At Royds Withy King we are still able to serve all your legal needs during the Coronavirus pandemic. Find out more.

Search articles

26 August 2015 0 Comments Posted in Employment, Opinion

Buses, wheelchair users and reasonable adjustments

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

Readers will recall the recently commented on case of FirstGroup Plc v Doug Paulley and Mr Paulley, who made a complaint that the bus operator should be required to ask passengers with buggies to move out of the wheelchair space to make way for wheelchair users. A Court of Appeal found that the bus operator’s policy was merely to request this but not require it, and that this was not in breach of the Equality Act.

Read more

What does “being at the employer’s disposal” actually mean?

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

In Edwards v Encirc Limited the EAT has considered the meaning of “being at the employer’s disposal” in the context of the Working Time Regulations.

Read more

6 August 2015 0 Comments Posted in Employment, News, Opinion

Zero hours contracts are “carefully monitored”

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

Charities have defended their use of zero-hours contacts, following renewed scrutiny of flexible working arrangements. An increasing number of third sector organisations admit to employing staff on a zero-hours basis, but most say that they make up a small minority …

Read more

27 July 2015 0 Comments Posted in Employment, Opinion

TUPE and meaning of “client”

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

In Jinks v London Borough of Havering, the EAT had to consider who was the client for the purposes of a TUPE claim where a party contracts out a service which is then sub-contracted.

Read more

Wasted costs order – beware inflating Claimant’s expectations!

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

In Hafiz and Haque Solicitors v Mullick and another an Employment Tribunal made a wasted costs order against a solicitor based on an inference that an exaggerated schedule of loss drafted by the solicitor gave the Claimant unreasonable expectations as to what he might expect to receive if he won. In fact he did not – his claims of race discrimination and constructive dismissal were dismissed. The company applied for costs against the Claimant on the basis of a massively exaggerated schedule of loss of around £90,000. On several occasions the Respondent has pointed out to the Claimant that his schedule was unrealistic and made several offers of settlement, all of which were refused.

Read more

No obligation to inform employer

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

In Basildon Accademies v Amadi and another, the EAT held that there was no contractual obligation, either express or implied, on a tutor to inform the school where he worked part-time that a pupil at another school where he also worked had made an allegation of sexual assault against him. There was no express term or policy which required such a disclosure and the EAT considered it was inappropriate to imply a duty to disclose into the contract of employment.

Read more

GP – Employee or worker?

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

In Suhail v Barking Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust the EAT has held that a GP who provided his services to a NHS Trust through a cooperative was neither an employee nor a worker for employment law purposes.

Read more

Assignment of employees under TUPE

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

In Jackowlew v Saga Care, the EAT considered, where TUPE applied, whether the “client” or end user could dictate who is assigned to the organised grouping of employees for the purpose of the transfer – and concluded that it could not.

Read more

When does the obligation to collectively consult on redundancy arise?

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

In E Ivor Hughes Educational Foundation v Morris, the EAT considered the time at which the obligation to collectively consult about redundancies is triggered. It held that this happened when the employer makes a provisional decision to close the workplace. Consequently the EAT dismissed the school’s appeal against a protective award of 90 days pay per employee for failure to consult over the closure of a school. The facts were these.

Read more

Reason for disadvantage must be given

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

In Home Office (UKBA) v Essop and others, the Court of Appeal has given guidance on indirect discrimination claims. It has stated that Claimants complaining of indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 must not only establish that they were a member of a group disadvantaged by the indirect discrimination but also why the relevant provision, criterion or practice had disadvantaged them as a individual.

Read more

Voluntary overtime

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

A case in the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal follows on the theme of including non-guaranteed overtime and commission payments in holiday pay calculations. The case of Patterson v Castlereagh Borough Council considered whether voluntary overtime should be included by employers when calculating holiday pay. The Court of Appeal, while adopting a cautious approach, nonetheless concluded that it should. The Industrial Tribunal had concluded that voluntary overtime, which the employer was not obliged to offer and the employee not obliged to accept, should not be included in holiday pay calculations. However this was appealed to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal (there is no equivalent of the EAT in Northern Ireland).

Read more

Indirect religious discrimination and jilbabs

Author headshot imagePosted by , Partner

In Begum v Pedagogy Auras UK Limited t/a Barley Lane Montessori Nursery, the Tribunal held that restricting the length of a garment which the Claimant was required to wear for religious purposes was not discriminatory.

Read more

Search articles