Managing employees/workers
A table containing links to government websites providing online calculators and interactive guidance for employers.
In The Manchester College v Hazel and another EAT/0642/11 & EAT/0136/12, the EAT upheld a ruling by the employment tribunal that dismissals as a result of post-TUPE-transfer harmonisation were automatically unfair because they did not constitute an ETO reason "entailing changes in the workforce".
The employment tribunal held that a mother's six absences totalling seven days in a 12-month period constituted a "reasonable" amount of time off for dependants under s.57A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Victoria Bell is a managing associate and Chris McAvoy, Poppy Fildes, Rosie Kight and Helen Samuel are associate solicitors at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings.
In Local Government Yorkshire and Humber v Shah EAT/0587/11 & EAT/0026/12, the EAT held that the potential uplift in compensation awarded where an employer unreasonably fails to comply with the "Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures" applies only in the case of employees. A worker who was subjected to an unlawful detriment was not entitled to an uplift.
The European Court of Human Rights has held that a Christian employee's right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion under art.9 of the European Convention on Human Rights was breached when the UK courts found that she was not discriminated against by British Airways' uniform policy, which prevented her from wearing visible items of jewellery at work.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to managing employees/workers.