What did we get up to last month?
We have been Tribunal-heavy this month and have been working on responses to an unusually high number of claims, all of which were issued just before the implementation of Tribunal fees on 29 July 2013. Say what you like about the introduction of fees, but there’s no denying that the timing of implementation was poor, with a spike of claims coming in just as people are taking their summer holidays! I would expect that we are not the only employment team to have seen a sharp rise in claims before 29 July, and it will be interesting to see the Ministry of Justice stats showing the number of claims issued before in the run up to that date and subsequently.
We were surprised to read yet another news article about an employee posting derogatory work-related statements on Twitter. It seems as though the message hasn’t sunk in with everyone that Twitter is a public broadcasting platform, not a private means of communication between friends. If you haven’t reminded your staff recently of the perils of social media and the standards that you expect in your organisation then now would be a good time.
We are delighted to report that Katharine managed to complete the 100-mile RideLondon bike ride on the 4 August 2013 in a very respectable time of 7 hours and 45 minutes and raised over £1,000 for Candlelighters Trust in the process.
Any plans for September?
With the introduction of the “employee-shareholder” status on 1 September 2013, we have been reviewing the legislation and considering how the status will best work in practice. We are not convinced that we will be seeing any great demand for employee-shareholder contracts – either from employers or employees – as the concept appears to be universally unpopular. If you want to understand the benefits that your business may gain from incorporating employee-shareholders into your workforce then please feel free to get in touch.
Katharine will also be speaking at the Cambridgeshire Chambers of Commerce “Autumn Collection” on 2 October 2013. If you’ve not been to these events before, they feature bite-sized updates on HR law and best practice followed by a more in-depth round-table discussion on the featured topics.
Any new cases to be aware of this month?
The High Court held in Newbury v Sun Microsystems that a letter from an employer’s solicitor offering terms of settlement of a dispute, and a subsequent letter from the employee accepting those terms created a binding contract between the parties. The letter from the employer’s solicitor did not state that the offer was made “subject to contract” and therefore there was no scope for the employer to impose further terms – in this case confidentiality obligations – once the employee had accepted the offer. This is a very useful reminder to all parties who are trying to settle a dispute that all negotiations should be made subject to a written contract being completed.
In an interesting Tribunal decision (which was upheld by the EAT), the claimant, who was dismissed from his employment at a kosher bakery for using non-kosher jam in some baked goods, had his claim for unfair dismissal and victimisation upheld. The Tribunal held that even though the use of non-kosher jam was an act of gross misconduct which entitled the employer to dismiss him, the employer’s actual reason for wanting to dismiss the claimant was because he had previously issued a claim for disability discrimination against the bakery and was continuing to make requests for reasonable adjustments to be made. The Tribunal decided on the facts that the employer viewed the claimant as a “problem employee” because of his previous claim and his continuous adjustment requests and that its investigation and decision to dismiss were tainted by its view of him. (Carmelli Bakeries Ltd v Benali)
Another reminder of the importance of considering the facts and circumstances of each disciplinary issue, rather than imposing an automatic sanction, has come from the EAT in Brito-Babapulle v Ealing Hospital NHS Trust. The EAT held that the Tribunal was wrong to conclude that dismissal would always be a reasonable response to a finding of gross misconduct and that an employer must always consider whether there are mitigating factors such as long service or an unblemished disciplinary record which would mean that dismissal would not in fact be reasonable in that particular case.
If you would like to sign up to receive our monthly email updates please complete our online sign up form.
