Five things we learnt in employment law this week (8 March 2018)

Share This Post

five things employment law this week February 9
James Rhodes, Partner at DAC Beachcroft LLP.
  1. Pregnant workers are not entitled to priority treatment in a collective redundancy exercise (Porras Guisado v Bankia SA, Court of Justice of the European Union).

2. An expectation that a disabled employee would require long hours can be a provision, criterion or practice (United First Partners Research v Carreras, Court of Appeal).

3. In a case where the defence has no reasonable prospects of success, a tribunal can award costs incurred by the claimant in the period before the respondent files its response (Sunuva Limited v Martin, Employment Appeal Tribunal).

4. An employer is not obliged to reverse a lawful decision to dismiss if it subsequently discovers that the employee concerned is pregnant (Really Easy Car Credit Ltd v Thompson, Employment Appeal Tribunal).

5. An employee who was dismissed whilst off work with stress after the death of three of his loved ones has been awarded £30,000. The Tribunal described his dismissal as “egregiously unfair”.  (Reid v Michelin, Employment Tribunal).

I’m pregnant and I don’t feel ‘COVID-19 Secure’ at work, what are my rights?

If you’re pregnant you’re naturally going to have concerns...

Furlough New Government Guidance

Nearly three quarters (71.7 per cent) of organisations are...

Constructive Dismissal

UPDATED FOR 2022 - This practical guide is all...

Five things we learnt in employment law this week (18 February 2020)

1. A one-off act can amount to a ‘provision,...