A dismissal will be automatically unfair if the main reason for the dismissal is the fact that the employee has ‘blown the whistle’ on malpractice.
The Supreme Court has recently decided that an employer was liable for automatic unfair dismissal even though the decision maker was unaware of the protected disclosures.
Hot on the back of the #MeToo movement, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has published some non-statutory guidance on the use of confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements in discrimination cases. The guidance confirms that confidentiality clauses can be used in employment contracts to protect a business’s confidential information. However, they shouldn’t be used to stop a worker pursuing a discrimination claim in relation to future acts – those clauses will not be enforceable.
Is a dismissal unfair if the employer changes an investigation report following advice from an in-house lawyer? Not in this case, said the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Dronsfield v The University of Reading. The employee was a professor who had a sexual relationship with a student. University rules said he could only be dismissed for immoral, scandalous or disgraceful conduct. The University investigated the allegations and produced a report. An in-house lawyer suggested some changes, including parts which were favourable to the employee.
The worker status debate leached into the TUPE sphere towards the end of 2019. A ‘worker’ is defined by section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) as:
An individual who…works under:
A contract of employment, or
Any other contract…where the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work…for another party who…is not…a client or customer of…the individual.
This once taboo topic has been high profile lately. Half of the population will go through the menopause and yet it has historically been off limits as a discussion topic. Menopause is more important now than ever with older workers expected to stay in work for longer. ACAS have produced some practical guidance on handling menopause in the workplace.
In our Summer 2019 newsletter, we looked at the changes to IR35 that are due to be implemented in 2020 (IR35 changes). IR35 rules focus on those individuals who operate as independent self employed contractors but actually work like employees and the rules aim to ensure such individuals pay tax and NI in line with employees. Originally the onus was on the individual to decide if they were caught within the scope of IR35.
In 2017 the government, to combat what it believed to be widespread abuse of the rules, introduced changes in the public sector which put the onus on the organisations who contracted with the individuals to decide whether the individual was caught within the scope of IR35. These changes are set to be rolled out to the private sector in April 2020.
What would you do if you suspected one of your employees was struggling with alcohol or drug dependence? Does their dependence amount to a disability? Are you justified in dismissing somebody who comes to work smelling of alcohol?
North west commercial law firm Bermans has recently strengthened their employment law offering with a new expanded team, welcoming four new solicitors to the department throughout 2019 so far.
The firm, which has offices in Liverpool and Manchester, put plans in place to expand their employment team to cope with increasing work loads during the previous financial year.
In a redundancy situation, an employee might be entitled to both statutory and contractual redundancy payments. Statutory redundancy payments are calculated using age, length of service and weekly pay (currently capped at £525). Contractual payments can be more generous. What happens when a contractual sum isn’t paid, and the employee brings a breach of contract claim to recover it? Does the statutory redundancy element form part of the £25,000 cap for a breach of contract claim in the employment tribunal?