The EAT has held that an employee, who was a project manager, did not transfer under TUPE. The EAT cautioned against placing too much emphasis on how much time an employee spends on each project and said that careful consideration should be given to the group transferring and whether the employee belongs to it.
A Tribunal has held that a payment made to a claimant on the termination of his employment which related to discrimination and injury to feelings was taxable as a termination payment because it was connected with termination.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled that an employee’s employment contract did not entitle her to annual pay increments subject to satisfactory performance, regardless of HR’s assurance during the recruitment process that the employee’s pay would increase in this way. On review of the clause, this was not its meaning and there was also an entire agreement clause in the contract, which meant that the employee could not rely on the prior discussions with HR.
The Court of Appeal has held that an employer did not breach its duty of care when it brought disciplinary proceedings against an employee suspected of giving a falsely positive reference about a former colleague. Whilst the allegations were not ultimately upheld, the decision to suspend was within the employer’s range of reasonable decisions.
The First Tier Tribunal has held that a payment to a retired employee to buy-out his right to participate in his former employer’s healthcare scheme did not qualify as either a payment for termination of employment (which would qualify for a £30,000 income tax exemption) or a capital gain. The payment was deemed to be a payment under an employer funded retirement benefit scheme and therefore was subject to income tax and national insurance contributions as employment income.
The Court of Appeal has allowed a party’s disclosure in Tribunal proceedings to be used in subsequent proceedings even though the party seeking to rely on these documents erroneously forgot to ask the permission of the Tribunal to do so.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employer failed to make reasonable adjustments to redeploy one of its disabled employees who was at risk of redundancy and could not attend interviews. The EAT held that the employer should have made reasonable adjustments and offered an alternative way of assessing the employee’s suitability for redeployment roles, even though the employee had been unresponsive when HR suggested alternative roles.
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.
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
