Managing employees/workers
A quiz for line managers to test their knowledge on communicating with employees.
In DLA Piper's latest case report, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a police officer who made protected disclosures was dismissed after taking matters into his own hands and becoming difficult to manage because he was not satisfied with the action taken following the concerns that he had raised, and that he was not dismissed for blowing the whistle.
In Norbrook Laboratories (GB) Ltd v Shaw EAT/0150/13, the EAT held that a worker had made a protected disclosure within the meaning of s.43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, by warning of the danger of sales representatives being required to drive in heavy snow. This was a disclosure of information tending to show a risk to health and safety and went beyond a mere assertion or expression of opinion. The fact that the disclosure was made through three separate emails to two different people did not alter the fact that a protected disclosure had been made.
In Kavanagh and others v Crystal Palace FC Ltd and another [2014] IRLR 139 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the EAT had been wrong to interfere with an employment tribunal's judgment that an administrator had dismissed employees for an "ETO" reason. On the facts, the dismissals had been effected in order to enable the company to continue to trade and avoid liquidation.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to managing employees/workers.