Background Mr Aplin was an openly gay Headteacher at Tywyn Primary School. He was suspended by the school on 1 September 2015 after they were notified that Mr Aplin had consensual sexual intercourse with two 17-year-old boys after meeting them through an internet dating website. The website required joining individuals to certify that they are at least 18 years of age. Mr Aplin’s case was that he believed they were at least 18 years of age. The boys were not pupils of the school. An investigation was conducted 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 displayed a gross error of judgment such as to undermine the school’s confidence in him. – Read More…

New guidance on calculation of holidays published On 25th February 2019 the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) published guidance on how to calculate holiday entitlement correctly. This has come from a Government backed campaign to prevent workers losing out on holiday pay after an alarming lack of awareness from both Employers and Employees. The guidance explains how to calculate holidays in many circumstances. The BEIS made a statement saying “We want to see more businesses getting holiday pay right for their workers, helping to maintain a fair working environment for all. The onus is on you, as a responsible employer, to check your workers are receiving the correct amount”. There is also an online calculator that can be used to check statutory holiday entitlement (this will not – Read More…

Ms De Groen was employed as a teacher in a Jewish nursery. The nursery was run by Gan Menachem Hendon Ltd in accordance with ultra-orthodox Chabad principles. At a barbeque where parents were present, the teacher’s boyfriend revealed that they lived together which was against the beliefs of ultra-orthodox Jews. The teacher was dismissed after it had become known that she was living with her boyfriend. At a meeting with the headteacher and the managing director, the teacher was told that her private life was of no concern to the nursery, but it did risk damaging the reputation of the nursery. The teacher was asked to confirm that she no longer lived with her boyfriend so that the nursery could tell any concerned parents. The teacher refused to lie and – Read More…

The Claimant was employed by the Respondent company from 30 August 2016 until 22 November 2016 as a joiner.  The claimant has insufficient length of service to claim ordinary unfair dismissal. He claimed unfair dismissal under s 100(1)(d) ERA 1996 by reason of the dust in the workshop where he worked. The Claimant was line managed by Ms Paula Groves, Head of Resin Panel Production, who in turn reported to Mr Solomon.  The Claimant’s work was to sand and polish and sometimes cut the resin panels in the workshop and occasionally install the products on site. On 21 November 2016, Mr Solomon gave the Claimant a task to do under Ms Groves’ instruction using a new belt sander, the Wadkins sander.  Ms Groves was also collecting data about the new – Read More…

The Claimant, Ms Lamb had been employed at The Garrard Academy (the School) as a teacher. Ms Lamb went off sick on 29th February 2012 because of depression and alleged bullying at work. In March 2012 the Claimant raised a grievance about two incidents against the deputy headteacher at the School. The first incident related to the deputy head informing the Claimant that she was responsible for making a boy feel suicidal but failed to name the boy.  The second incident related to the Claimant passing on to the Deputy Head written complaints that a pupil had used racist language, the Deputy Head put them in the bin without looking at them. The Claimant’s grievance was investigated by the School’s Head of HR. The Head of HR upheld the Claimant’s – Read More…

This was an appeal following a decision made by the Employment Tribunal. Part of the appeal asked whether or not section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA 1996”) entitles an employee to a written statement of terms and conditions of employment if his or her employment ends between one and two months after the beginning of employment. The Claimants were employed by Maritime Hotel as waiting staff; all had short periods of employment. The Claimants were provided with accommodation at the hotel. None of them were given a section 1 statement of terms and conditions at any time during the course of their employment or thereafter. One claimant, Ms Woronowicz was employed for only 6 weeks, she complained as her employer had failed to provide a statement of employment – Read More…

There is a common misconception that a current or former employee is entitled to a ‘good’ reference or, more accurately, that an employer cannot make any negative comments about an employee.  This is simply wrong. In the education sector a useful starting point is the School Staffing (England) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/2680) which states that where a candidate applies for employment at an academy or maintained school in England then the governors of the previous school must, if asked, advise in writing whether the candidate has been the subject of capability proceedings within the last two years and, if so, give written details of how the concerns arose, for how long they lasted and the outcome of any proceedings. In addition, the new DfE non-statutory guidance on ‘Staffing and employment – Read More…

In Ball v First Essex Buses Limited ET 3201435/2017 an Employment Tribunal decided an employee was unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct when he failed a routine drug test. The Law An employer must hold such investigation as is “reasonable in all the circumstances” when investigating a potential misconduct issue (Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2002] EWCA Civ 1588). An employer will need to investigate sufficiently and the more serious the allegation the more detailed an employer should be.  The allegations put to the employee must be sufficiently clear so that the employee can respond in a meaningful manner. When an employer dismisses for misconduct, the Burchell test requires that, at the time of dismissal, the employer has:- 1.     A reasonable belief in the employee’s guilt which is, 2.     based on – Read More…

    Summary In two German cases relating to the right to a payment in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave the European Court has ruled that, under the Working Time Directive, a worker does not automatically lose their accrued but untaken holiday entitlement at the end of a holiday year in when they have failed to seek to take their holiday entitlement for that period. However, holiday entitlement can be lost if the employer can show that it took steps to encourage the worker to take the holiday before the end of the holiday year. If the worker has not lost their holiday entitlement, they are entitled to a payment in lieu of that entitlement on termination, or to carry the entitlement forward into the next holiday year. – Read More…

Firstly, it is important to note that cases involving vicarious liability depend heavily on the facts. Vicarious liability in employment terms is where an Employer is held responsible for the acts or omissions of an Employee in the course of employment. The test used in these cases asks the question, were the torts so closely connected with the employment that it would be fair and just to hold the Employers vicariously liable? In the case of Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd an incident took place after a Christmas party. The Managing Director (the MD) of the Respondent company physically attacked an employee leaving him with severe injuries. The Christmas party took place at a golf club and following the party, around half of the guests moved on to the hotel – Read More…