The Court of Appeal has held that the employment tribunal incorrectly struck out the appellant's claim against Health Education England (HEE). The Court remitted the claim to a fresh tribunal to decide, as a preliminary issue, if the appellant was a worker in relation to HEE under the whistleblowing provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Court of Appeal has held that the employer was not required to match each category of gross misconduct to each allegation
and that how the conduct was eventually categorised was a matter for the decision-maker after all the evidence had been adduced.
The Court of Appeal has held that the decision to reduce officer head count "to the fullest extent" by forcibly retiring police officers with 30 years' service was justified.
A reference form for regulated financial services employer to provide for a former employee being recruited to carry out a either a senior management function under the Senior Managers Regime or a certification function under the Certification Regime.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that the dismissal of a teacher for showing an 18-rated film to a class of vulnerable 15- and 16-year-olds amounted to unfavourable treatment arising from his disability and was not justified.
In McTigue v University Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust [2016] IRLR 742 EAT, the EAT held that, in order for a claimant to be a "worker" within the meaning of the extended "whistleblower" definition in s.43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996, all that is required is that the end user substantially determined the terms under which the claimant carried out his or her work. It is not necessary to show that the end user determined those terms to any greater or lesser degree than the agency, of whom the claimant might also be an employee or worker.