Cases within D

• expand

  Dekker v Stichting Vormingscentrum voor Jonge Volwassen (VJV-Centrum) Plus [1991] IRLR 27 ECJ (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Pregnancy discrimination is sex discrimination

    Date:

    1 January 1991

    In Dekker v Stichting Vormingscentrum voor Jonge Volwassenen (VJV-Centrum) Plus (8 November 1990), the European Court of Justice, in a historic decision, holds that refusal to employ a woman because she is pregnant or because of the costs associated with employing a pregnant woman is direct discrimination on grounds of sex contrary to the principle of equal treatment embodied in the EEC Equal Treatment Directive.

  • Sex discrimination: Refusal to hire pregnant woman breaches EEC law

    Date:

    21 December 1990

    The European Court of Justice has ruled in Dekker v Stichting Vormingscentrum voor Jong Volwassenen (VJV-Centrum) Plus that it is a breach of the EEC "Equal Treatment" Directive for an employer to refuse to recruit a woman because she is pregnant, even if hiring her would have serious financial consequences for the employer.

• expand

  Delabole Slate Ltd v Berriman [1985] IRLR 305 CA (2 reports relating to this case)

  • TUPE case law update

    Date:

    2 February 2007

    This article looks at some of the important judgments in the area of the transfer of undertakings over the past year.

  • Transfer of undertakings: Changes in the workforce

    Date:

    4 June 1985

    In Delabole Slate Ltd v Berriman the Court of Appeal upholds the EAT's decision that a dismissal which occurs as a consequence of a change in terms of employment following the transfer of an undertaking is not a dismissal for "an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce", and so is automatically unfair under reg.8(1) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

• expand

  Delaney v Staples (t/a De Montfort Recruitment) [1991] IRLR 112 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Wages Act: Pay in lieu of notice is not "wages"

    Date:

    25 January 1991

    In the first Wages Act case to come before the Court of Appeal - Delaney v Staples t/a De Montfort Recruitment - the Court rules that a payment in lieu of notice is not "wages" and so cannot be the subject of a complaint under the Act.

• expand

  Delaney v Staples (t/a De Montfort Recruitment) [1992] IRLR 191 HL (1 report relating to this case)

  • Wages Act: Pay in lieu of notice not covered by Wages Act

    Date:

    1 April 1992

    In Delaney v Staples t/a De Montfort Recruitment, the House of Lords holds that a payment in lieu of notice, paid by an employer when terminating employment without notice, is not "wages"; and so cannot be the subject of a complaint to an industrial tribunal under the Wages Act 1986.

• expand

  Dennison v The University College of St Mark and St John & others EAT/0196/06 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Equal pay: case law update

    Date:

    2 March 2007

    This article looks at some of the significant judgments in the area of equal pay over the past year and their implications.

• expand

  Department for Work and Pensions v Sutcliffe EAT/0319/07 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Department for Work and Pensions v Sutcliffe

    Date:

    5 February 2008

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employee who was sick during her ordinary maternity leave was not entitled to be paid contractual sick pay during that period.

• expand

  Department for Work and Pensions v Thompson [2004] IRLR 348 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Department for Work and Pensions v Thompson

    Date:

    1 June 2004

    In Department for Work and Pensions v Thompson [2004] IRLR 348 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a workplace dress code that requires men to wear a collar and tie and women to dress appropriately to a similar standard may not be discriminatory on the grounds of sex.

• expand

  Department for Work and Pensions v Webley [2005] IRLR 288 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Fixed-term employees: Policy of termination after 51 weeks' service not unlawful

    Date:

    11 February 2005

    In Webley v Department for Work and Pensions, the Court of Appeal holds that an employer's practice of refusing to renew fixed-term employment contracts once 51 weeks of service had elapsed was not unlawful under the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002.

• expand

  Devonald v Rosser & Sons [1906] 2 KB 728 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Devonald v Rosser & Sons

    Date:

    31 December 1906

    In Devonald v Rosser & Sons [1906] 2 KB 728 CA, the Court of Appeal held that there was an implied term in a piece rate worker's contract that the employer would provide him with a reasonable amount of work.

• expand

  Dewhirst Group v GMB Trade Union EAT/0486/03 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Collective redundancies: "Proposal to dismiss" was made when directors approved decision

    Date:

    19 December 2003

    In Dewhirst Group v GMB Trade Union, the EAT affirms that the statutory duty under UK law to consult with employee representatives in relation to collective redundancies is triggered at the point at which a "proposal" to dismiss employees is made.