of

Subscribe to of

In our previous blog, “Are obese workers protected from discrimination” , we confirmed the advocate general’s opinion in the case of Kaltoft v Municipality of Billund (case C-354/13) that while obese workers were not automatically covered by EU disability discrimination law, the worker may be considered to be disabled where he or she is “severely…

In the recent case of Lorne Stewart plc v Hyde and others, the EAT made clear that it is important not to get side-tracked by the details of formal written contracts which are in place between the parties before and after a potential TUPE transfer, if such details do not reflect reality. Rather, it is essential to consider whether, in practice and on the facts, there is a service provision change and, if so, whether the employees in question are assigned to an organised grouping of employees which has as its principal purpose the carrying out of the activities concerned. Continue Reading TUPE service provision change – look at what is going on ‘on the ground’, as well as the contract

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia voided the NLRB’s so-called “quickie election” rules because the NLRB lacked the quorum necessary when it adopted its Amended Election Rules to expedite the current union election process. See Chamber of Commerce, et al v. NLRB. Our more in-depth analysis of those amended rules is in our earlier post at here. As noted there, the United States Chamber of Commerce and several trade organizations sought to invalidate the rules on several legal grounds, including lack of quorum.Continue Reading NLRB’S “Quickie Election” Rules Invalidated

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held in Johnson Controls v Campbell and Anor that there was no service provision change under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”) where a centralised taxi booking service was brought back in-house by the client. Although the client was still undertaking the activity of booking taxis, there was no “centralised service” in place following the transfer. As a result, there was held to be an essentially different activity in place and TUPE did not apply. 

This case follows another recent decision in Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust v Hamshaw and others which held that where care services transferred from the Trust to new providers there was not a service provision change because the services were not fundamentally or essentially the same, owing to the methods used to provide them.Continue Reading TUPE: Service Provision Changes and what activities transfer

The Court of Appeal in Woodcock v North Cumbria Primary Care Trust has ruled that the savings of costs alone will not, without more, amount to a legitimate aim so as to justify discrimination. In this case, Mr Woodcock was dismissed by reason of redundancy just before his 50th birthday in order to avoid his qualifying for significant enhanced early retirement terms. The Court of Appeal (CA) held that this treatment amounted to discrimination by reason of age but was justified since the legitimate aim of dismissing him was to give effect to his redundancy and to save costs. The aim of the dismissal at that particular age was not purely to save costs and so was justifiable.Continue Reading ‘Costs plus’ approach to justifying discrimination in the UK endorsed by the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal decision in Crawford and another v Suffolk Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust [2012] EWCA Civ 138 provides guidance as to the procedural standards required in misconduct cases in which dismissal is likely to impact on the employee’s ability to pursue his/her chosen career. The case also highlights the need to consider very carefully both the appropriateness of suspension during a disciplinary investigation and whether there are grounds for reporting matters to the police.Continue Reading Disciplinary action and suspension for misconduct: guidance from UK Court of Appeal

This post was also written by Fiona McFarlane.

In Caterpillar Logistics Services (UK) Ltd v Huesca de Crean, an employee who had no restrictive covenant in her contract of employment prohibiting her working for a third party, could not be prevented from taking up employment with a client of her former employer on the grounds that she might breach a confidentiality agreement she had entered into with her former employer. Nor would the Court grant a “barring order” which would prohibit the employee from being involved in a commercial relationship between the employee’s former employer and its client.Continue Reading UK Court of Appeal refuses to uphold a barring order against a former employee

In the case of Eddie Stobart v Moreman & Others the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has provided welcome guidance on the meaning of “organised grouping of employees” for the purposes of a “service provision change” under regulation 3(3)(a)(i) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”). A group of employees who happened to work mainly for a particular client because they worked the day shift were found not to comprise an “organised grouping of employees” for “service provision change” purposes under TUPE. The EAT held that, when assessing whether employees will transfer to a new contractor following a service provision change, it is necessary to identify the existence of an “organised grouping of employees” the principal purpose of which is to carry out the relevant activities on behalf of the client, before analysing whether employees are assigned to that group. There will only be an “organised grouping” where the employees in question are “organised” for the purposes of the provision of services to the relevant client.
Continue Reading Service provision changes: UK EAT gives guidance on the meaning of an “organised grouping of employees”

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has provided guidance on when the expiry of a fixed term contract will count toward the number of dismissals proposed by an employer that triggers collective redundancy consultation obligations.

The EAT held that employees who were dismissed by virtue of the expiry of their fixed term contracts were not dismissed for “redundancy” under the wider definition of that concept contained in s.195 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULCRA) and therefore their dismissals did not count toward the number of dismissals required to trigger collective redundancy consultation obligations under s.188 TULCRA minimum 20 employee threshold. (University of Stirling v University and College Union). This decision should be treated with caution since not all dismissals on expiry of fixed term contracts will fall outside s.188 obligations. Such dismissals may ‘count’ when the dismissals are part of a wider exercise involving job losses and in other circumstances where the dismissal does not relate to the employee’s performance or conduct.Continue Reading Expiry of fixed term contracts and UK collective redundancy consultation