Employment Bulletin - September 2018

This month’s bulletin includes the following articles​:

  • Five month gap held not to prevent TUPE transfer
  • Limiting claims in the tribunal
  • How many times can a disciplinary hearing reasonably be postponed?
  • Victimisation claims and bad faith
  • Cover security guard on zero hours contract protected by Agency Worker Regulations
  • An overview of the School Teachers Pay and Conditions Document 2018 (for school clients only)
Five month gap held not to prevent TUPE transfer

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has held in Colino Siguenza v Ayuntamiento de Valladolid that a five month gap did not prevent a TUPE transfer. This case concerned the EU Directive which is implemented into UK law through TUPE, and so the principles are the same.

Read more

Limiting claims in the tribunal

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld an appeal from the Employee against a decision made at a preliminary hearing of the Employment Tribunal. The Judge ordered the Claimant to provide a sample of the ten most serious and recent allegations to pursue. The Tribunal Judge commented that the Claimant could rely on the other events as background or context to the ten allegations the Claimant selected.

Read more

How many times can a disciplinary hearing reasonably be postponed?

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) rejected an appeal from the Employer concerning an Employment Tribunal decision, which held that although the Employer had shown a potentially fair reason to dismiss the Claimant, the actual decision to dismiss was procedurally unfair and fatally flawed with the Respondent refusing to further postpone the disciplinary hearing to enable the Claimant to be supported by her Trade Union representative - Talon Engineering Ltd v Smith UKEAT/0236/17/BA.

Read more

Victimisation claims and bad faith

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed an appeal from the Employee against the first decision of the Employment Tribunal in relation to a victimisation complaint. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, argued that although motive could be relevant with bringing a claim of victimisation, the key question should be whether the claimant had acted dishonestly and the requirements of “good faith” in whistleblowing was different to the requirement for a defence to victimisation (i.e making a false allegation in bad faith).

Read more

Cover security guard on zero hours contract protected by Agency Worker Regulations

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) held in Brooknight Guarding Ltd v Matei UKEAT/0309/17 (26 April 2018, unreported) that an employee on a zero hours contract had agency worker status due to the temporary nature of his assignment.

Read more

School Teachers Pay and Conditions 2018 Update

Please note that this employment update is relevant to our school clients only.

Read more

The law and practice referred to in this article or webinar has been paraphrased or summarised. It might not be up-to-date with changes in the law and we do not guarantee the accuracy of any information provided at the time of reading. It should not be construed or relied upon as legal advice in relation to a specific set of circumstances.

The Legal 500 - The Clients Guide to Law Firms

UK Chambers logo

Best Companies - One to watch logo

Cyber Essentials Certification Logo