-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Rawal v Royal Mail Group Ltd ET, an employment tribunal held that the principal reason for the employee's dismissal was his trade union activities, not because he had urinated in a public place.
-
- Date:
- 17 December 2020
- Type:
- Commentary and insights
While the focus has been on the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, HR professionals have still had their fair share of employment law cases to keep track of in 2020. We highlight seven noteworthy cases from 2020 that employers should know about.
-
- Type:
- Survey analysis
XpertHR's annual survey of staff attrition rates for 2019 covers voluntary resignations and total turnover rates according to organisation size, broad sector and industry.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Taylor-Hamieh v The Ritz Hotel Casino Ltd, an employment tribunal held that a redundancy exercise that effectively ruled a pregnant employee out of an available role in the Middle East was discriminatory. The tribunal's £50,121 award included £25,000 for injury to feelings.
-
- Type:
- Letters and forms
A model letter to notify employees of a freeze on recruitment.
-
- Date:
- 11 November 2020
- Type:
- Commentary and insights
2020 was the year that HR was required to react to the unexpected, but it's now time to plan for the known challenges in the coming year. We look at what HR can do to prepare for 2021.
-
- Type:
- Employment law guide
Enhanced to include additional information on pay during the statutory notice period.
-
- Date:
- 20 October 2020
- Type:
- Podcasts and webinars
Employment lawyer David Whincup provides practical tips on managing the end of a redundancy process.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Aramark (UK) Ltd v Fernandes, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employer's failure to put a redundant employee on a list of bank workers was not unreasonable, within the meaning of s.98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In K v L, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a school teacher's dismissal for possessing indecent images of children was unfair because the employer had not cited reputational damage as a potential ground for dismissal.