Contents tagged with Employment Tribunal
Employee Was Not Unfairly Dismissed Over Offensive Facebook Posts About Director
An employee’s “extremely derogatory” social media posts about his boss’s generosity in awarding a Christmas bonus did not justify the employer’s failure to give him notice pay when he was dismissed, the Manchester Employment Tribunal has ruled.
Benson’s Vending dismissed Darren Atherton for gross misconduct without notice after a string of social media posts in which he told his manager to stick his Christmas gift “where the sun doesn’t shine”.
Atherton had been employed by the vending machine company from April 2012. The ET heard managing director Ken Haselden had a practice of giving a discretionary Christmas bonus gift to employees. These gifts … more
Tribunal Awards NHS Manager £1m In Racial Discrimination Case
A former NHS trust manager who was unfairly dismissed and suffered racial discrimination has been awarded a reported £1 million by London South Employment Tribunal.
Richard Hastings, an IT manager at King's College NHS Foundation Trust, was dismissed for gross misconduct in October 2015 after he was accused of assault following a dispute with a van driver in his workplace car park.
The ET ruled the investigation into the incident was “fundamentally flawed” due to unconscious racial bias.
It found that opportunities to collect further evidence to support Hastings’ claims of innocence were repeatedly missed and that Hastings – who was of African Caribbean origin – was treated less … more
Disabled Shop Worker Wins Tribunal Award From M&S Over Lift Key
An Employment Tribunal (ET) has made an award of £1,000 against Marks and Spencer after a delay in providing a disabled shop worker with a lift key to allow him to reach the toilets more easily.
In Mitchell v Marks and Spencer plc, the ET held that the employer breached its duties under section 20 and section 21 of the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments for disabled workers.
Mr Mitchell has a disability that requires him to go to the toilet frequently. He reached the second-floor staff toilets using the goods lift, the stairs, or a combination of the escalator and the stairs.
An operation meant that Mr Mitchell anticipated more frequent toilet visits. He said that both before and … more
Is it fair to dismiss an employee in the transport industry who fails a drugs test? Not always, said the employment tribunal ('ET') recently in Ball v First Essex Buses.
A bus driver was dismissed for failing a drugs test. He had been employed for 20 years with an unblemished disciplinary record. He was diabetic. He did finger prick blood tests throughout the day and would lick his fingers to stop the bleeding. His bus route took in lots of students and he handled lots of cash. He argued that his drug test had been contaminated by cocaine on bank notes. He also argued that the test was conducted without gloves or prior handwashing and so was open to contamination. He provided his own drug tests which tested negative for cocaine.
The ET ound that the employer’ … more
This recent case highlights the importance of following the ACAS code of conduct when dealing with disciplinary matters correctly, before dismissing an employee.
The employee, Mrs Smith, was dismissed for gross misconduct for emailing a colleague referring to another colleague as a “knob-head”. Her first disciplinary hearing was postponed when she was ill, but her employer refused to postpone the re-arranged meeting when her union representative was unable to attend. The Employment Tribunal rendered the dismissal “unfair procedurally and fatally flawed”.
Mrs Smith was found to have been unfairly dismissed and awarded over £20,000.
Read the full judgement here
If you need any help and advice in relation to a disciplinary matter, please … more
The trend towards gig economy drivers and contractors demanding employment status rights will continue throughout 2018. This should come as no surprise when you consider the recent report published by parliamentary committees which determined nearly 1.6 million people work for gig-economy giants and find relatively little protection provided under current employment law due to their status.
We previously reported on the Uber drivers ongoing battle in August 2016, and the EAT decision in November 2017 if you haven’t been keeping up with our gig economy posts.
More recently, in December 2017, couriers at Parcelforce Worldwide commenced legal action against its parent group, Royal Mail Group Ltd, over failure to pay drivers the national minimum wage and holiday pay.& … more
The Supreme Court has delivered its ruling on the landmark Pimlico Plumbers case, upholding previous decisions that a ‘self-employed’ plumber was in fact a ‘worker’. This entitled him to a variety of employment rights under UK law, including discrimination protection and holiday pay. The case has continued to make headline news because of its impact on organisations operating in the ‘gig economy’.
The case centred on the employment status of Mr Gary Smith, a plumber who worked on a self-employed basis with Pimlico Plumbers for approximately six years until 2011. Both the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal supported Mr Smith’s position that he was a ‘worker’ with certain employment rights, including holiday pay. … more
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) has rejected Addison Lee’s attempt to overturn a judgment by the Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) which found that one of their cycle-couriers was entitled to basic employment rights.
The EAT’s decision is yet another example of the gig economy litigation in which the Tribunals have looked past the written words of the contract of employment to examine the real working arrangements between the parties.
The claim concerned one weeks’ holiday which the Claimant took but was not paid for by the ‘employer’. The Claimant brought a claim in the ET which Addison Lee defended on the basis that the Claimant was not a ‘worker’ entitled to basic employment rights such as holiday pay, … more
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) has decided that failure to pay a male employee enhanced shared parental pay, in circumstances where it paid enhanced pay to women on maternity leave, was not direct sex discrimination.
In the case of Capita Customer Management Ltd v Ali, the EAT overturned the Employment Tribunal’s (“ET”) decision which had found sex discrimination on the basis that the claimant, who was planning to take shared parental leave, was entitled to compare himself with a woman taking maternity leave as they accepted that the main purpose of both types of leave was to care for the child.
In this case, female employees were entitled to maternity pay comprising 14 weeks’ basic pay followed by 25 weeks’ statutory … more
Most of you will recall that in August 2016 we reported on the first instance decision where Uber drivers were held to be workers as opposed to being self-employed. If you missed the article, which broke down in layman’s terms the categories of employees, works and self-employed, you will be able to read it here.
Uber appealed and here at SCE we have been eagerly awaiting the EAT decision, it came in early last week, and confirmed the employment tribunal decision.
While the employment rights granted to drivers is limited to holiday pay (5.6 weeks paid leave), National Minimum Wage (NMW) and a maximum of a 48-hour working week for businesses that aren’t expecting, or haven’t budgeted for, this cost can be substantial.
Uber intends to appeal the decision and the … more