After the controversy surrounding zero hours contracts, the Government is proposing to ban employers from using exclusivity clauses in them. On 25 August 2014, the Government launched a consultation to examine the potential loopholes employers could use to get around its proposed changes to the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill.
The employment tribunal has held that an employee was not liable for PAYE under-deductions because their employer had not taken reasonable care in complying with the PAYE Regulations. Instead the employer had delegated the matter to a payroll agent without liaising with them or making enquiries of them.
The High Court has held that the calculation of a bonus pool by an employer bank involved an exercise of discretion and therefore the bank was under a duty, by virtue of an implied contractual term, to exercise its discretion honestly and in good faith and not arbitrarily, capriciously or irrationally.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employee’s previous breach of contract did not prevent him from bringing a claim for constructive dismissal against his former employer. However, the EAT noted that if the employer established that it could have fairly dismissed the employee had it known about his previous breach of contract, the employee’s compensation could be reduced by up to 100%.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that Sheffield City Council was bound by the rates of pay erroneously set out in a letter from an HR consultant to its employees. It was held that the letter was binding on the employer because the HR consultant was held out as being authorised to make this communication.
The High Court granted an injunction against an employee trying to walk away from a long notice period and non-compete restrictions. It held that the employment relationship was still in existence even though the employee had not been paid.
An employment contract had been poorly thought through so that on a literal interpretation of the post termination non-compete restrictions within it, no protection was given to the employer. The Court of Appeal held that words could not be added to protect the employer’s interests in a badly struck deal.
The Advocate General has given an opinion that ‘severe’ obesity could amount to a disability under the Equal Treatment Framework Directive. He thought that only people with a body mass index of 40 or over would suffer sufficient hindrance to participation in professional life to be considered disabled.
Mr Badmos was a regional development manager for Family Mosaic Housing Association. This employer employed five regional development managers, three of which were new business managers and two were delivery managers. Mr Badmos was a delivery manager. In 2009, the Housing Association decided to reduce the number of regional development managers from five to four, eliminating one new business manager. Both sets of managers were treated as having interchangeable skills and so Mr Badmos’ role could be made redundant, despite the fact that his role as delivery manager was not being cut.
In this complicated case concerning the giving of references in the public sector, the High Court has made a determination of an important point of principle of general application, namely that a disclaimer at the end of a reference purporting to absolve the giver of the reference from legal liability with respect to the recipient is effective. For some years, this had been in doubt.
The Supreme Court has held that that the blanket requirement to disclose all convictions and cautions for the purpose of criminal records checks without regard to their relevance was not compatible with the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
A decision by the Court of Appeal confirmed that an employer was not under an obligation to make reasonable adjustments for a non-disabled employee whose daughter had Down’s syndrome. The Court of Appeal held that although employers are under a duty to make reasonable adjustments for their employees who have disabilities, they are not under an obligation to make reasonable adjustments for an employee who does not have a disability but is associated with someone who does.
Receive our monthly employment law newsletter and invitations to our events!
Copyright © Brahams Dutt Badrick French LLP | Cookies & Privacy Policy | Legal Notices | Fees Information | Complaints Procedure
