Are employers entitled to ‘spy’ on their employees as part of a disciplinary investigation, even if the employer already has the information it needs in order to fairly dismiss the employee? The Employment Appeal Tribunal has looked at how a local Council has dealt with this question and has said that in certain circumstances, the answer is yes: employers may undertake covert surveillance of employees if misconduct is suspected, notwithstanding that the surveillance is part of an over-zealous investigation. Anne Palmer comes in from the cold and explains more.
In what looks very likely to be a significant change to the rules on collective redundancy consultation, it has been reported that a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal overhauls the current approach to deciding whether 20 or more employees at an 'establishment' are risk of redundancy.
James Gutteridge reports on an EAT decision which looked at whether the Acas Code applies to dismissals for ‘some other substantial reason’, where the working relationship had broken down between the parties.
introduces our new Francis Report knowledge sharing website, and reports on this month’s employment law developments: it seems that it is possible to bring a post-termination victimisation claim after all, and we provide new dates for your diary in June in respect of the next tranche of employment law reform.
Following a recent run of seemingly odd outcomes in TUPE cases, we are pleased to report that this month the Employment Appeal Tribunal has handed down a refreshingly clear and useful decision on how the consultation requirements under TUPE operate. Specifically, the EAT looked at whether an employer is required to undertake consultation if a proposed transfer does not go ahead; and also whether employees in a part of an organisation which does not transfer are ‘affected’ by the transfer and are, therefore, entitled to be included in the consultation. Sarah Lamont unpicks the detail.
Jaspal Basra reports on April’s employment law developments which impact on HR: new collective redundancy arrangements; the latest on vetting and barring employees following the recent Human Rights challenge to the UK’s arrangements; doctors and social media; TCS and pay protection arrangements; new consultations on whistleblowing and simplification of auto-enrolment; quarterly employment tribunal statistics are in and we set out the new minimum wage rates, effective from October. Finally, we provide an update on where we are with the ‘ping pong’ of the ‘employee-shareholder’ scheme, which has been flying back and forth between the House of Lords and the House of Commons and has finally become law.
Two recent cases from the Employment Appeal Tribunal have upheld the fairness of dismissals where redundancy could, arguably, have simply been the pretext for the dismissal of poorly performing employees. In one case the employer recruited an employee knowing that they would be surplus to requirements and then dismissed the remaining employee; in the second case there was evidence that the employer had concerns about the employee’s capability prior to selection for redundancy. Does this show, where there is a redundancy situation, a trend towards tribunals not looking too closely at other possible reasons for dismissal? Sarah Lamont reports.
Sarah Michael provides an update on two recent employment law developments affecting the heath sector: the Government has published its ‘key early priorities’ in response to the Mid Staffordshire Inquiry, and NHS Employers has published its amendments to Agenda for Change terms and conditions of employment, incorporating the changes agreed by the NHS Staff Council.
This month’s news round-up is brought to you by Sarah Michael and covers: NHS ‘gagging’ clauses; dealing with difficult employees; caste discrimination; fit note guidance; parental leave extension; the new tax-free childcare scheme and consultation on pension protection following a TUPE transfer: and a new case on obesity and disability discrimination.