A look at some of the first Employment Tribunal decisions where Covid-19 has been considered as a factor.
Following a significant period of ‘unprecedented times’, we have taken a look at some of the first Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) decisions where Covid-19 has been considered as a factor. Although it will take some time for all claims pertaining to Covid-19 to filter through the ET, it’s interesting to note the approach at first instance.
R is a company dealing in cleaning supplies. C had less than a year’s service. C was asked to pick up cleaning supplies from a school and deliver them to his manager’s house. His manager was self-isolating due to suspected covid-symptoms. C raised concerns about this due to the risk it might pose. He was subsequently dismissed.
The ET’s judgment suggests that there was considerable dispute between the evidence of C and that of R, both as to the attitudes of C and his manager during calls, and as to whether C’s manager said that she would leave her garage open so that C would not have to have contact. The ET preferred C’s evidence.
The ET held that the dismissal was unfair, and that the reason for dismissal was because C had raised health and safety concerns.
C was employed as a sales and project marketing co-ordinator. R sells and delivers PPE. C had less than 2 years’ service. On around 25 March, C asked to work from home. R’s position was that homeworking was not possible for C (which the ET accepted) but that employees who wished to isolate or stay at home could do so using holiday or unpaid leave.
C had a period off work isolating, having had Covid symptoms. Following this, he asked to be furloughed. This was refused as his role was still required. R terminated his employment, citing a general failure on the part of C over many months to comply with R’s policies and guidelines. C subsequently brought a claim for automatical unfair dismissal, citing that he had been dismissed due to raising health and safety concerns.
R accepted under cross examination that C was dismissed as he was approaching 2 years’ service. The ET held that the reason for dismissal was not that C was reluctant to come to work or to use public transport but that he was perceived to be difficult and challenging, and was approaching 2 years’ service. His automatic unfair dismissal claim therefore failed.
The ET also commented that C was not only wanting to stay at home (which had been agreed) but that he wanted to be furloughed or to work from home, neither of which were appropriate steps in the circumstances to protect him from danger.
C was a zero-hours worker. On 13 March 2020, C informed R that she was pregnant. On 17 March 2020, R sent C home because she was considered to be clinically vulnerable. In May, C asked to return to work. Some work was undertaken to facilitate social distancing in the office and a risk assessment undertaken which assessed C safe for some work. However, further work was required to facilitate social distancing which caused a delay until July.
C asserted that she had been subjected to less favourable treatment by being sent home in March. The ET disagreed – it held this treatment was appropriate, based on Government advice at the time. The delay in getting C back to work was also not held to be less favourable treatment – it was a positive step to try to protect C.
Although the above are all first instance decisions and therefore not binding, it is interesting to see the ET’s approach to employment decisions impacted by the pandemic. It will definitely be an area to watch in terms of any future appeals or landmark decisions made with Covid-19 as a key factor.
Official statistics show that 15,336 claims which included a complaint of age discrimination were received at the Employment Tribunals between March 2020 and March 2021.
The outcome of the Employment Tribunal claim brought by Gulnaz Raja against Starling Bank Limited (1) (Starling), and Matthew Newman (2) was reported last month.
In the Autumn Statement delivered on 17 November, rises to the National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage rates were announced, to take effect from 1 April 2023.
The World Cup kicks off in Qatar on Sunday 20 November 2022, with the final taking place on Sunday 18 December 2022. Undoubtedly, this is a huge sporting event, and many employees will be keen to show their support for their favourite teams. However, due to the time difference, start times for the matches are between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. UK time, which could have an impact on employers if employees who wish to watch the matches are scheduled to work.
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
Where an employee appeals against their dismissal under a contractual appeal procedure and their appeal is successful, reinstatement to their previous role is automatic and does not require approval or agreement from the employee.
Settlement agreements in an employment context are ordinarily used to provide both parties with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship – but what happens when there is alleged discrimination after entering into a settlement agreement?
A few weeks ago we brought you news that following the Government’s mini-budget it was confirmed that the off-payroll working rules (known as “IR35”) put in place for public and private sector businesses from 2017 and 2021 would be scrapped from April 2023.
