The European Court of Justice has been asked to decide a mothers’ right to maternity leave if she has a baby through a surrogacy arrangement. Two cases have been referred to the ECJ and the Advocate Generals (advisers for the ECJ) have offered conflicting opinions. Such opinions are usually adopted as final judgments by the ECJ but in this scenario only one can be.
The UK has launched a legal challenge with the European Court of Justice against the new rules capping bankers’ bonuses to the equivalent of one year’s salary or two years with shareholders’ approval.
In Blackburn v Aldi Stores Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that an employer’s failure to provide an impartial grievance procedure could breach the implied term of ‘trust and confidence’ and form the basis of a constructive dismissal claim.
Mr Benali worked as a chef at a Kosher bakery. In 2007-08, he was absent from work for a year as a result of his disability. On his return to work, a dispute arose with his employers over reasonable adjustments to his duties and he issued disability discrimination proceedings which were later settled. However, the requests for adjustments continued and his employers’ attitude toward him ‘hardened’.
Ms Little worked as a full time sales executive for Richmond Pharmacology. Richmond required all its sales executives to work full time to provide high customer service.
Obesity does not, of itself, render someone disabled and trigger a duty to make reasonable adjustments on the part of an employer. However, if as a result of someone’s obesity there are substantial and long term effects on an employees’ ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities (such as lack of mobility) this could mean that an employee is deemed “disabled” pursuant to the Equality Act legislation.
What is interesting about this case – HMRC v Whiteley – is not the judgement but the guidance given by the Employment Appeal Tribunal relating to disabled employees who exceed the number of days permitted under a sickness absence policy.
The ACAS guide on settlement agreements recommends that employers allow employees a minimum of 10 calendar days to consider a settlement agreement and to receive legal advice. That is a lot longer than many employers would want to give staff, so the question is can this guidance be ignored?
In July 2013, the European Court of Justice in Herron v Parkwood Leisure held that employees who TUPE transfer to a new organisation cannot benefit from collectively agreed terms where such terms are agreed after the date of the transfer and where the new employer is not a party to those collective negotiations.
In Whitmar Publications Ltd v Gamage, the High Court issued an injunction ordering three ex-employees to hand over, to their former employer, the ‘access, management and control’ of LinkedIn groups they had set up on its behalf.
The High Court found that a settlement letter from an employer to an employee and the employee’s subsequent letter of acceptance amounted to a binding settlement agreement. This automatically prevented any further negotiations. If the employer had intended the settlement letter to be a springboard to further discussions, it should have headed the settlement offer ‘subject to contract’.
As reported in our last bulletin, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that where an employer proposes 20 or more redundancies across its organisation within a 90 day period, it will have collective consultation obligations even if the number of employees proposed for redundancy at each of its sites is fewer than 20. This decision has been appealed by the Government and will likely go to the Court of Appeal.
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
