Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #ukemplaw
Most recents (24)
🧵Higgs v Farmor's School: At last the decision in this appeal on religion/belief, freedom of expression re the Biblical literalist view of gender & marriage etc. Judgment ends with mega-important basic principles on the proportionality exercise
bitly.ws/IF5L
#ukemplaw
bitly.ws/IF5L
#ukemplaw
2/ H was a pastoral admin/work experience manager at FS. She posted a post on Facebook to petition against govt consultation on relationship & sex education in primary schools would normalise single sex relationships, say gender was a matter of choice & forbid Christian teaching. 
3/ A parent raised concern with FS's head re the posting of homophobic/prejudiced views. The parent sent other posts as well where H had re-posted similar views on FB. H was confronted about the posts & said she wasn't homophobic/transphobic. She didn't regret the posts.
🧵Phipps v Priory Education: CA provides really important comments about how fanciful it considers the 'alternative remedy in pro negligence' argument where a party relies on its legal rep's failings in seeking reconsideration of a claim.
#ukemplaw
#ukemplaw
2/ Ph's claim was listed in March 2018. C had a legal rep throughout. He applied to adjourn the March hearing due to suffering a medical emergency. Postponement was granted but the ET ordered medical evidence be provided. He failed to do so repeatedly.
3/ Trial was relisted for Jan 2019, but in Dec 2018 the ET issued a strike out warning based on failures to comply with orders & that the claim wasn't actively pursued. It was only sent to Ph's rep & not to her. The rep failed to respond & the claim was struck out.
🧵Kohli v DIT: EAT explains that whilst there can be subconscious discriminatory motivation, it's not necessary in every case to consider whether there was subconscious discrimination.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6478aa5f…
#ukemplaw
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6478aa5f…
#ukemplaw
2/ K worked in the Latin America & Caribbean (LATAC) section of DIT's Global Strategy Directorate. There wasn't much going on & when K was seconded onto the Covid test kit team another dept took over the LATAC work temporarily.
3/ When it was time for K to return to LATAC, the work was still being dealt with by the other dept & there wasn't enough anyway for a f/t role. A Head of Africa role had been taken by someone else before K's return & when that was vacant again, K didn't enter the app'n process.
Booth v Delstar: EAT reinforces the need to follow Pnaiser's guidance in a s.15 EqA claim, & emphasises that the comparison in an indirect disability discrimination claim is between those sharing C's disability & those not doing so, rather than disabled v non-disabled.
#ukemplaw
#ukemplaw
2/ This case concerned an employee on long-term sick leave following a pulmonary embolism, kidney disease & a stroke. The employer subscribed to an income protection policy for those on long-term leave, but HR didn't think it applied to those unlikely to return.
3/ As a result, the HR delayed for a significant period in applying for income protection for B once his sick leave ran out - she only applied when her error on coverage was explained to her. She had also attempted to dismiss B when she believed he'd not be covered.
🧵Most appellate judgments keep you waiting to the end to work out who's won or lost. Sainsbury's v Clark is a welcome exception. The CA made clear as early as para 3 its disdain for the suggestion 100s of claimants should be struck out as their ACAS EC numbers weren't on the ET1
2/ The appeal forms the next preliminary chapter in one of the supermarket equal pay claims, which have now been ongoing for 8 years without reaching trial. Bean LJ made clear both in the hearing & in judgment his disdain of this lengthy litigation process.
3/ The CA noted that ET claim forms (both ET1 and the multiple claimant ET1A) only provide 1 box for an ACAS EC number for each respondent, & provides no extra boxes for details for 2nd, 3rd etc claimant details. The claimants here were set out in a schedule but not with EC nos.
🧵Williamson v Bishop of London: CA holds that where someone has a civil proceedings order (CPO) against them, an ET claim will be a nullity if issued before seeking the required High Court permission to issue.
bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/…
#ukemplaw
bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/…
#ukemplaw
2/ Since 1997, W has been subject to a CPO under s.42(1A) SCA. Under the CPO he can't start civil proceedings in any court or tribunal without leave from the High Court, having satisfied that court the proceedings aren't an abuse of process.
