HR Articles

It’s less than four weeks until Christmas and the Christmas party season is about to begin.  The office party is often a mixed blessing – an opportunity to boost morale and perhaps celebrate a successful year yet also a melting pot of workers letting their hair down, with potential for accidents, injuries, threats and claims.

At PMQs in the House of Commons last week Sir Kier Starmer likened PM Rishi Sunak to “a weak boss so worried the bullies would turn on him, he hid behind them”.

With the Christmas festive season upon us, we answer five key questions to help you host celebrations that are happy and healthy.

In Stothard v Durham University, the Claimant was suspended following media

In Gallacher v Abellio Scotrail, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that, in rare circumstances, an employee can be fairly dismissed without any procedure, including the absence of an appeal.

In Tai Tarian Limited v Howell Wyn Christie, the Claimant (a carpenter) was dismissed by his employer following an anonymous complaint that he had made homophobic comments during a visit to a client’s property.

This week, in Base Childrenswear v Otshudi, the Court of Appeal confirmed that not being honest about the reason for dismissal can show that the employer has a discrimination case to answer.

In North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust v Gregg, the Court of Appeal overturned an injunction that had prevented an employer from continuing with disciplinary proceedings pending the outcome of police enquiries.

We previously blogged on the High Court case of Agoreyo v London Borough of Lambeth, in which the High Court held that the suspension of a teacher was a “knee jerk reaction” which breached the implied term of trust and confidence (enabling Ms Agoreyo to resign and claim constructive dismissal)

In Talon Engineering Ltd v Smith, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (the ‘EAT’) held that an employer’s refusal to postpone a disciplinary hearing for two weeks to enable the Claimant’s union official to accompany her rendered the subsequent dismissal unfair. In this case, the Claimant faced disciplinary action for sending unprofessional emails.