-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Really Easy Car Credit Ltd v Thompson, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the appeal and held that the employer was not obliged to revisit its decision to dismiss when it became aware that the employee was pregnant.
-
- Type:
- How to
Updated to take account of the General Data Protection Regulation, in force from 25 May 2018.
-
- Type:
- Letters and forms
A model form for an employee to give notice to retire.
-
- Type:
- Letters and forms
A model letter inviting an employee who has given notice to retire to a meeting to discuss the arrangements for their retirement.
-
- Type:
- Letters and forms
A model letter inviting an employee who has indicated their plan to retire to a meeting shortly before retirement.
-
- Date:
- 9 March 2018
- Type:
- Podcasts and webinars
Max Winthrop, an employment law partner at Short Richardson and Forth LLP, joins us to discuss the best way to avoid tricky issues and pitfalls when managing redundancies.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Keeping Kids Company (in compulsory liquidation) v Smith and others, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled that events occurring after redundancy proposals did not excuse a charity's obligation to consult collectively, but could potentially be relied on to reduce the amount of the protective award.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Guisado v Bankia SA and others, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that there is nothing in EU law to prevent a pregnant worker from being included in collective redundancies.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In NHS 24 v Pillar EAT/0051/16, the EAT held that the inclusion in an investigative report of details about previous conduct in respect of which no disciplinary action was taken did not render a misconduct dismissal unfair.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti [2018] IRLR 251 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the motivation of a manager who manipulated evidence to procure the dismissal of a whistleblowing employee could not be attributed to the employer, as the decision to dismiss was taken by a manager who was not motivated by the employee's protected disclosures.