Latest case reports added to HR & Compliance Centre

We provide a round-up of case reports added to HR & Compliance Centre this week, covering: fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations; TUPE; industrial action; and the definition of disability. 

• Pre-employment medical questionnaire: Employee had not made fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations about her health before appointment In Cheltenham Borough Council v Laird [2009] IRLR 621 HC, the High Court dismissed claims that a former employee had fraudulently or negligently failed to disclose information about her health in a pre-employment questionnaire. She had answered the questions accurately and truthfully, and as a reasonable lay person with her medical history would have answered them. (Employment Review)
• TUPE: Service provision change within meaning of TUPE Regulations 2006 had occurred In Metropolitan Resources Ltd v Churchill Dulwich Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2009] IRLR 700 EAT, the (Employment Appeal Tribunal) EAT held that, when determining whether or not there has been a service provision change within the meaning of the TUPE Regulations 2006, tribunals should consider if the activities carried out by the alleged transferee are essentially or fundamentally the same as those carried out by the alleged transferor. (Employment Review)
• Industrial action: Gate Gourmet employees were fairly dismissed In Sehmi v Gate Gourmet London Ltd; Sandhu and others v Gate Gourmet London Ltd EAT/0264/08 & EAT/0265/08, the EAT held that, while the withdrawal by an employee of his or her labour will not necessarily justify dismissal, in a situation where large numbers of employees deliberately absent themselves from work in a manner that is liable to do serious damage to the employer's business, dismissal of those taking part in the action will be reasonable, even where the absence is not prolonged. (Employment Review)
• EAT rules in favour of employer in police disability discrimination case In Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police v Cumming EATS/0077/08, the EAT held that a special constable's inability to meet the physical requirements to become a regular constable is not an adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities when deciding whether or not she is disabled. (Personnel Today)

Also

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