3/ In 2019, W presented an ET1 alleging age discrimination re termination of his tenure as Priest-in-Charge of a parish when he reached 70. W failed to obtain High Court permission before presenting the claim. In defending the claim, BoL asserted the claim was a nullity.
🧵Edward v Tavistock & Portman: EAT clarifies the approach to reductions for failure to mitigate loss, in upholding an appeal against ET 50% reduction in compensation for failure to mitigate. The judgment deals with both burden & whether a % reduction can apply.
#ukemplaw
#ukemplaw
2/ C worked for the NHS as a band 5 data officer. He was downgraded to band 4 & dismissed on grounds of there being no band 4 vacancies. An ET found the failure to redeploy was victimisation for having made allegations of discrimination. The matter then went to a remedy hearing.
3/ C was out of work for 2.5 years before getting an 8 month fixed term contract. For the 2.5 year period, the ET found that C didn't apply for Band 4 roles, there came a point when he should have, & reduced compensation of past loss by 50% to reflect the chance of getting one.
🧵Minnoch v Interserve FM: Another unless order appeal - this is an HHJ Tayler special, with a run down of the case law & a paragraph neatly summarising the principles. Worth a prime place in your unless order case law folder.
bit.ly/3n1bk3f
#ukemplaw
bit.ly/3n1bk3f
#ukemplaw
2/ This case involved a multiple claimant claim brought by 37 claimants re the withholding of pay for days on strike. At a PH, EJ Burns (unusually) ordered sequential disclosure with the claimants going first, & a schedule of loss for each claimant. The wording is important:
3/ The Cs failed to comply & the R applied for strike out or an unless order. EJ Burns made the unless order that very same day. It cross-referred to the 1st order & also (highly unusually) asked the Rs to report to the ET the names of those struck out for not complying.
🧵 Kaul v MoJ: A useful example of the EAT upholding a merits strike out - here of EqA claims brought by a circuit judge in respect of the conduct of grievance procedures. It also contains important clarification re objectivity of detriments.
bit.ly/3yIJwDa
#ukemplaw
bit.ly/3yIJwDa
#ukemplaw
2/ K is a circuit judge. She raised 2 grievances, 1 against 3 fellow Judges, a 2nd against 3 members of HMCTS staff. The judicial grievance was dismissed by #ukemplaw legend Sir Patrick Elias. The staff complaint was dismissed as out of time under policy by 2 senior HMCTS execs.
3/ C's ET claims focused on the way her grievances were handled, & the HMCTS grievance conclusion that it was out of time. The bases of the ET complaints are set out below, but basically she asserts that procedural matters & decisions were EqA breaches on various grounds.
🧵Scheldebouw v Evanson: EAT follows Barnetson v Framlington Group in holding w/p privilege operates only if at the time of the negotiations the parties contemplated might reasonably have contemplated litigation if they couldn't agree.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63e20de3…
#ukemplaw
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63e20de3…
#ukemplaw
2/ E was soon due to potentially to retire. At a meeting this possibility was discussed. Those discussions included agreeing on outstanding holiday entitlement. S made an offer in amicable discussions. It was rejected & E made a counter offer at a later date.
3/ E sought to refer to all of this in his Grounds of Claim. The question of whether it should be redacted as privileged was dealt with at a PH. E had accepted reference to the counteroffer (in green) should be redacted. An EJ agreed with E the remainder (blue) could be included.
1/ Jaleel v Southend Uni Hospital: EAT provides useful reminder of how the shifting of the burden of proof operates under s.136 EqA both for direct discrimination claims & for harassment claims.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63e12e0d…
#ukemplaw
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63e12e0d…
#ukemplaw
2/ The case concerns a consultant who was also Director of Medical Education, went sick, raised a grievance against her line manager, refused to return to the DME role until the grievance was heard, & wasn't happy the manager was on the panel when she applied for a new DME term.
3/ The point of use in this decision is the EAT's consideration of the shift of the burden of proof under s.136 EqA, paras 34-41.
The new Strikes Bill has been published. publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill…
It is not just a repeat of the Transport Strikes Bill - it is much more draconian. It gives the SoS sweeping powers to limit strikes - with no criteria limiting his discretion #ukemplaw
It is not just a repeat of the Transport Strikes Bill - it is much more draconian. It gives the SoS sweeping powers to limit strikes - with no criteria limiting his discretion #ukemplaw
Nothing about ensuring safety of the public -nothing allowing trade unions and employers to reach their own agreements. SoS is free to set the minimum service level wherever he wants.
