Latest case reports added to HR & Compliance Centre
We provide a round-up of case reports added to HR & Compliance Centre this week, covering: harassment; TUPE consultation; legal representation at disciplinary hearings; and religious discrimination.
- Protection from harassment: "Oppressive and unacceptable" conduct is test for harassment In Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd [2010] IRLR 132 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employee who was bullied at work by her line manager had been harassed within the meaning of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. While the Court had to keep in mind the need for the conduct complained of to be serious enough to sustain criminal liability, the key test was whether or not it was "oppressive and unacceptable". On the unchallenged evidence before the Court, it clearly was. (Employment Review)
- TUPE: EAT defines "affected employees" to be consulted on a TUPE transfer In Unison v Somerset County Council and others EAT/0043/09, the EAT held that the employees "affected by" a TUPE transfer for the purposes of consultation with employee representatives were those who would or might be transferred, those whose job is jeopardised by the proposed transfer, and those with internal job applications pending. The definition did not extend to those who might in the future apply for a vacancy in the part of the undertaking transferred. (Employment Review)
- Disciplinary hearings: Employee was entitled to legal representation throughout disciplinary proceedings In R (on the application of G) v Governors of X School and Y City Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a teaching assistant had a right under art.6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to legal representation during disciplinary proceedings following allegations of misconduct, in view of the possible consequences for his career if the allegation was proved. (Employment Review)
- Right to wear "optional" faith symbols at work In Eweida v British Airways plc [2010] EWCA Civ 80 CA, the Court of Appeal upheld an employment tribunal finding that a Christian employee, who was sent home when she insisted on wearing a cross visibly, in breach of the employer's uniform policy, did not suffer indirect discrimination. The Court rejected the employee's argument that the test of indirect discrimination was met, even if she was alone in being disadvantaged by the policy. (Personnel Today)
Also
Week beginning 01 March
2010
Week beginning 22 February
2010
Week beginning 15 February
2010
Week beginning 8 February
2010
Week beginning 1 February
2010
Week beginning 25 January
2010
Week beginning 18 January
2010
Week beginning 11 January
2010
Week beginning 14 December
2009
Week beginning 7 December
2009
Week beginning 30 November
2009
Week beginning 23 November
2009
Week beginning 16 November
2009
Week beginning 9 November
2009
Week beginning 2 November
2009
Week beginning 26 October
2009
Week beginning 19 October
2009
Week beginning 12 October
2009
Week beginning 5 October
2009
Week beginning 28 September
2009
Week beginning 21 September
2009
Week beginning 7 September
2009
Week beginning 24 August
2009
Week beginning 10 August
2009
Week beginning 27 July
2009
Week beginning 20 July
2009
Week beginning 13 July
2009
Week beginning 6 July
2009
Archive: January to June
2009
Archive: July to December
2008
Archive: January to June
2008
Archive: July to December
2007
Archive: January to June
2007
Archive: July to December
2006
