HR Articles

In SoS BEIS v Parry and The Trustees of the Williams Jones’s School Foundation, the Court of Appeal (overturning the EAT’s decision) confirmed that even if a claim form has no particulars attached, in some circumstances a Respondent can still respond to the claim.

Further to our previous blog on the tribunals issuing a response to the Vento band consultation for cases presented from 11 September 2017, the Presidents of the Employment Tribunals in England, Wales and Scotland have now issued updated joint guidance increasing the Vento bands used to calculate awards for injury to feelings (most commonly seen in discrimination and whistleblowing claims).

According to the ACAS quarterly stats, between April – July 2017 ACAS received around 1,700 notifications a week. This increased by 500 per week following the Supreme Court judgment in R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51 handed down on 26th July 2017 abolishing Tribunal Fees.

It’s that time of year where compensation limits for claims such as unfair dismissal and for statutory redundancy payments are reviewed.

In Dhanda v TSB Bank Plc, the claimant had been dismissed for gross misconduct. She had been represented by her union throughout her disciplinary proceedings and claim. During the Employment Tribunal proceedings, her employer requested disclosure of all correspondence between her and the union so that it could see if this contained relevant comments.

Earlier this year we reported on the Tribunal decision in Dunkley and others v Kostal UK Ltd, involving an attempt to induce staff to give up their collective bargaining rights by informing them directly that failure to agree terms would lead to “no Christmas bonus”.

Prior to the case of Galilee v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, it was understood that an amendment to a claim takes effect from the date of the original claim and that it’s essential for the Tribunal to consider any jurisdictional points (such as whether the claim is in time) when deciding whether or not to grant the application as, once the application has been granted, the Respondent would be prevented from raising such an argument.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has today upheld the ET decision that when the Uber drivers were in the work area, available for work and with Uber app switched on, they were workers with rights to national minimum wage, sick pay and holiday pay.

Since the Supreme Court’s decision on 26 July 2017 that the existing scheme of Employment Tribunal fees was unlawful, the future for employment claims has been in a state of flux. In our article in September 2017

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling this summer that Employment Tribunal fees were unlawful, the government has announced its fees refund scheme: individuals will be refunded their original fee along with an interest of 0.5% calculated from the date of the original payment up until the refund date.