Managing employees/workers
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld an employment tribunal decision that an employee who was allowed to sleep for much of his shift, but had to deal with anything untoward that might arise, was entitled to be paid the national minimum wage for the whole shift.
In Miles v Linkage Community Trust Ltd EAT/0618/07, the EAT held that an employment tribunal was entitled to make no award of compensation where an employer had breached its obligations under the working time rules in respect of daily rest breaks.
In Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2008] IRLR 530, the Court of Appeal held that, having rejected the potentially fair reason for dismissal put forward by the employer, the tribunal was not obliged to accept the automatically unfair reason put forward by the employee. It was entitled to find that the employer had at least proved that this was not the reason for dismissal.
In Consistent Group Ltd v Kalwak and others [2008] EWCA Civ 430, the Court of Appeal remitted to a fresh tribunal the issue of whether or not Polish nationals engaged by an agency to work as meat packers for a third party were employees of the agency.
In Sharma and others v Manchester City Council [2008] IRLR 336, the EAT held that part-time status does not need to be the sole reason for less favourable treatment, as compared to that of a full-time worker, for a complaint of unlawful discrimination to succeed.
In Airbus UK Ltd v Webb [2008] IRLR 309, the Court of Appeal held that Diosynth Ltd v Thomson did not establish a rule of law that spent warnings must be ignored for all purposes. On the facts, where a spent warning was not part of the reason for the dismissal, but the basis for the employer's refusal to exercise leniency in respect of later gross misconduct, neither Diosynth nor the wording of s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 rendered the dismissal necessarily unfair.
In Holis Metal Industries Ltd v GMB and another [2008] IRLR 187, the EAT refused to strike out a claim alleging breach of consultation duties arising pursuant to the TUPE Regulations 2006.
In Davies v Farnborough College of Technology [2008] IRLR 14, the EAT held that a dismissal that involved a breach of step two of the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedure was automatically unfair, even though a full and proper appeal had been heard. The tribunal was wrong to find that the appeal "cured" the defect in the original hearing. However, it was clear that a dismissal would have occurred even if the procedure had been properly followed, so the compensatory award was set at zero.
In Atkins v Coyle Personnel plc EAT/0206/07, the EAT held that, for an employee to claim successfully that his dismissal was related to the fact that he had taken paternity leave, there must be a causal link between the dismissal and the leave.
This week's case of the week, provided by Addleshaw Goddard, covers age discrimination against younger workers.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to managing employees/workers.