Where an employee has received a final written warning and then commits further misconduct whilst that warning remains “live” - dismissal is the usual consequence.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) has held that 65 was an appropriate age for mandatory retirement in the case of Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes.
All employers are under a legal duty to prevent illegal working within their businesses and must conduct certain right-to-work document checks before an individual actually commences employment.
Under the Equality Act 2010 (“the Act”), men and women are entitled to equal pay for equal work. Under section 139A of the Act, employers who have been found in breach of equal pay legislation can be ordered to carry out and publish an equal pay audit.
The concept of abuse of process within employment law is a fairly unusual occurrence. The doctrine forms part of the res judicata principle, which prevents someone from re-litigating something which has already been litigated, or that could have been previously litigated as part of earlier proceedings. This is also known as “the rule in Henderson v Henderson”.
Employees can resign and bring a claim of constructive unfair dismissal, where their employer commits a repudiatory (serious) breach of contract (usually their contract of employment). To bring the claim, the employee must accept the breach by resigning in response to it.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) has issued guidance this month for how businesses should comply with their obligations under the Data Protection Act 1988 (“DPA”), when providing information about their employees under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (“TUPE”).
Zero hours contracts have been somewhat of a ‘hot topic’ over the past few months, and have attracted much media coverage. Much of this stemmed from the consultation that was launched in December 2013, and the media’s perception that such contracts don’t offer workers a “fair deal”, at a time when employment opportunities are still often hard to come by.
In the case of Hainsworth v The Ministry of Defence , Ms Hainsworth, an employee of the MoD, argued that the they should have transferred her from her teaching role, based in Germany, to the UK to help her meet her disabled daughter’s needs.
In the case of Ajar-Tec Limited v Stack the EAT considered whether Mr Stack was an employee or a worker for the purposes of his constructive unfair dismissal claim and unlawful deductions from wages claim. To claim unfair dismissal, Mr Stack needed to be an employee. To claim unlawful deductions from wages, Mr Stack needed to be a worker.