The Employment Appeal Tribunal considered the situation in which an employee is entitled to refuse to travel to work in bad weather.
The EAT has remitted a case to the tribunal to consider whether a mentally ill employee could be considered culpable for his actions which led to his summary dismissal for gross misconduct. It emphasised that the conduct must have been wilful and that the mitigating circumstances of the illness must be taken into account.
The EAT has held that an employer’s duty under the Maternity Leave Regulations to offer a woman on maternity leave a suitable alternative vacancy arises when the employer becomes aware that her role is redundant or potentially redundant. The failure to make such an offer renders the woman’s dismissal automatically unfair.
The Court of Appeal has upheld an injunction against an employee trying to walk away from a long notice period and non-compete restrictions. You may remember our coverage of this case when it was heard by the High Court in the summer.
The Court of Appeal has held that a beauty consultant who provided her services via a chain of companies was not ‘in employment’ under the Equality Act 2010 and therefore could not claim discrimination.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled that holiday pay must include pay for non-guaranteed overtime, i.e. that which the employee must work but the employer is not obliged to offer.
The European Banking Authority has found that it is incorrect to categorise role-based allowances as part of employees’ fixed remuneration and to do so circumvents the limit on variable remuneration introduced by the CRD IV Directive.
The First Tier Tribunal has held that an outgoing employer breached its obligations under the TUPE regulations by failing to notify the incoming employer of potential claims for unlawful deductions of wages. The fact that the failure to pay happened after the deadline for notification was not a barrier, as the outgoing employer had reasonable grounds for believing wages would go unpaid before it passed information to the incoming employer.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has found that a claimant who changed his status from general labourer to a labour-only subcontractor in exchange for £200 was still a “worker” under the Employment Rights Act and the Working Time Regulations and was therefore entitled to holiday pay.
An employee whose employer had clawed back overpaid wages claimed that his employers had not complied with the Employment Rights Act, which requires employers to give written and itemised pay statements. The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that deductions of an employee’s wages should have been properly itemised and explained on the employee’s payslip.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the dismissal of a man who took time off for his dependant, in this case his pregnant partner, was not automatically unfair because he failed to inform his employer of the reason for his absence as soon as reasonably practicable.
A male employee who argued that his employer’s failure to pay him enhanced additional paternity pay was directly and indirectly discriminatory was unsuccessful in his claim. The Tribunal held that the appropriate comparator for direct discrimination is a female applicant for additional paternity leave who is the female spouse or civil partner of someone on maternity leave and, therefore, the claimant could not establish that he had been treated less favourably because he was a man. In any event, it held that the disparity in treatment was a proportionate means of keeping more women at Ford.
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