In Mogane v Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether it was fair to dismiss a nurse as redundant on the basis that that her fixed-term contract was due to expire before that of her colleague.
The majority of people do not feel the need to embellish their CV to get that coveted position and move on up the career ladder. Their worthiness and benefit to the hiring organisation are easily demonstrated through the recruitment process – application, psychometric testing, selection day or interview.
In July 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited Judgement in the case of Harpur Trust v Brazel relating to the correct calculation of statutory holiday pay for part year workers. This decision has implications for all part year workers on contracts which subsist all year round, whether their hours are normal or irregular.
The Government has announced a change to the categorisation of “small” businesses to reduce the amount of regulatory compliance (or “red tape”) required. Currently, SMEs (those with fewer than 250 employees) are exempt from certain regulations – such as the obligation to comply with gender pay reporting. With effect from 3 October, these exemptions will be widened to apply to businesses with fewer than 500 employees.
In University of Dundee v Chakraborty, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether a first draft of a grievance report could retrospectively be deemed to be privileged.
The Chancellor’s recent mini-budget provided a significant announcement for business as it was confirmed that the off-payroll working rules (known as “IR35”) put in place for public and private sector businesses from 2017 and 2021 will be scrapped from April 2023.
The Government has published the Retained EU Revocation and Reform Bill which, if passed, provides for the revocation of all “EU-derived subordinate legislation” (i.e. UK statutory instruments which were introduced to implement EU law) and retained direct EU legislation on 31 December 2023, unless legislation is specifically introduced to save them.
On 20 July 2022, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited judgment in the case of Harpur Trust v Brazel, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal. For those of you familiar with this case, you will know that it concerns the statutory leave requirements for part-time and part-year workers. For schools and academies whose workforce consists of a variety of types of part-time and part-year workers, this case is one that must be understood before any changes are applied. Come and join Emma Hughes, Head of HR Services as she puts questions to Ian Deakin, Employment Partner, and Sarah Linden, Senior Associate.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s recent decision in the case of Mr Michael Cowie & Others v Scottish Fire and Rescue Service provides a useful insight into favourable - or unfavourable - treatment in the context of discrimination claims.
This month, HM Treasury issued a consultation on Administrative Control Process for Public Sector Exits with draft guidance. They’re proposing to introduce an expanded approvals process for employee exits and special severance payments, and additional reporting requirements. If approved, the proposals will impact public sector bodies and those that do not have a specific right to make exit payments.
In Wierowska v HC-One Oval Limited, the Employment Tribunal had to determine whether the Claimant’s beliefs in relation to Covid-19 vaccines amounted to religious beliefs for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.
Janice Walsh applied for a job with Domino’s Pizza, hoping to secure a role as a Delivery Driver. However things quickly took a turn for the worse during her initial interview, with the very first question that she was asked relating to her age. Ms Walsh was ultimately informed that she had not been successful in her application.
As of 21 July, two separate pieces of legislation came into force which seeks to mitigate against strike action. It should come as no surprise that this is a direct response to the rail strikes, which have dominated the news in the last couple of months.
The Government has referred to the greater “clarity” provided by the Supreme Court’s decision in Uber BV and others v Aslam and others, considering it appropriate to allow the impact of this decision to take effect, before considering further intervention.
The Supreme Court has now issued its long-awaited judgment in the case of Harpur Trust v Brazel, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal.
The new sponsored Global Mobility route aims to meet the needs of overseas businesses with no previous trading presence in the UK to expand into the UK by providing a specific immigration route for senior employees to come here to set up a UK subsidiary or branch.
In the recent case of Dwyer (UK Franchising) Limited v Fredbar Limited and ano’r [2022] EWCA Civ 889, the Court of Appeal considered the reasonableness of restrictive covenants in a franchise agreement.
The Court of Appeal overturned the “fire and re-hire” injunction, finding that there was nothing in the express contractual provisions preventing Tesco from giving the notice to terminate employment in the usual way.
We have seen a flurry of recent EAT and ET decisions demonstrating the difficulty that employers face in trying to balance different protected characteristics in the workplace. In this article, Lucinda Chaplin and Will Carter, associates in our employment team, explore the principles from these recent cases, and the workplace implications of them.
