Employment law cases

All items: Sector focus

  • Race discrimination: Entries in notebooks about officer's conduct did not subject him to a detriment

    Date:
    11 August 2008

    In Bayode v The Chief Constable of Derbyshire EAT/0499/07, the EAT held that, where alleged less favourable treatment consisted of accurate written records made by colleagues in their personal notebooks about aspects of a black police officer's behaviour that were of concern to them, the employment tribunal was entitled to find on the facts that the officer had no justified sense of grievance about the making of the entries and therefore had not suffered any detriment.

  • Epstein v Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

    Date:
    29 January 2008

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that, in the circumstances of the case, the issue of disparate treatment did not arise when an employee was dismissed but another was not disciplined.

  • Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council

    Date:
    2 April 2007

    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.

  • Bull and another v Nottinghamshire and City of Nottingham Fire and Rescue Authority; Lincolnshire County Council v Fire Brigades Union and others

    Date:
    20 March 2007

    In Bull and another v Nottinghamshire and City of Nottingham Fire and Rescue Authority; Lincolnshire County Council v Fire Brigades Union and others [2007] All ER (D) 372 (Feb) CA, the Court of Appeal has held that it is not part of fire-fighters' normal contractual duties under a collective agreement to go to accidents and emergencies that would normally be dealt with by ambulance crews.

  • Craigie v London Borough of Haringey

    Date:
    6 March 2007

    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.

  • Fowler v London Borough of Waltham Forest

    Date:
    16 February 2007

    In Fowler v London Borough of Waltham Forest EAT/0116/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has reiterated that the duty to make reasonable adjustments for the disabled does not normally include giving full pay to an individual during sickness absence.

  • Griffiths and another v Salisbury District Council

    Date:
    31 December 2004

    In Griffiths and another v Salisbury District Council [2004] All ER (D) 104 (Feb) CA, the Court of Appeal held that the Implementation Agreement reached as part of the establishment of the new national agreement setting up the National Joint Council for Local Government Services formed part of the contracts of employment of the council's employees. The results of a regrading exercise that was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Implementation Agreement were therefore incorporated into the employees' contracts of employment as legally binding terms.

  • Employment tribunal jurisdiction: Judicial immunity for Police Disciplinary Board proceedings

    Date:
    22 October 2004

    In Heath v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, the Court of Appeal holds that proceedings before a Police Disciplinary Board are judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings to which the rule of immunity from suit attaches.

  • London Borough of Southwark v Ayton

    Date:
    31 December 2003

    In London Borough of Southwark v Ayton EAT/515/03, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an employment tribunal's reasoning in finding victimisation and its recommendation that the respondent should arrange training in respect of racial awareness for the person held to have victimised the claimant, but remitted the claim to the employment tribunal to consider whether the allegation made by the claimant was false and not made in good faith.

  • Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Cambridge

    Date:
    1 September 2003

    In Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Cambridge [2003] IRLR 566 EAT, the EAT held that an employer's failure to carry out an assessment to enable a decision to be reached as to what steps would be reasonable to prevent a disabled employee or prospective employee from being at a disadvantage amounts to a breach of the duty of reasonable adjustment under section 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

About this category

Employment law cases: HR and legal information, news and guidance relating to specific industry sectors.