The Bill would allow him to say 'In any teachers' strike, at least 50% of teachers should still attend work'. School could then give a notice to union specifying which teachers should not be induced to take action. Actually he could set the figure at 90% if he wants
Like a lot of people this week, we've been playing with #chatGPT. Here is some of the #ukemplaw inspired challenges we've been giving it.🧵
(Make your own chat.openai.com/chat)
(Make your own chat.openai.com/chat)
Would you watch this Autoclenz v Belcher sitcom?
Here's that pirate song about TUPE that you never knew you wanted.
1/ Morgan v Bucks CC: EAT upholds ET finding objective justification in dismissing an autistic social worker for handing out gifts to a foster child (against policy) where her disab made it more likely she'd repeat the offence, with consequential safeguarding concerns. #ukemplaw
2/ M was a senior social worker. Bucks CC policy precluded social workers handing child clients gifts save with senior manager permission. M breached that rule, as well as writing inappropriate reports about the foster carers (setting out her personal views on their actions).
3/ M was (among other impairments) autistic. In part she blamed her autism for her actions, though declined an OH assessment to look into this. In deciding to dismiss her, the dismissing officer was concerned she didn't accept fault & would repeat the breach.
1/ Bathgate v Technip UK: 𝗔 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁: EAT holds a settlement agreement can't settle EqA claims which haven't yet arisen, but is restricted to complaints known to the parties at the time of settling.
#ukemplaw
#ukemplaw
2/ B was a chief officer on a number of vessels. He accepted voluntary redundancy on an enhanced basis & signed a settlement agreement including the following term covering the claims settled:
3/ The enhanced redundancy included an additional payment, but subsequent to B signing & terminating his employment the terms were set such that it was only due to those under aged 61. B sought to bring an age discrimination claim as a result.
1/ Simpson v Unite: Certification officer erred when considering issues of natural justice in respect of a s.108A declaration application for breach of Union rules, by not directing herself correctly on the fair-minded & informed observer test.
bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT…
#ukemplaw
bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT…
#ukemplaw
2/ S appealed a certification officer's refusal to declare that he had been disciplined in breach of Unite's rules. S's complaint was a hearing officer, G, chaired the committee which raised the concerns, initiated investigations, suspended S & decided on holding a disciplinary.
3/ S argued this was a breach of natural justice.
The relevant Unite rules include Rule 27, which lays out the circumstances in which disciplinary hearings are constituted and how they are to be heard. A direction of the Exec Council provides guidance on their application.
The relevant Unite rules include Rule 27, which lays out the circumstances in which disciplinary hearings are constituted and how they are to be heard. A direction of the Exec Council provides guidance on their application.
Dundee Uni v Chakraborty: EAT rejects submission that ET shouldn't have ordered disclosure of an earlier version of a grievance report because it would tend to show the nature of legal advice given which led to amendment of the final version.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/632de9e9…
#ukemplaw
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/632de9e9…
#ukemplaw
2/ A grievance report went through a number of iterations. It was clear from an annotation on the final version it was amended in accordance with legal advice. C's application for disclosure of the earlier version was resisted on privilege grounds, but the ET ordered disclosure.
3/ The EAT upheld the ET decision. The earlier version was clearly not subject to privilege when produced. It couldn't become retrospectively privileged. Moreover, the comparison wouldn't show what advice was given, or which amendments were made under legal advice & which weren't
1/ Phipps v Priory Education: EAT reviews the law on reconsideration where the losing party's legal rep was at fault, & finds no brightline between how to treat the party whose rep was incompetent as against one whose rep committed misconduct.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/632de506…
#ukemplaw
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/632de506…
#ukemplaw
2/ Mrs P brought unfair dismissal, age & disability discrim claims revolving around a dismissal for failure to complete a qualification which was said to be mandatory for her to continue to work in a vulnerable children's home.
