Search articles

Showing Page12345...1020...

2 August 2016 0 Comments Posted in Opinion

Charity chief executive wins unfair dismissal case

Posted by , Partner

The former boss of Britain’s best-known HIV charity was unfairly dismissed because she had blown the whistle about the alleged misbehaviour of a trustee, an Employment Tribunal has concluded.

Read more

23 June 2016 0 Comments Posted in Employment, Opinion

Territorial Jurisdiction test

Posted by , Partner

In R (on the Application of Hottak and Another) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that employees who work abroad and wished to bring claims under the Equality Act in the UK must satisfy the same territorial jurisdiction test as that established in the House of Lords (as it then was) in Lawson v Serco Limited in relation to unfair dismissal claims under the Employment Rights Act. In doing so, the Court dismissed an appeal against the Divisional Court’s decision that Afghan nationals who were employed by the British Government to work as interpreters for British military forces in Afghanistan could not bring Equality Act claims.

Read more

Loosening of causal link for discrimination arising from disability claims

Posted by , Partner

In Risby v London Borough of Waltham Forest, the EAT has held that there only needs to be a loose causal link between an employee’s conduct and their disability, for a disability discrimination claim arising from disability to be made out.

Read more

21 June 2016 0 Comments Posted in Employment

National Living Wage is now in force

Posted by , Partner

Fears remain about the possible consequences of the National Living Wage for charities.

Read more

21 April 2016 0 Comments Posted in Employment, Opinion

Pulling a sickie – don’t do it!

Posted by , Partner

Mr Ajaj was a bus driver who wrongly claimed to be more sick than he was. Surveillance evidence proved that he was exaggerating his illness. The Employment Tribunal held that fairness of dismissal should be assessed based on traditional (capability) considerations i.e. when the employee could reasonably be expected to return to work based on his real, rather than his exaggerated, symptoms.

Read more

Knowledge of disability

Posted by , Partner

In Gallop v Newport City Council the EAT has upheld a Tribunal decision that an employee’s dismissal was not direct disability discrimination because the decision maker did not know that he was disabled. The knowledge of the employer’s occupational health department regarding the employee’s disability could not be imputed to the decision maker in the disciplinary process. This followed the guidance of the Court of Appeal in CLFIS (UK) Limited v Reynolds, where the EAT held that, when deciding whether direct discrimination has occurred, the Tribunal should focus on the thought processes and motivation of the decision maker and knowledge of disability could not be implied to the decision maker. The Tribunal has to decide whether the decision maker personally knew of, and was influenced by, the disability.

Read more

Service provision changes under TUPE do not require all activities to transfer

Posted by , Partner

In Arch Initiatives v Greater Manchester West Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust and others the EAT has held that there is no requirement for the whole of a service to transfer in order to trigger the service provision change provisions of TUPE. It is possible for there to be a TUPE transfer where only part of the service being carried out by the transferor is subsequently performed by the transferee. The fact that TUPE makes express provision for a business transfer where there is only part of an undertaking, service or activity transferring, should not be interpreted to mean that the lack of such wording relating to service provision changes means that part of a service or activity cannot transfer. The service provision change is a domestic provision which does not depend on a finding that there is a discrete economic entity with functional autonomy. Therefore a different approach should be adopted to its interpretation. Case law has evolved to require a straightforward and common sense reading of the service provision change and there is nothing in TUPE that expressly requires the activities to constitute all of those carried out by the outgoing contractor.

Read more

13 April 2016 0 Comments Posted in Opinion

Charities fear apprenticeship levy laws could undermine public confidence

Posted by , Partner

There will be no exemption for charities from the Government’s apprenticeship levy scheme, it was revealed last week.

Read more

16 February 2016 0 Comments Posted in Employment, Opinion

Injury to feelings awards likely to be taxable

Posted by , Partner

A recent decision of the Upper Tribunal of the Tax and Chancery Chamber has knocked on the head the concept that most injury to feelings awards can be paid tax-free. Unless the injury in respect of which the award is made is unconnected to any dismissal, it is highly likely that, as a result of this decision, it will now become taxable.

Read more

Comparators in age discrimination claim

Posted by , Partner

In Donkor v Royal Bank of Scotland, the EAT has looked at the question of comparators in a claim for direct age discrimination.

Read more

Instruction not to speak Russian at work is not race discrimination

Posted by , Partner

In Kelly v Covance Laboratories Limited, the EAT has upheld an Employment Tribunal decision that the employer was not directly discriminating or harassing an employee on the grounds of her race in requiring her not to speak Russian at work. The employer had a reasonable explanation for this which was wholly unrelated to the employee’s nationality or national origins.

Read more

Racial Discrimination – Detriment

Posted by , Partner

The case of Cordant Security Limited v Singh is an interesting factual case. The Claimant brought a claim of direct race discrimination alleging that he had been subjected to a detriment under the Equality Act on the grounds of his race. The Tribunal agreed with him – but it awarded him no compensation because it found that the alleged detriment was untrue and the Claimant had made it up!

Read more

Showing Page12345...1020...

Search articles