An employer was vicariously liable for life-changing injuries inflicted by its managing director on one of its employees at a Christmas party.
Faced with deciding whether a sum is ‘properly payable’ for the purposes of an unauthorised deduction claim, a tribunal does have jurisdiction to interpret contractual terms.
An employer breached its duty of care when it changed an employee’s personal password on his iCloud account.
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.
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.
Providing an agency worker with 28 days’ holiday and half-hour rest breaks when comparable permanent employees were entitled to 30.5 days’ holiday and rest breaks of one hour breached the Agency Workers Regulations (AWR).
The implied term of trust and confidence may be breached if an employer misleads an employee about the reason for their dismissal.
Where an employer had a ban on personal use of company equipment and an employee denied using an e-mail account for personal reasons, it was a breach of his right to a private life for his employer to access that personal account to disprove what he was saying.
Supreme Court holds that tribunal fees are unlawful and indirectly discriminatory and all fees paid to date will be reimbursed
Surviving civil partners and spouses in same-sex marriages must be provided with pension death benefits on the same basis as would apply to a marriage between a man and a woman. In particular, such benefits cannot be limited to the member’s pensionable service completed on or after 5 December 2005.
Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust
An EAT decision which serves as a word of caution to some claimants, but perhaps also as a reassurance to employers. The EAT upholds an order made for costs against a litigant in person. Whilst generally, a tribunal will afford unrepresented parties a degree of discretion in how they present their claim and conduct themselves throughout proceedings, this case indicates that there is a limit to that discretion.
Glasgow City Council v Dahhan
An employment tribunal can set aside a settlement agreement on the ground that it is invalid because the claimant did not have mental capacity at the time the agreement was concluded.
- Page 2 of 2