Local authority information
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
In Ngengfack v London Borough of Southwark [2002] EWCA Civ 711 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employee who had been seen working in the hairdressing salon that she owned while on sick leave from her teaching job had been fairly dismissed.
In Scott v London Borough of Hillingdon [2001] EWCA Civ 2005 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employment tribunal was wrong to infer knowledge of a protected act on the part of three councillors who had decided not to offer a job to the claimant, and therefore to find victimisation, since knowledge on the part of the alleged discriminator of the protected act is a pre-condition to a finding of victimisation.
In Lovett v Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 12 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a clause that had been incorporated into an employee's written statement of employment particulars did not form part of his contract of employment because he had not agreed to it.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information, news and guidance relating to local authority employers.