appeal outside that three-month period.
Payments made by a driver to rent his vehicle and uniform should have been taken into account when working out whether he had been paid the National Minimum Wage (NMW).
An employer who directly offered its employees a package of revised terms and conditions - going over the head of the recognised trade union – unlawfully induced them to cease collective bargaining.
‘Sleep-in’ residential care workers are only entitled to the National Minimum Wage (NMW) when they are awake and ‘actually working’, not when they are asleep and therefore simply ‘available for work’.
It was unreasonable for an employer to dismiss an employee for gross misconduct because the employee had installed a camera in his office whilst he was suspended from duty.
When considering whether an employer has subjected a worker to a detriment with the sole or main purpose of penalising them for taking part in the activities of an independent trade union, the question of the employer’s ‘sole or main purpose’ is a subjective question, i.e., what was in the mind of the employer at the time.
Where COT3s or settlements are concerned, the protection afforded by the ‘without prejudice’ rule may fall away where there is an allegation of misrepresentation.
‘Workers’ and not just employees should have protection from being subject to detriments on health and safety grounds and the right to be provided with PPE.
A worker who had an open-ended contract of employment with an agency was nonetheless supplied to work ‘temporarily’ for an end user.
An employee’s breach of a confidentiality clause in a COT3 settlement did not free his employer of its obligation to continue making instalment payments of the agreed settlement sum.
An employer was not vicariously liable for the actions of one of its employees who, to damage his employer, leaked personal staff data on a file-sharing website.
Shop workers’ right to privacy was not breached when a supermarket relied on covertly recorded CTV images to dismiss them for theft.
An employer had waived privilege in advice about dismissal and so couldn’t cherry pick which parts of the advice it disclosed.
Someone who validly becomes an ‘employee shareholder’ did not revert to ‘employee’ status when he later concluded a service agreement with his employer.
- Page 1 of 2