Employers faced with an employee who has been convicted of a criminal offence outside work must look at all the circumstances and still follow their usual disciplinary procedure before making a decision to dismiss, as this tribunal judgment shows.
In Wood v Caledon Social Club Ltd and another EAT/0528/09, the EAT held that a TUPE transfer arose even though the business had temporarily ceased operating at the time of the transfer.
In Shackletons Garden Centre Ltd v Lowe EAT/0161/10, the EAT held that an employment tribunal had insufficient evidence for its finding that an employee returning from maternity leave suffered indirect sex discrimination when her employer required her to work weekend shifts on the same basis as the other sales staff.
An employment tribunal found that a golf club fairly dismissed an employee for excessive personal internet use during working hours, despite the fact that it did not have a formal policy on staff use of the internet.
In Johal v Equality and Human Rights Commission EAT/0541/09, the EAT held that the employer's failure to inform an employee on maternity leave of a job vacancy was not an act of sex discrimination.
In Manchester College v Cocliff EAT/0035/10, the EAT held that an employment tribunal erred when it decided that there had been less favourable treatment on grounds of fixed-term status because it had found that any difference in terms was not objectively justifiable. Tribunals should first consider whether or not any less favourable treatment is on grounds of fixed-term status. Only if the answer is yes should they move on to consider the defence of objective justification.
A family-run business made the classic mistake of having one person act as "judge, jury and executioner" in a disciplinary procedure against an employee accused of misconduct.