Having A NatteRR

Series 10 Episode 5

In this episode, David and I discuss the case of  Wright Turner v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham​, which included a claim of direct disability discrimination. 

We also talk about our upcoming trip to Chorley and how I was inconvenienced by the amount of 'looking' I had to do at a recent visit to Harry Potter Studios. 

Series 10 Episode 4

In this episode, Simon and David discuss the case of McLaren V Hiflow Property Services, a pregnancy discrimination case in which the Claimant won and received a £22k reward.

They look at what respondent did wrong in terms of case preparation, talk through the judgment and look at the lessons all employers can learn from this.

It also includes the ever-popular ‘banter bit’ in which Dave discusses the unhygienic state of his son’s flat in Edinburgh, and Simon reveals how to steal chocolate from your children.

Series 10 Episode 3

In this week’s episode of Having a NatteRR, David and Simon discuss the case of In Richardson v West Midlands Trains Ltd, in which the Claimant won his claim of unfair dismissal after being sacked for played two pranks, involving placing, firstly, a tarantula’s shed exoskeleton, and, subsequently, a snakeskin in a colleague’s pigeonhole.

The  Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant £22,571.22, representing his loss of earnings until 6 July 2023, plus £704.99 per week from 7 July 2023 until reinstatement.

The boys discuss where the Respondent went wrong.

In addition, the “banter section” hits a new low.

Series 10 Episode 2

In the second episode of this series of Robinson Ralph’s Having a Natter podcast, David and Simon discuss the case of Ms Lad v Lily Head Dental Practice. The Claimant in this case was removed from a work whatsapp group whilst on maternity leave and brought a claim for maternity leave discrimination. There were other aspects to the case, but that is the aspect they focus on; there are lessons to be learned for employers with employees absent on maternity leave, when it is necessary to put in place measures to ensure those employees are included in events and announcements.

They also discuss the trauma Simon anticipates suffering as a result of David not being able to accompany him for the usual evening curry whilst they are away delivering training., and the business plan for the “bus tour of injustice”.

Series 10 Episode 1

In this episode, the first of a new series of Robinson Ralph’s Having a NatteRR podcast, Simon and David discuss the case of Muir v AstraZeneca, where the employee was dismissed in December 2020 for misconduct relating to bullying and harassment. The Tribunal criticised the employer for failing to have due regard to Mr Muir’s mental health disability, which had impacted on his behaviour. The tribunal found that Mr Muir’s line manager and other relevant managers were aware of his disability and they could have taken steps to support him, rather than dismiss him.

They also discuss how few or many people probably listen to the podcast; the “banter” section of course being the best reason to listen to the podcast and tell everyone else about it!

Having a NatteRR - Series 9 Episode 1

This week, Simon and David discuss the case of P v Crest Nicholson Operations Ltd.

It's a truly awful case of sexual harassment and vicarious liability relating to a manager's behaviour both during and after a works organised party.

David and Simon raise the importance of both reminding employees that they are still subject to codes of conduct at work dos and also the requirement to challenge bad behaviour immediately.

 

 

 

Having a NatteRR - Series 8 Episode 10

This week Simon and David discuss the EAT case of Mr Darrell Miles v Driver and Vehicles Standards Agency.

They focus on the Health and Safety detriment and dismissal aspect of the claim, which arose because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The question in the case was whether the Claimant reasonably believed there were circumstances that placed him in serious and imminent danger.

The case also had to consider whether the Claimant could have raised concerns with a Health and Safety Representative / Committee, who were not based in the same office location as the Claimant.

A belief that something is harmful to health is not the same as a reasonable belief in serious and imminent danger. Subsequently, the EAT did not find that there was a reasonable belief in serious and imminent danger.

Simon and David convey a key message to employers of taking complaints seriously and dealing with an employee’s concerns.

They also invite you to write in with any jokes they should have used in this episode!

 

 

Having a NatteRR - Series 8 Episode 9

This week Simon and David discuss the case of D Martin v Jet Maintenance Limited.

They discuss the Claimant’s summary dismissal ‘in the heat of the moment’ during an altercation with a co-owner of the business.

The facts of that altercation were disputed. The Claimant acknowledged swearing but denied acting in an aggressive manner.

An internal Hearing was then carried out to hear the allegations into the Claimant’s conduct during the altercation, which was adjourned following the Claimant raising a grievance.

An HR Consultant was engaged to hear the case against the Claimant and made recommendations.

David and Simon comment on the Disciplinary Officer’s approach to those recommendations, which resulted in a finding of unfair dismissal.

Listeners will also find out how many countries begin with an ‘O’ and how long it takes Simon to answer a trivia question!

 

Having a NatteRR - Series 8 Episode 8

This week Simon and David discuss the case of Maxwell v HBOS Plc.

The Claimant had a long-term sickness absence and the Tribunal had to consider whether that was sufficient reason for dismissal.

They discuss the Tribunal’s considerations in respect of whether a fair process had been conducted.

The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant was in an entrenched position with a loss of faith in the Respondent and there was no realistic prospect of him returning within any reasonable time frame.

The Claimant’s claim for Unfair Dismissal was subsequently dismissed.

Listeners will also find out about Simon and David’s recent travels.

 

Having a NatteRR - Series 8 Episode 7

This week Simon and David discuss the case of Mrs Dumigan v The Mount School Limited.

All staff members were requested by email on a Saturday to attend a meeting on Monday.

This was a day off for the Claimant and she was due to meet her family to discuss the care of her elderly mother suffering with cancer.

Following the Claimant raising that she could not attend the meeting, she was told it was not optional. The Claimant reiterated that she could not attend, and she was told her resignation was accepted. The Claimant confirmed she had not resigned and was essentially told she was dismissed.

Simon and David discuss how employers should deal with ambiguous resignations and the issues this employer faced at the Final Hearing. This included the process that followed this email exchange, failing to follow their internal policies and the predetermined outcome of dismissal.

They reiterate the importance of our advice!