HR Articles

In the recent case of United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Farren, the EAT held that it is the employer’s view of the dishonesty of an employee seeking re-engagement that matters,

In Campus Living Villages UK v Commissioners for HMRC & Sexton, Ms Sexton was employed by Campus Living as Head of Finance. She was made redundant whilst pregnant and consequently brought claims of unfair dismissal and pregnancy discrimination.

In the recent case of Reverend Canon J C Pemberton v The Right Reverend Richard Inwood, Acting Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, the Respondent was able to rely on an exception in the Equality Act 2010 to avoid liability for an otherwise discriminatory act.

Psychiatric illness, such as depression, may come as a consequence of unfair or discriminatory treatment by another employee or their employer. In Hampshire County Council v Wyatt, the EAT held that such injury does not have to be evidenced by expert medical reports (although it is strongly advised).

In Herry v Dudley MBC the EAT was asked to consider if stress amounted to a disability under the Equality Act. Further, it was asked to consider if the Tribunal had fully considered the Claimant’s ability to pay when ordering him to pay all the Respondent’s costs (in excess of £100,000).

Protected conversations were introduced to allow employers to have an “off the record” discussion with an employee concerning their exit. Evidence of pre-termination negotiations is inadmissible in ordinary unfair dismissal claims unless there is improper behaviour. Unfortunately for the employer in Lenlyn UK Ltd v Kular, they discovered this exception the hard way.

As reported back in May, the Trade Union Act 2016 introduces new requirements relating to balloting for industrial action.

With the news regarding the widespread disruption to public transportation around London as a result of the industrial action by Southern Rail drivers, important questions arise:

This week the Government has laid its revised Gender Pay Gap Regulations before Parliament for approval (the “Regulations”).

In the recent case of Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd, the High Court held that a company was not vicariously liable for an assault by its director on an employee which took place after the employer’s Christmas party had ended when the two individuals, along with other employees, went back to a hotel to continue drinking.