This employment tribunal decision shows that there is nothing to stop a transferee from disciplining a transferred employee who is alleged to have committed misconduct before the transfer.
This employment tribunal punished a large employer's failure to follow the "Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures" by awarding a combined total of over £100,000 to two claimants who were unfairly dismissed.
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the question of whether or not a potentially redundant employee's refusal to accept alternative employment is reasonable requires a subjective test.
This employment tribunal held that employers should not circumvent the requirement to pay a departing worker for holiday that he or she has accrued but not taken by providing in the contract of employment that the worker will be entitled only to a nominal sum.
Joe Beeston, Kate Edminson, Rosie Kight and David Rintoul are associate solicitors and Iain Naylor is a trainee solicitor at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings. They round up the latest rulings.
In DLA Piper's case of the week, Lund v St Edmund's School, Canterbury, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures should have been followed in a case where the reason for dismissal was stated to be for "some other substantial reason" (SOSR), but disciplinary proceedings ought to have been invoked.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that the words "at one establishment" should be deleted from s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has reiterated the importance of employers carrying out a sufficiently thorough disciplinary investigation where there are allegations of criminal behaviour.
Amanda Steadman is a professional support lawyer, and Joe Beeston, Laura Garner, Helen Samuel and Dinu Suntook are associates at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings.
In the final chapter of this long-running case on the justification of a compulsory retirement age for partners in a law firm, the employment tribunal applied Supreme Court guidance and concluded that a requirement for partners to step down at 65 was justified.