Managing employees/workers
In Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld [2010] IRLR 38 EAT, the EAT held that the employment tribunal erred in deciding that a solicitor's letter amounted to a qualifying disclosure for the purposes of s.43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The letter merely stated the employee's position in an ongoing dispute, without alleging any facts.
In Royal Mail Group Ltd v Communication Workers Union [2009] EWCA Civ 1045 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employer must inform representatives of employees who may be affected by a TUPE transfer of its considered and genuine view as to the legal implications of the proposed transfer. However, reg.13(2)(b) of the TUPE Regulations 2006 does not impose strict liability on the employer as to the accuracy of that information. Therefore the employer will not be in breach if the information that it gives reflects a genuine but mistaken belief as to the legal implications.
In OCS Group UK Limited v Jones and another EAT/0038/09, the EAT held that a tribunal had not erred in law in deciding that the activities carried out after a catering contract was taken over by a new contractor were substantially different from the activities carried out by the previous contractor, so there could be no TUPE transfer. The extent to which the activities have changed is a question of fact for the tribunal, and the tribunal in this case had been entitled to reach the conclusion it had.
In Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA [2009] IRLR 959 ECJ, the ECJ held that art.7(1) of the Working Time Directive must be interpreted as precluding national provisions or collective agreements that deny a worker who is on sick leave during a period of scheduled annual leave the right to take the annual leave at a later time, even if this is outside the holiday year in which the annual leave was accrued.
In Tapere v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust EAT/0410/08, the EAT held that, in requiring a transferred employee to move to a location outside the scope of the mobility clause in her original contract of employment with the transferor, the transferee had acted in fundamental breach of contract. The employee's subsequent resignation therefore amounted to a constructive dismissal. Further, the transferee's attempt to move her place of work amounted to a substantial change in her working conditions to her material detriment. She was, therefore, also entitled to be treated as having been dismissed under reg.4(9) of the TUPE Regulations.
In Kulkarni v Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Trust and Secretary of State for Health [2009] IRLR 829 CA, the Court of Appeal held that NHS doctors subject to disciplinary proceedings are entitled to be represented at any disciplinary hearing by a qualified lawyer instructed by their medical protection organisation.
In Gutridge and others v Sodexo Ltd and another [2009] IRLR 721 CA, the Court of Appeal held that equal pay claims in respect of employment prior to a TUPE transfer must be brought against the transferee within six months of the transfer. The six-month time limit for claims in respect of the post-transfer period does not start to run until the claimant's employment with the transferee ends.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has overturned an employment tribunal finding that an employer was motivated by an employee's gender when it failed to follow its disciplinary process when it dismissed him, following an allegation of rape made against him. The EAT held that, although tribunals must be alive to the fact that stereotypical views of male and female behaviour exist, there must be evidence for a tribunal to conclude that an employer has been motivated by those views.
In Metropolitan Resources Ltd v Churchill Dulwich Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2009] IRLR 700 EAT, the EAT held that, when determining whether or not there has been a service provision change within the meaning of the TUPE Regulations 2006, tribunals should consider if the activities carried out by the alleged transferee are essentially or fundamentally the same as those carried out by the alleged transferor.
In HM Revenue and Customs v Stringer and others sub nom Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Ainsworth and others [2009] IRLR 677 HL, the House of Lords held that a claim for unpaid holiday due under the Working Time Regulations 1998 can be brought as an unlawful deductions from wages claim under ss.13 and 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to managing employees/workers.