In Bouabdillah v Commerzbank AG, an Employment Tribunal found that Commerzbank had victimised one of its employees when it dismissed her for bringing a claim against her former employer, Deutsche Bank.
Mrs Wade worked for Sheffield Hallam University. Mrs Wade suffered from allergies which, for the purpose of disability discrimination legislation, amounted to a disability.
As of 25 June 2013, the following reforms came into force:
• The qualifying period (2 years) for unfair dismissal will no longer apply where the main reason for dismissal is the employee’s political opinions or affiliations.
• Changes to whistleblowing law:
In Barden v Commodities Research Unit, Mr Barden was the former CEO of Commodities Research Unit. On his retirement, he was paid a sum under a settlement agreement. The agreement simply stated that Commodities Research were to ‘pay £1,350,000’ to Mr Barden. It fell silent on whether the sum would be paid net or gross. The High Court ruled that the sum should be paid net of tax (that is, after deduction of tax). To do so otherwise would be commercially absurd.
In Ceva Freight (UK) v Seawell, Mr Moffat was employed by Ceva Freight, a logistics and freight company, and worked in the “outbound team”. Although the team worked for a variety of clients, unlike his colleagues, Mr Moffat spent 100% of his time working on the account of one client, Seawell. In fact, Mr Moffat’s contract specifically said that he had been employed for the purpose of enabling the contract with Seawell to be performed.
Under UK law, a duty to inform and consult employees as a group is triggered when an employer is proposing to make 20 or more redundancies at ‘one establishment’ in a 90 day period. If the duty is breached, a ‘protective award’ can be claimed of up to 90 days’ gross pay per employee. This appears to be at odds with the European Directive (on which the UK legislation was based) which does not refer to the need for employees being at “one establishment” in order for the consultation obligations to apply.
In employment tribunal litigation, both parties usually bear their own costs. However tribunals do have the discretion to award costs orders against parties who have ‘acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably’. Historically, this power has been exercised rarely but a couple of recent cases suggest that the tide is beginning to turn.
In Malekout v Ahmed and others (t/a The Medical Centre) the Tribunal was satisfied with an employer’s decision to dismiss an employee for redundancy despite the fact the employer had recruited his replacement months before the dismissal.
The latest Equal Opportunities Review has published their 2012 statistics on compensation awards in discrimination cases. The total compensation awarded came to £5,268,597. Unlike unfair dismissal claims, compensation for discrimination is unlimited and covers both financial losses and ‘injury to feelings’. In 2012, there were two cases where the awards were in excess of £100,000.
In Fish v Glen Golf Club, Mr Fish was the secretary of a golf club. In 2008, he was made redundant as part of an attempt to improve the club’s financial position. He disputed his redundancy arguing that the real reason for his dismissal was because the club was critical of his performance.
Workers are entitled to overtime payments as part of their holiday pay provided the overtime was connected to the performance of the tasks required under a contract of employment.
The Times’ senior sub-editor’s comment “Can anybody tell me what’s happening to the f***ing Pope?” in the context of a busy newsroom with a looming deadline on a story about the Pope, did not amount to religious harassment.
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
