Date updated: Monday 23rd March 2020
In this edition:
- Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the Workplace
- EAT considers the impact of a material fact not being shared with a dismissing officer in deciding whether an employer has acted reasonably when dismissing - Uddin v London Borough of Ealing
- EAT holds that an employer who was concerned about their reputation, fairly dismissed an employee charged with a criminal offence - Lafferty v Nuffield Health
- Specific Changes to Contracts of Employment employers must be aware of from 6 April 2020
- Court of Appeal considers to what extent an employer may be liable for inducing a breach of post-termination restrictive covenants - Allen t/a David Allen Chartered Accountants v Dodd & Co
- EAT holds that capping compensation for disabled employees was unfavourable treatment under the Equality Act 2010 - Chief Constable of Gwent Police v Parsons and Robert
Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the Workplace
It has been estimated that one in five UK employees may be absent from work during the Coronavirus ‘peak weeks’. As the UK moves into the ‘delay’ phase of their Coronavirus plan, we have considered the key legal and practical implications to be considered by employers and set out our guidance below.
EAT considers the impact of a material fact not being shared with a dismissing officer in deciding whether an employer has acted reasonably when dismissing - Uddin v London Borough of Ealing
In Royal Mail Group v Jhuti the Supreme Court held that, if the real reason for the dismissal is hidden from the decision-maker behind an invented reason, the reason for the dismissal will be the hidden reason. In this case the Employment Appeals Tribunal (‘EAT’) considered whether this principle applies in the context of deciding whether the dismissal is fair.
EAT holds that an employer who was concerned about their reputation fairly dismissed an employee charged with a criminal offence - Lafferty v Nuffield Health
Employment Appeals Tribunal (‘EAT’) has considered the ability of an employer to dismiss an employee fairly to protect their reputation following being charged of a criminal offence.
Specific Changes to Contracts of Employment employers must be aware of from 6 April 2020
In December 2018, the government published its Good Work Plan containing a number of legislative changes to allow for workplace reforms ensuring fair and decent work, clarity for employers and fairer enforcement. Such reforms included changes to written statements of terms which will be in force from the 6 April 2020. It is important for all employers to be aware of the changes to ensure compliance with employment law.
Court of Appeal considers to what extent an employer may be liable for inducing a breach of post-termination restrictive covenants - Allen t/a David Allen Chartered Accountants v Dodd & Co
The Court of Appeal has held that an employer was not liable to an employee’s former employer for inducing a breach of contract after they recruited someone in breach of their restrictive covenants, following legal advice that they were not enforceable.
EAT holds that capping compensation for disabled employees was unfavourable treatment under the Equality Act 2010 - Chief Constable of Gwent Police v Parsons and Robert
On 25 February 2020, the Employment Appeals Tribunal (‘EAT’) upheld the decision of the Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) that capping compensation for two disabled police officers was discrimination arising from their disability under the Equality Act 2010.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
