Managing employees/workers
An employment tribunal has found that an individual employed on three consecutive fixed-term contracts over almost a decade is a permanent employee, in a case that has significance for employers in sectors that regularly employ staff for a fixed term, such as teaching, IT and construction.
In Secretary of State for Justice v Mansfield EAT/0539/09, the EAT held that the postponement of disciplinary proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings in respect of the employee's alleged misconduct did not render his eventual dismissal unfair.
In Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v Roldan [2010] EWCA Civ 522 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employment tribunal was entitled to find a dismissal unfair where the reason for the dismissal included an allegation about a secondary incident that had not been particularised, and where there had been a failure to investigate a key dispute of fact between the accuser and accused.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that, on the facts of the case, an employer did not commit sex discrimination against an employee on maternity leave when an administrative error meant that she was not informed of a job vacancy.
The employment tribunal in this case increased the amount of compensation awarded to an unfairly dismissed employee because of his employer's failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment or to dismiss him in accordance with the Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures.
Ceri Hughes, David Parry, and Carly Mather, associates at Addleshaw Goddard, detail the latest rulings.
This case is a good example of a key issue in TUPE claims: whether or not an employee was assigned to the transferred undertaking.
Niki Walker, managing associate at Addleshaw Goddard, details the latest rulings.
In Goode v Marks & Spencer plc EAT/0442/09, the EAT held that an employment tribunal was right to find that an employee had not been dismissed because of having made a protected disclosure. There had been no qualifying or protected disclosure, but merely an opinion expressed about the employer's proposal for changes to a discretionary enhanced redundancy scheme.
In BP plc v Elstone and another EAT/0141/09, the EAT held that a worker was entitled to bring a complaint under the whistleblowing provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of a detriment that he allegedly suffered in his current employment because of a protected disclosure that he had made while in previous employment.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to managing employees/workers.