Blog

A majority of the Supreme Court has overturned the decisions of the Employment Appeal tribunal ("EAT") and Court of Appeal and held that a Methodist minister was not an employee. She could not therefore bring an unfair dismissal claim.

Cheltenham law firm Maitland Walker LLP has won an important decision in the Court of Appeal on the free movement of goods in the European Union.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") has found that an employee, who had raised a grievance and submitted a tribunal claim about persistent racist comments, was not victimised when his employer required him to relocate to an alternative site. The employer relied on a contractual mobility clause, and then dismissed the employee after he refused to relocate.

Although the abusive remarks and the employer's handling of the grievance had amounted to direct race discrimination, the tribunal had been wrong to conclude that the reason for the proposed relocation was the fact that he had raised the grievance. The relocation was eventually imposed on the employee after he had refused to participate in an Acas mediation, and was a reasonable solution to the problem that had arisen. The employer offered to subsidise any additional travel costs, and gave the employee a choice of jobs at the new site. In these circumstances, the tribunal had been entitled to find that the dismissal was fair. (Micheldever Tyre Service Ltd v Burrell [2013] UKEAT/0368/12 and UKEAT/0427/12).

The Queen's Speech was delivered on 8 May 2013. The government has made plans to introduce a number of bills that will have an impact on employment law.

The European Court of Justice ("ECJ") has held that an individual with a close connection to an organisation may be capable of making comments which amount to a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") has held that the Equality Act 2010 protects individuals against post-employment victimisation, departing from its previous decision in Rowstock Ltd and another v Jessemey.

The European Commission, on 19 April 2013, announced that it would adopt a proposal for a Directive on measures facilitating the exercise of rights conferred on workers in the context of freedom of movement for workers on 26 April 2013.

The Employment Tribuals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013 is now available to view. It's short and simply sets out the level of fees and includes information about remission.

The parliamentary saga over the Growth and Infrastructure Bill has concluded. The Bill has now received Royal Assent.

The Court of Appeal has delivered an important judgment on the meaning of the so-called "Specific Mechanism" contained in the EU Accession Treaties with the new Member of States of Eastern Europe.

The Government has accepted the Low Pay Commission’s (LPC) recommendations for this year’s adult and youth national minimum wage (NMW) rates. 

The Court of Appeal has interpreted a confidentiality deed which provided that the recipient of confidential information could disclose the information to third parties, if they procured that the third parties were bound by similar obligations of non-disclosure and non-circumvention to those binding them. The recipient was also responsible for any unauthorised disclosure, whether by it or by any receiving third party.

The court held that the effect of the deed was that, if the recipient proposed to disclose the confidential information to a third party, it was bound to procure that the third party would enter into a back-to-back agreement with it which imposed on the third party obligations of non-circumvention as well as obligations of non-disclosure. The decision is a rare example of a confidentiality agreement being interpreted by a court. It is a reminder that a confidentiality agreement will be construed in accordance with the same principles as any other agreement. (Dorchester Project Management Ltd v BNP Paribas Real Estate Advisory & Property Management UK Ltd.)

Question - Does an employment tribunal have territorial jurisdiction over an unfair dismissal claim of an employee who lives and works outside the UK?

On 26 March 2013, the TUC, Unite and UNISON announced that they had formed a group called the Trade Union Share Owners. The group aims to put union values at the centre of corporate governance and has published its own voting and engagement guidelines.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") has upheld a tribunal's decision that an employee was dismissed for redundancy. The claimant had been performing poorly in his job, which led his employer to recruit another person to troubleshoot various problems in the workplace. The troubleshooter was kept on. The employer then dismissed the claimant by reason of redundancy, on the basis that there were two people doing one person's job.

The Ministry of Justice has published statistics in relation to all types of tribunal claims (including employment tribunals) for 1 October to 31 December 2012.

Changing world sees 70 job losses at defence firm in Gloucestershire.

http://southwestbusiness-co-uk.mysmartercms.co.uk/news/26032013090533-changing-world-sees-70-job-losses-at-defence-firm-in-gloucestershire/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=GloucesterEcho&utm_campaign=2306299_Glos+briefing+26.3.13&dm_i=1C2H,1DFJV,71RXXX,4NLU8,1

The Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") has held that employees of a football club, dismissed by the club's administrator before the business was sold, were automatically unfairly dismissed under TUPE. A tribunal erred in concluding that the dismissals, which were connected with the sale, were not automatically unfair because they were carried out for an "economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce" (ETO reason).

The Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") has held that an employment tribunal was entitled to find that section 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not apply to a German national who was married to a member of the British armed forces posted in Germany.

The Court of Appeal has upheld the EAT's decision that the dismissal of two social workers involved in the Baby P case was fair.

Parental leave entitlement for qualifying employees has increased from 13 to 18 weeks as of 8 March 2013.

Crufts took place from Thursday to Sunday last week – Sally Ellison our Residential Property executive was there with her Cocker Spaniel on the Saturday – Gundogs:  great success – winning Best of Breed and competing in the Gundog Group as seen on TV

The Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") has held that the Equality Act 2010 does not provide protection against post-employment victimisation. Such protection is expressly excluded by section 108 of the Act. The EAT acknowledged that it would be tempting to read words into the legislation so as to grant the relevant protection and to ensure compliance with EU law. However, this would amount to deciding that the Act "means the exact reverse of what it says". It followed that a claimant could not succeed with a victimisation claim based on an unfavourable reference provided by his former employer. (Rowstock Ltd and another v Jessemey UKEAT/0112/12.)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") has found that an employer acted unreasonably when it used a series of competency tests normally used in its recruitment process to select staff for redundancy.

The House of Lords has approved the government's proposed amendments to the employment law provisions of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill. Although those amendments will still have to be approved by the Commons, the Bill is unlikely to undergo further significant amendment. The amendments concern whistleblowing, financial penalties, and dismissals for political opinions or affiliation.

The Court of Appeal has held that an employment tribunal did not commit an error of law in finding that an employer issued a final written warning in good faith, despite the employer's failure to consider evidence which might have shown that the employee had not committed the alleged misconduct.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") has held that an employment tribunal had been right to reject a Catholic sub-editor's religious harassment claim, which arose when his line manager shouted a comment across the newsroom about the Pope that contained an expletive.

On 15 February 2013, the government published its response to its consultation relating to implementation of the Nuttall review recommendations on share buybacks.

.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") has decided that a disclosure of information after employment ends can be a protected disclosure under the whistleblowing provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996. (Onyango v Berkeley (t/a Berkeley Solicitors) UKEAT/0407/12.)

An employment tribunal has decided, following remission from the Supreme Court, that the requirement for an employee to hold a law degree in order to progress up the pay scale for legal advisers in the Police National Legal Database was not objectively justified.