A Collection is a selection of features, articles, comments and opinions on any given theme or topic. It allows you to stay up‑to‑date with what interests you most.
Login here to access your saved articles and followed authors.
We have sent you an email so you can reset your password.
Sorry, we had a problem.
Tags related to this article
Published 4 March 2014
This month we have wide ranging cases to report on from illegal working to post TUPE harmonisation. The TUPE case illustrates that even if an employer is reducing terms and conditions outside the context of a TUPE transfer, great care should still be taken to ensure proper collective and individual consultation.
Another interesting case concerns whether an employer could rely on its wording in a contract to dismiss summarily for "theft", which was gross misconduct for unfair dismissal purposes. The EAT found they could not and the employee was wrongfully dismissed because the "theft" had not been deliberate. On the subject of contractual wording we also have an EAT case where, because it was not sufficiently clear on what happened to accrued flexi-time on termination of employment, an employee ended up not being paid for over 1,000 hours of work. We also set out some of the legislative changes happening on 6 April in order that you can plan ahead.
In this case the Court of Appeal upheld the tribunal's finding that two employees were automatically unfairly dismissed for failing to agree to new terms and conditions, and that they should be re-engaged at their former rates of pay.
In this case the EAT considered whether an employer could rely on a contractual clause which set out examples of misconduct that would entitle them to dismiss an employee without notice.
In what appears to be one of the first such cases since the introduction of employment tribunal and EAT fees in July 2013, the EAT has ordered a respondent to pay all of the successful appellant's fees for bringing an appeal.
This case looks at whether a claimant should be paid for accrued hours of flexi-time on the termination of his employment where his contract of employment was silent on this issue.
In this case the EAT said illegality was no defence against claims for sexual discrimination and harassment.
This case looks at whether an employee could bring an unfair dismissal claim as a result of her employer subjecting her to a faulty redundancy process which they tried to cure on appeal.
Zoë Wigan, Ceri Fuller
Ceri Fuller, Hilary Larter, Harraj Panesar
Joanne Bell, Alex Lock
Ceri Fuller, Joanne Bell, Neil Bhan
Ceri Fuller, Joanne Bell
Ceri Fuller, Zoë Wigan