Managing employees/workers
In Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council EAT/0009/07, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal against an employment tribunal's ruling that an employee who was dismissed for refusing to remove her veil while teaching had not been discriminated against on the grounds of religion or belief.
This week's case of the week, provided by Covington & Burling, covers TUPE transfers.
In Craigie v London Borough of Haringey EAT/0556/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has considered when a contract of employment can be implied between an agency worker and an end user.
In Prakash v Wolverhampton City Council EAT/0140/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that where a fixed-term contractor's dismissal for misconduct was overturned by an appeal decided after the expiry date of the contract, the effect of the successful appeal was to reinstate the terms of the original contract. It could not extend the life of the contract beyond its expiry date.
In May Gurney Ltd v Adshead and others EAT/0150/06 the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that the remuneration of employees entitled to a perfomance bonus "does vary with the amount of work done". Accordingly the amount of a week's pay for the purpose of calculating holiday pay will be determined by taking the employees' average pay over the 12 weeks preceding their holiday.
In Metrobus Ltd v Cook EAT/0490/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that an employment tribunal did not err in increasing the amount of unfair dismissal compensation by 40% where an employer had failed to follow the statutory disciplinary and dismissal procedure.
This article looks at some of the important judgments in the area of the transfer of undertakings over the past year.
In Chairman and Governors of Amwell View School v Dogherty EAT/0243/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that an employment tribunal was not entitled to admit as evidence in unfair dismissal proceedings recordings of a disciplinary panel's private deliberations.
In London Metropolitan University v Sackur and others EAT/0286/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that standardisation of employees' terms is not of itself sufficient to give rise to an ETO defence.
In Taylor v OCS Group Ltd [2006] IRLR 613 CA, the Court of Appeal holds that defects in the conduct of a disciplinary hearing are capable of being "cured" in an internal appeal even if it does not amount to a full rehearing of the issue. In addition, a deaf employee not given the opportunity to have an interpreter at his disciplinary hearing was not treated less favourably for a reason related to his disability.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to managing employees/workers.