Permanently ill employee did not transfer under TUPE
An employee who had been unable to work due to illness for 6 years and would not be returning to work was not assigned to the group transferring under TUPE.
An employee who had been unable to work due to illness for 6 years and would not be returning to work was not assigned to the group transferring under TUPE.
An employee was unfairly dismissed in circumstances where heavy influence from the Human Resources department had led to the investigating officer changing his recommendation from a final warning to immediate dismissal.
A victimisation claim can succeed where a person is treated less favourably because someone else has made an allegation of discrimination and in the employer’s mind the two people are associated.
The courts will not enforce compliance with a data subject access request (also referred to as a DSAR) where compliance would not be reasonable or the search would require disproportionate effort.
An employer’s refusal to allow an employee to be accompanied to an investigation meeting by a representative from a professional defence organisation was held to be a breach of contract even though the representative was neither a Trade Union representative nor colleague.
The High Court has made a significant decision which will prevent exiting members of an LLP from avoiding restrictive covenants by alleging they had resigned in response to the employer’s breach of contract.
An injunction has been granted to require that a company withdraw its motions in a Massachusetts court against an employee domiciled in the UK.
An employer can fairly dismiss an employee for making derogatory comments on a personal Facebook account.
Workers on sick leave can choose to carry over their annual leave for up to 18 months after the leave year in which it accrued.
An employer’s decision to dismiss an employee summarily on grounds of gross misconduct was not a reasonable response to an employee’s failure to adhere to a new health and safety procedure. It was therefore outside of the ‘range of reasonable responses’ open to the employer, and it constituted an unfair dismissal.
In the context of the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004, an “undertaking” refers to a legal entity – i.e. the employer as a whole – rather than individual business units.
An employer’s claim that it failed to consult collectively because it was not aware that it was obliged to do so is no excuse, and protective awards (of up to three months pay per employee) remain payable in such circumstances.
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