Unfair dismissal
This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering: indirect age discrimination; and homeworking arrangements.
This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering: mobility clauses and "protected" whistleblowing disclosures.
Our resident experts at Pinsents bring you a comprehensive update on all the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and advice on what to do about them.
In Qua v John Ford Morrison Solicitors, the EAT holds that the statutory right to take a "reasonable amount of time off" to care for dependants is a right that applies during working hours to enable employees to deal with the variety of specified unexpected or sudden events affecting their dependants, and in order to make any "necessary" longer-term arrangements for their care.
In Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt, the Court of Appeal emphasises that the "band of reasonable responses" test applies to the question of the reasonableness of an employer's investigations into alleged misconduct, as it does to other procedural and substantive aspects of the decision to dismiss.
Where, in a protected disclosure case, the employee had not served the requisite qualifying period to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, the critical issue for the tribunal is whether or not the protected disclosure provisions in the Employment Rights Act 1996 have been satisfied on the evidence, and not substantive or procedural unfairness, which would have been the central issue in a claim for "ordinary" unfair dismissal, the Court of Appeal holds in ALM Medical Services Ltd v Bladon.
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 Wilding v British Telecommunications plc, the Court of Appeal upholds a decision by an employment tribunal that, by refusing an offer of part-time re-employment, an employee who had been unfairly dismissed and discriminated against on the ground of his disability had thereby failed to mitigate his loss.
Continuing our series on the implications of recent significant cases, Hugh Calloway, associate solicitor in the commercial litigation department at Glanvilles Solicitors looks at issues surrounding some employment-related disputes. This week: drugs policies and misconduct.
In Parkins v Sodexho Ltd, the EAT holds that a protected disclosure for the purposes of s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996 can relate to a breach of the employee's own contract of employment.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to unfair dismissal.