If an employee is going to be employed for more than one month they are entitled to a written statement of certain terms of their employment.  This is commonly known as a Section 1 Statement as the requirements are contained in Section 1 of The Employment Rights Act 1996 and the requirements can be incorporated into a Contract of Employment. The Statement or Contract must be given to employees no later than two months after their employment begins.  From 6 April 2020, the majority of particulars will need to be given in a single statement before the job begins. Even if the employment terminates before the end of the two-month period, the employer must still give the written statement. Current Requirements The following information is required to be given: The – Read More…

An employment tribunal judge has ruled that ethical veganism is capable of amounting to a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. Jordi Casamitjana claims that he was dismissed by the League Against Cruel Sports, an animal welfare charity, after disclosing that the charity’s pension fund invested in companies involved in animal testing. Mr Casamitjana says when he drew his bosses’ attention to the pension fund investments, they did nothing, so he informed colleagues and was sacked as a result. League Against Cruel Sports alleges that Mr Casamitjana was dismissed for gross misconduct for reasons unconnected with his veganism; this issue is yet to be determined at a hearing next month. The judge ruled that ethical vegans should be entitled to similar legal protections in British workplaces as those who – Read More…

The Supreme Court has decided that an employee had been automatically unfairly dismissed as a result of protected disclosures even though the person who made the decision to dismiss her was unaware of the protected disclosures. Usually it is accepted that the reasons given by the appointed decision-maker will be the reasons for the dismissal. However, where the real reason for the dismissal is hidden from the decision-maker behind an invented reason, it is the court’s duty to look behind the invention. Provided that the invented reason belongs to a person placed by the employer in the hierarchy of responsibility above the employee, there is no conceptual difficulty about attributing to the employer that person’s state of mind rather than that of the deceived decision-maker. Legal Overview A worker must – Read More…

In Dewhurst v Revisecatch Ltd t/a Ecourier and City Sprint (UK) Limited ET2201909/18, the London Central Employment Tribunal has held for the first time that workers qualify for protection under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE). The Tribunal found that that workers falling within the definition in section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (known as “limb (b) workers”) are protected under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006). Regulation 2(1) of TUPE 2006 defines “employee” as any individual working under a contract of service or apprenticeship “or otherwise”, but excludes the genuinely self-employed. The Acquired Rights Directive (2001/23/EC) (ARD), defines an employee as “any person who, in the Member State concerned, is protected as an employee under national law”. Article – Read More…

The Employment Tribunal (ET) awarded a gay headteacher, Matthew Aplin, over £696,000 in compensation after he successfully brought a claim for unfair dismissal and sexual-orientation discrimination. The headteacher was dismissed by his employer Tywyn Primary School following an investigation that found Mr Aplin had sex with two 17-year old boys at his home. Mr Aplin met the two 17-year old boys on an app called Grindr and the three of them had sex. Following a Local Authority investigation, it was concluded that no criminal offence had took place. There were also no child protecting issues involved. The school conducted its own disciplinary investigation into whether Mr Aplin’s conduct had brought the school into disrepute, whether his conduct outside work had undermined his ability to fulfil his role, and whether it – Read More…

A person (A) harasses another (B) if A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic which has the purpose or effect of either: •          Violating B’s dignity, or •          Creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B. (Section 26(1), Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010).) The EAT decided that an employer was not liable when a patient racial harassed one of its employees on the basis that any failure to take adequate steps to prevent racial harassment in its workplace were not because of race. Following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Unite the Union v Nailard [2018] EWCA Civ 1203, an employer will only be liable for the third-party harassment of an employee where the employer’s action or inaction is because of the relevant – Read More…

Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) states “everyone has a right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”. Article 8(2) says there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The case López Ribalda and others v Spain concerned installation of covert surveillance in a Spanish supermarket where there was a high level of theft. The surveillance was – Read More…

Acas has published new guidance to help employers and managers support staff who are affected by menopause symptoms at work. Around two million women aged over 50 have difficulties at work due to their menopause symptoms and it is estimated that one in 20 women could go through an early menopause. The effects of the menopause can lead to staff feeling ill, losing confidence to do their job or feeling stressed, anxious or depressed. Menopause symptoms can include: Feeling tiring and lacking energy Hot flushes Feeling anxious and panic attacks Struggling to concentrate or focus Headaches including migraines The new Acas advice includes tips for workers on how to raise any concerns and good practice guidance for employers to help manage menopause at work. Top tips include: Create and implement a – Read More…

Mr Curless was employed by Shell International Ltd as a Lawyer from 30 January 1990 until his dismissal for redundancy on 21 January 2017. He suffered from Type 2 Diabetes and Obstructive Sleep Apnoea. The following findings were made by the employment judge: There had been concerns about Mr Curless’s work since 2011. In August 2015, Mr Curless issued tribunal proceedings arguing that Shell had taken measures amounting to disability discrimination and/or had failed to make reasonable adjustments. In January 2016, Mr Curless raised a grievance that he had been subjected to disability discrimination. The grievance was heard in March, and Mr Curless received an outcome letter in June 2016. In April 2016, Shell started a redundancy programme. After Mr Curless applied unsuccessfully for certain roles, he was placed in – Read More…

In Dronsfield v The University of Reading UKEAT/0255/18, the EAT considered whether an employee had been unfairly dismissed where views helpful to the employee had been removed from a final investigation report on the advice of the employer’s in-house solicitor. In misconduct cases, for any subsequent dismissal to be fair, an employer should first carry out an adequate investigation into the employee’s conduct to determine whether there are grounds for disciplinary action to be taken. The non-statutory Acas guide to conducting workplace investigations advises that: • The investigation report should summarise the factual findings of the investigation. • The investigator should restrict their conclusions to recommendations on whether the employer should take formal action, such as holding a disciplinary hearing. The investigator should not suggest a possible sanction or prejudge – Read More…