Managing employees/workers
In Soteriou v Ultrachem, Solvo Ltd and Ultracolour Ltd, the EAT upholds an employment tribunal's decision that an employee's knowing and active participation in the deception of the tax authorities as to his employment status was primarily for his own benefit.
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 MacCulloch & Wallis Ltd v Moore EAT/51/02, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the right to time off for dependants is a right to be permitted a reasonable amount of time off to provide assistance or arrange for the provision of care if a dependant is taken ill or injured. The employee cannot extend that period unless there is clear evidence that further assistance or arrangements are required. Although what constitutes a reasonable amount of time off will vary depending on the circumstances, in most cases only one or two days will be needed to deal with the immediate issue and make any necessary longer-term arrangements.
The EAT holds in Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v (1) Jarvis and others (2) Brentvine Ltd that an employment tribunal which expressly found that there was no contract, either written or oral, between a client company and a worker supplied to it by an employment agency, erred in law in going on to rule that the existence of factors consistent with a contract of employment subsisting, and the fact that the worker had worked continuously for the client company for nine years, made her an employee of the client company.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to managing employees/workers.