3/ Mrs P's legal rep applied for an adjournment shortly before trial on the basis that he'd suffered a medical emergency resulting from a brain infection. The adjournment was granted but the EJ ordered the rep to provide medical evidence re his condition & unfitness to attend.
1/ Concentric v Obi: EAT finds an ET can extend time under s.123 EqA w/o there being any reason for the lateness, & where extension would bring in historic matters the ET should apply the Adedeji forensic prejudice approach (but see Tweet 12 for a novel suggestion).
#ukemplaw
#ukemplaw
2/ O worked at the R's outsourced call centre. She brought an ET claim in which she raised a number of claims of sexual harassment. At trial, the ET found 3 of these occurred & that they were part of a continuing act, whilst a racial harassment incident was a one-off.
3/ O's claim was brought 1 day out of time as regards the final sexual harassment act.
The ET found it just & equitable to extend time. This was in spite of finding O knew the time limits well, & the lack of any evidence about why she didn't bring the claim earlier.
The ET found it just & equitable to extend time. This was in spite of finding O knew the time limits well, & the lack of any evidence about why she didn't bring the claim earlier.
In 2019, I did my masterclass2019.co.uk tour. In it, I predicted the changes over the next 3-7 years which would happen to workers' rights as a result of leaving the EU. I have gone back today and rewatched those videos...
1/17
1/17
First, TUPE. I thought TUPE will remain largely unchanged. It’s part of accepted employment protection now, and in some ways the TUPE regs already go further than EU law requires.
3/17
3/17
1/ Kumari v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS: EAT holds in considering whether to allow an amendment & whether it's just & equitable to extend time, the ET could consider against K the merits of the claim even if not meeting the no reasonable prospect threshold. #ukemplaw
2/ In this case, K brought complaints of direct race discrim/harassment, presenting the ET1 a few days out of time. She also sought to amend to add in additional allegations of discrimination. At a PH, the ET declined to exercise discretion to extend time or to allow amendment.
3/ In doing so, one factor considered by the ET was the weakness of K's discrim claims. Presuming she established all the facts alleged, the ET found her case weak on showing any link between those facts and K's race.
The Women and Equalities Committee report on 'Menopause and the Workplace' is out: committees.parliament.uk/publications/2…
It's a well-written & researched report with useful information & brings an important issue to the fore, but does it come up with the right proposals?
#ukemplaw
It's a well-written & researched report with useful information & brings an important issue to the fore, but does it come up with the right proposals?
#ukemplaw
The committee raises concerns that menopause-related discrimination has to be shoehorned into sex, age or disability discrimination protection, & there are difficulties with each. /2
For age & sex discrim, the committee identifies the comparator issue. Unlike pregnancy discrim, where the test is 'unfavourable' rather than 'less favourable' treatment, for menopause-related sex/age discrim you need a comparable (real or hypothetical) man/younger person. /3
1/ Avid readers of the ILJ are in for a treat when the next issue is released, as the high priests of #ukemplaw @thebigbogg & @MichaelFordQC have written a superb article covering the Art 11 ECHR cases of Foster Carers & Deliveroo, employment status & substitution clauses.
2/ To whet your appetites, some vague clues to highlights. They argue there was a much simpler route to victory for the Foster Carers than looking to Art 11 ECHR, in that in fact foster carer relationships were governed by contract & the earlier case law to the contrary was wrong
3/ They argue the earlier case law (W v Essex) relied too heavily on the fact foster care agreements were governed by statutory obligations - that should only negate the existence of a contract where it leaves no space for the contract to occupy.
1/ Arian v The Spitalfields Practice: The EAT wasn't bound by its decision in Pruzhanskaya to find no new time limit for adding a s.103A to a s.98 ERA claim, but rather time limits may be of limited weight in line with Abercrombie et al.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62dff920…
#ukemplaw
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62dff920…
#ukemplaw
2/ A was a healthcare assistant at a GP practice. He raised various concerns about their health protocols. As a LiP, he brought 2 claims including an ordinary unfair dismissal claim & a protected disclosure detriment claim, but not a s.103A automatic unfair dismissal claim.
3/ He provided a list of issues a few months later which included as an issue whether his dismissal was connected to the grievance in which he'd raised his protected disclosures, though when the R professionally redrafted the list, it didn't include a s.103A claim.
