July 22, 2022
This week on the podcast Simon and David discuss the case of Miss M Doran v Pearl Holdings NW Limited.
They discuss the Claimant's intermittent chronic migraines amounting to a disability and the Tribunal's finding of a failure to make reasonable adjustments by her employer.
They discuss this in the context of the Claimant's employer refusing to let the Claimant leave her shift early due to her migraine, saying it was 'tough'.
The Claimant was subsequently forced to sit in a stock room where she lost her balance and was left lying on the floor without medical assistance for 2 hours, despite there being surveillance in this room and so management being aware of this.
They further discuss following the Claimant being fit to return to work her being told by her employer that they could no longer guarantee her hours and she ought to step down due to her health issues, the impact it was having on her and the team and the health and safety concerns they had.
Simon and David further reflect on the importance of management training, including on managing sickness absence and equality and diversity in the workplace.
July 12, 2022
This week Simon and David discuss the case of Mrs Regnante v Essex Cares Ltd.
We discuss the judgment upholding the Claimant’s Constructive (Unfair) Dismissal claim relating to the Covid-19 pandemic and the Claimant requesting to work from home due to her husband’s clinically extremely vulnerable status.
We discuss the Tribunal’s assessment of the employer’s decision not to allow the Claimant to continue working from home, despite the government guidance in place at the time.
We also consider the contradicting options the Claimant was provided with by her employer, of taking 12 weeks unpaid leave or coming into work and staying in a hotel due to her concerns for her husband. We give our views on this conflicting approach and how it ultimately impacted the Tribunal’s findings that the employer failed to act reasonably and was not justified in their stance.
In a truly damning indictment of the quality of the podcasts, Imogen decided to sit this one out!
April 29, 2022
This week, Simon, David, and Imogen discuss the case of Miss Allen v Primark Stores Limited.
We discuss the Claimant’s successful appeal to the EAT and the decision that in claims for indirect discrimination, the comparison pool should be matched to the relevant provision, criterion, or practice (PCP).
The case involved the Claimant making a flexible working request and having a requirement imposed on her to guarantee her availability to work the late shift on Thursdays each week.
The Claimant argued that this put her, as a woman, at a substantial disadvantage given her childcare responsibilities, having made the flexible working request on maternity leave in advance of her return to work.
The Claimant subsequently resigned, claiming constructive (unfair) dismissal and indirect sex discrimination.
We discuss the implications of the EAT’s finding, having now been remitted for re-hearing.
March 18, 2022
This week, Simon, David, and Imogen discuss the case of Catriona Robinson v Mind Monmouthshire Ltd.
The former employee of Mind, mental health charity, succeeded in her claims for automatic unfair dismissal (public interest disclosures), failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation.
We discuss the issues in the case, focussing on the need to address bullying and harassment in the workplace and the need for employers to have clear policies on acceptable workplace behaviour.
We also highlight the need to provide up to date training to equip managers on how to properly deal with issues of this nature.
We also discuss the reputational impacts of the high-profile litigation.
March 1, 2022
In the latest episode of this series, Simon, David, and Imogen discuss the case of Cassidy v Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd.
The case involved the dismissal of Miss Cassidy for eating a chocolate bar and giving some to a customer, caught on CCTV, with the chocolate bar believed to be the stock of Iceland.
We discuss the issues in the case, focussing on the flaws of the investigation conducted into the suspected theft of stock, representing gross misconduct.
We discuss the importance of clearly outlining the allegations to the employee under investigation and throughout the disciplinary process, enabling them to put forward their position in response to the allegations.
We also discuss the importance of your internal policies, to ensure that the employer’s rules are clearly communicated and understood by staff, noting that the employee in this case raised doubt over whether the items were stock, and that she believed they belonged to a colleague and that they would regularly eat each other’s food.
We also discuss what our favourite desserts are.
February 23, 2022
In the third episode of this series, Simon, David, and Imogen discuss the rules on taking evidence from abroad via video conference in the Employment Tribunal.
We discuss the case of Agbabiaka, which is about the process for what you need to do if witnesses you intend to call will be out of the country, but are otherwise available and willing to give evidence virtually.
We also discuss the relevance of the case in the context of Covid-19 disrupting travel plans and placing a particular emphasis on the need for evidence to be given virtually.
February 3, 2022
In the second episode of our new series, Simon, David and Imogen discuss the Employment Tribunal case of Allette v Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home Ltd.
We discuss the case, including how a situation will be assessed when a mandatory vaccination requirement has been adopted by an employer before the appropriate legislation has been introduced to mandate that.
We also discuss the relevance of the case in the context of the recent changes in government policy on the compulsory vaccination mandate in the health and social care sector.
February 3, 2022
This week, in the first episode of the series, Simon, David and Imogen discuss the Employment Tribunal case of Ms D Fitzpatrick v The Scottish Ministers.
We discuss the issues in the case, including the Claimant's allegations that she was "restrained" by male colleagues in December 2010, as a lesson to "keep her mouth shut" after blowing the whistle about a toxic workplace culture.
The Respondent's case was that they had dismissed Fitzpatrick for gross misconduct, stating she had intentionally lied about the date of the incident and forged emails.
We discuss the Tribunal's finding that the Claimant was fairly dismissed and the evidence presented to the Tribunal by a digital forensic expert, that the image was actually taken in August 2009.
We also provide you with our key takeaway points for dealing with difficult workplace issues.
November 11, 2021
This week, Simon, David and Imogen discuss the Employment Tribunal case of Miss A Curtis v Milltek Sport Ltd in the final episode of this year’s series.
We discuss the issues in the case, focussing on the Claimant’s public interest disclosure that the Managing Director of the company was fraudulently using a company credit card. This included that he was using funds to upgrade to business class on flights, pay for parts on his vehicle and buy gifts for his partner.
We provide our insight on five key ways to investigate disclosures of this nature and what further claims can arise should you fail to do so.
October 29, 2021
This week, Simon, David, and Imogen discuss the Employment Tribunal case of Mr L Marana v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust.
We discuss the issues in the case, including the Claimant’s dismissal for gross misconduct due to his 'pattern of inappropriate and unwanted behaviour' towards a young healthcare assistant in his team.
We focus on the Claimant’s claims that the allegations he faced, such as his attempting to kiss the assistant on the lips numerous times, were a ‘cultural norm’.
We each give the others’ view on the Tribunal’s findings that dismissed the Claimant’s claims for race discrimination and found that his actions towards the woman went beyond 'friendly' Filipino customs.