In DLA Piper's latest case report, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that an employment tribunal's judgment was flawed when it held that an employee of a transferor was assigned to the organised group of employees that were reassigned to the transferee on a service provision change.
The employment tribunal held in this case that, on a transfer under the TUPE Regulations, the transferor was liable to pay compensation for failing to inform the transferee that it would inherit claims from its employees for unpaid salary.
David Malamatenios is partner, Linda Quinn, Colin Makin and Krishna Santra are senior associates, and Dominic Speedie is an associate at Colman Coyle Solicitors. They round up the latest rulings.
The employment tribunal held in this case that the hirer, and not the temporary worker agency, was liable to pay compensation to the agency worker for failure to pay her at the rate she would have been paid had she been directly recruited by the hirer as an employee.
Ford has successfully justified its policy of paying men on additional paternity leave the statutory minimum, while at the same time offering generous enhanced maternity pay to women on maternity leave.
In DLA Piper's latest case report, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a police officer who made protected disclosures was dismissed after taking matters into his own hands and becoming difficult to manage because he was not satisfied with the action taken following the concerns that he had raised, and that he was not dismissed for blowing the whistle.
In Norbrook Laboratories (GB) Ltd v Shaw EAT/0150/13, the EAT held that a worker had made a protected disclosure within the meaning of s.43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, by warning of the danger of sales representatives being required to drive in heavy snow. This was a disclosure of information tending to show a risk to health and safety and went beyond a mere assertion or expression of opinion. The fact that the disclosure was made through three separate emails to two different people did not alter the fact that a protected disclosure had been made.
In Kavanagh and others v Crystal Palace FC Ltd and another [2014] IRLR 139 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the EAT had been wrong to interfere with an employment tribunal's judgment that an administrator had dismissed employees for an "ETO" reason. On the facts, the dismissals had been effected in order to enable the company to continue to trade and avoid liquidation.