The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the employment tribunal that disclosures made by a worker satisfied the "public interest" requirement for protection under the whistleblowing provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The disclosures related to a breach of the employment contracts of 100 senior managers, including the whistleblower.
The European Court of Justice has held that "pre-pack" administration, which is designed to facilitate the sale of a business as a going concern in the event of insolvency, may not prevent employees from having TUPE rights.
An employment tribunal has held that it was direct sex discrimination for a new father whose wife had post-natal depression to be allowed to take only two weeks' leave on full pay, when female staff were entitled to 14 weeks' enhanced maternity leave.
The Court of Appeal has held that, where the reason or principal reason for a dismissal is because the employee made a disclosure, the question of whether or not that disclosure is protected falls to be determined objectively by the tribunal, and not the employer.
An employment tribunal has rejected the unfair dismissal claim of a long-serving employee with a clean disciplinary record who was dismissed over comments she made on Facebook about her employer.
The Court of Appeal has held that the employment tribunal incorrectly struck out the appellant's claim against Health Education England (HEE). The Court remitted the claim to a fresh tribunal to decide, as a preliminary issue, if the appellant was a worker in relation to HEE under the whistleblowing provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
An employment tribunal has held that the employer breached the claimant's right to be accompanied when it refused to allow his chosen companions, trade union representatives, to accompany him at a disciplinary appeal hearing. However, it awarded compensation of £2 only, on the basis that the employer had understandable reasons for the refusal.
The Court of Appeal has held that the employer was not required to match each category of gross misconduct to each allegation
and that how the conduct was eventually categorised was a matter for the decision-maker after all the evidence had been adduced.