Managing employees/workers
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employer did not unfairly dismiss an employee when it failed to investigate in detail the nature of his misconduct in circumstances where he had admitted his guilt.
In Carl v University of Sheffield [2009] IRLR 616 EAT, the EAT held that a part-time worker complaining of less favourable treatment does not have to show that the treatment was solely on the ground of his or her part-time status. The EAT also held that the comparison must be with an actual, not a hypothetical, comparator.
In Protectacoat Firthglow Ltd v Szilagyi [2009] IRLR 365 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a purported contract for services - entered into by the worker as a prerequisite for being given work - was a sham, because it did not represent the parties' true intentions and expectations. The individual was an employee, not an independent contractor.
In Matuszowicz v Kingston Upon Hull City Council [2009] IRLR 288 CA, the Court of Appeal held that, where an employee relies on the employer's alleged continuing omission to make a reasonable adjustment, in the absence of evidence as to the date of the employer's decision, the time limit for instituting tribunal proceedings runs from the end of the period during which the employer might reasonably have been expected to effect the adjustment, unless there is an earlier inconsistent act.
In Small and others v Boots Co and another [2009] All ER (D) 200 (Jan) EAT, the EAT held that the fact that the employer had stated that a bonus was discretionary did not necessarily mean that it had no contractual effect. The employer's discretion could relate to: whether or not to operate a bonus system at all; whether or not to award a bonus in a given year; or the amount of bonus to be awarded.
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers TUPE and supplier contracts.
The Court of Appeal had held that there is no reason in principle why a director and controlling shareholder cannot also be an employee.
In Amicus and another v City Building (Glasgow) LLP and others [2009] IRLR 253 EAT, the EAT held that, after a transfer, the transferee employer is not obliged to consult with representatives of the transferred employees in respect of the measures that it proposes to take.
In Schultz-Hoff v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund; Stringer and others v Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs Cases C-350/06 and C-520/06 ECJ, the ECJ has held that the Working Time Directive allows member states to prevent workers from taking annual leave during periods of sickness, provided that they are permitted to take it at some other time. If sickness prevents a worker from taking his or her annual leave entitlement, it must be carried over into the next leave year. Workers whose employment is terminated cannot have their payment in lieu of annual leave reduced on account of a period of sickness prior to the dismissal.
Twenty-eight years after its birth, TUPE still raises thorny questions. Its complexity is evidenced by the number of groundbreaking tribunal cases which have come to the fore recently, many of which could have far-reaching ramifications at a time of economic instability, writes Lesley Murphy.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to managing employees/workers.