Liverpool: 0151 224 0500   |   Manchester: 0161 827 4600   |   Email: info@bermans.co.uk   |   Twitter Icon  |  Linkedin Icon
bermans_logo

‘Snakes and ladders’ risks increase for landlords as renters’ rights act shifts balance towards tenants

Emma Bartram News, News - Litigation and Dispute Resolution, Team - Litigation

Mike Carter

Residential landlords are being warned that the Renters’ Rights Act will substantially increase setbacks in possession claims, with a wrong move likely to send more cases back to square one in a game of snakes and ladders.

The Act is being rolled out from May 1 and introduces the most significant reforms to tenancy law in decades.

Continue Reading

Up in Smoke: The Importance of Clear Vaping Policies in the Workplace

Emma Bartram News - Emplyment, Team - Employment

Adrian Fryer

Sometimes the factual background to a tribunal claim sounds like it has come straight out of high school. Billings v Nestle UK is one of those claims. The fire alarm had gone off at the factory where Mr Billings worked, requiring a full evacuation. An investigation into the cause of the fire alarm concluded that somebody had been vaping in the toilets. Nestle alleged that that somebody was Mr Billings. If this had been High School, Mr Billings would no doubt have received a detention – nothing more.

However, this being employment (and in a factory environment), he was dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal held that Mr Billings had been unfairly dismissed:

  • The disciplinary officer was more concerned about Mr Billings’s lack of apology than the vaping itself. He openly acknowledged that if Mr Billings had admitted the conduct, he would not have been dismissed. The tribunal concluded that “failing to apologise or to accept responsibility is not misconduct”. The employer should not have relied upon it.
  • Dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses available given that this was a single isolated act in an otherwise unblemished career.
  • The employer had no policy which specifically said that vaping at work would be regarded as gross misconduct.

There are lessons to be learnt by employers from this high school-worthy situation:

  • If vaping at work is really that much of an issue, you should make that crystal clear in your policies.
  • Length of service and a clean disciplinary record can be important factors when considering whether summary dismissal is an appropriate sanction in response to alleged gross misconduct.
  • Disciplinary officers should stick to the allegations in front of them and not get distracted by irrelevant points such as, in this case, the lack of an apology.

Contact our Employment Team.

Continue Reading

Public interest test in whistleblowing should focus on the employee’s belief – and their belief may be separate and distinct from their motive for disclosure

Emma Bartram News - Emplyment, Team - Employment

Adrian Fryer

Whistleblowers have protection from both detriment and unfair dismissal. However, the term ‘whistleblowing’ is often used colloquially to cover any disclosure of wrongdoing. In fact, its application, in an employment sense, is much narrower than that.

Continue Reading

‘All reasonable steps’: about to become a new HR obsession?

Emma Bartram News - Emplyment, Team - Employment

Adrian Fryer

The concept of ‘all reasonable steps’ is not a new one. In harassment cases under Equality Act 2010, employers are able to defend a claim for harassment on the basis that they took ‘all reasonable steps’ to prevent it. The defence is narrow and very hard to run successfully. Many employers will run the defence in the early stages of a tribunal claim, only to quietly drop it in the face of an obvious inability to provide the evidence required to demonstrate that they had done it ‘all’.

Continue Reading

Dismissing for gross misconduct: lessons from Langton v Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue

Emma Bartram News - Emplyment, Team - Employment

Adrian Fryer

A recent Employment tribunal judgment provides a good case study for employers of what not to do when dismissing an employee for gross misconduct. In Langton v Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue, Mr Langton, an experienced firefighter, was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after making a “misogynistic” comment saying a woman he rescued looked ‘haggard for her age’. The employment tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair.

Continue Reading