The Employment Rights Act 1996 lists redundancy as a potentially fair reason for dismissal. But the existence of a genuine redundancy situation or a sound selection process doesn’t guarantee a fair dismissal. Employers also have a duty to explore alternatives – especially the possibility of alternative employment. Too often, this part of the process becomes a ‘tick box’ exercise: pointing to a vacancies list and leaving the rest to the employee. A recent case highlights how this approach could render an otherwise fair redundancy dismissal, unfair.
Under the Equality Act 2010, employers have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees. These adjustments aim to remove or reduce disadvantages caused by a disability, and can include changes to the workplace, providing assistive equipment, or adapting how tasks are carried out. The goal is to enable disabled employees to access, stay in, and thrive in work.
Whether or not an employee meets the legal definition of a disabled person is a crucial starting point in any disability discrimination case. Under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, a person is considered disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial, long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out day-to-day activities.
It’s a basic requirement when claiming employment rights that the claimant is, in fact, an employee of the respondent. But sometimes, especially in the context of care, the lines can be blurred. A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in Scully v Northamptonshire County Council clarifies the distinction between care funding arrangements and employment relationships.
For HR teams in international businesses, one tricky question is whether UK employment tribunals can hear claims against colleagues who live and work overseas. A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision offers some helpful clarity.
A claim of ‘one rule for them; one rule for everyone else’ was recently heard in the Birmingham Employment Tribunal. In Burns v Gitpod, the Claimant was sacked after getting drunk and allegedly falling asleep in a sauna on a work trip.
Constructive dismissal occurs when an employee resigns due to intolerable working conditions created by their employer or fundamental changes to their contract, meaning that their employment has become untenable.
The Government has published its response to its recent consultation on modernising industrial relations. As a result, it plans to make several changes to the Employment Rights Bill (ERB) relating to trade unions.
The Government’s flagship Employment Rights Bill has, quite rightly, been the focus of employment law commentators since it was first announced last July. However, it wasn’t the only proposed employment legislation referenced in the King’s Speech. The Government also used the King’s Speech to announce its intention to bring forward the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill, introducing a requirement for large employers (those with 250 or more employees) to report on ethnicity and disability pay gaps. It has now launched a consultation seeking views on how it should be implemented.
| 
