you are here:

Employment

Failure to carry out a risk assessment in respect of a pregnant employee under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 is unlawful sex discrimination. A record of the findings of the assessment must be made but need not be given to the employee, if information about the risks is provided orally. Sending an employee home without duties, without dismissing her but on full pay, is in law suspension and meets the terms of Employment Rights Act 1996 s66.

The Health and Safety Regulations Concerning Pregnant Employees

The dismissal of an employee is automatically unfair if the reason for it is that she is pregnant.
The Employment Tribunal (ET) has ruled that a woman who was employed as a press officer at a Northamptonshire hotel was not unfairly dismissed because the decision to outsource her job had been taken before her employer was made aware of her pregnancy.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held (Department for Work and Pensions v Sutcliffe) that a woman who was certified as sick during her ordinary maternity leave was not entitled to be paid contractual sick pay during that period.

The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 set out the normal rules for Tribunal proceedings.

Employment Judges have the power, under Rule 18(7)(c), to strike out any claim or response on the grounds that ‘the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by or on behalf of the claimant or the respondent…has been scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious’.

The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 set out the normal rules for Tribunal proceedings.

Employment Judges have the power, under Rule 18(7)(c), to strike out any claim or response on the grounds that ‘the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by or on behalf of the claimant or the respondent…has been scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious’.

A recent case serves as a reminder of the importance of circulating and abiding by your internal policies and procedures. The Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that the dismissal of a council employee who had consumed alcohol whilst on duty was unfair because the council had failed to make known its published alcohol policy and had not followed it when dismissing him (Sinclair v Wandsworth Council).

The purpose of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) is to safeguard the employment rights of employees when a business is sold. If a person employed immediately before the relevant transfer of a business is dismissed for a reason connected with the transfer, the dismissal is automatically unfair unless the employer can show that it was for ‘economic, technical or organisational reasons entailing changes in the work-force’.

Director Given Community Service After Construction Worker Dies

A company director has been given 100 hours’ Community Service and ordered to pay £6,000 costs, following the death of a construction worker.

Norman Ellis, director of Q Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd., pleaded guilty to a charge under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 that the company had failed to discharge its duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of an employee, Andrew Bridges.

For the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA), someone has a disability if they have a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. If an impairment ceases to have such an effect, it is to be treated as having that effect if it is likely to recur.

Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, protection against unfair dismissal is only afforded to employees. For this reason, the exact employment status of an agency worker is often at issue in the courts.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Employment