Having A NatteRR

Series 11 Episode 2

In this episode, Simon and Dave dive into the case of Higgs v Farmor’s School, in which the claimant was dismissed from a secondary school after she shared Facebook posts criticising plans to teach about LGBT+ relationships in primary schools.

They also (once again) explain the difference between acronyms and initialisms—because apparently, some people still don’t know the difference.

And if that wasn’t enough, they somehow manage to crowbar in a few Steps song titles. Tragedy? Maybe. Worth a listen? Absolutely.

Series 11 Episode 1

Join Simon and Dave in this first episode of the new series as they break down the case of Ashraf v NHS England, which included an allegation that shortly before the claimant was due to go on maternity leave, she was told that she was mad for having more children.

They discuss the judgment, key takeaways for employers, and what this case means in practice.

And because no 'Having a Natter' episode is complete without a few unexpected tangents, they also find time to talk about James Blunt and poultry rebellion.

Series 10 Episode 9

In the latest episode of our 'Having a NatteRR' podcast, David and I discuss the case of Cooper v (1) Sainsbury’s and (2) Hourihan.

This case considered (amongst other things) a complaint under s.26 and s.15 EqA 2010 about the second Respondent failing to include the Claimant on an ‘International Men’s Day’ post sent to all internal colleagues and published on LinkedIn.

We look at the facts, the judgment, and what employers can learn from this case. 

In this episode's banter section, we just list the things we are doing over the next few days, which may or may not be of interest. 

 

Series 10 Episode 8

We look at the case of Pilawa v Spericle Ltd T/a Properties on The Market, in which an employee who was rendered bedbound by endometriosis, was awarded more than £31k for unfair dismissal.

We also talk about David's camping trip, which included playing a Swedish game called 'kubb' and the time I shouted at some youths. 

Series 10 Episode 7

In the latest episode of  the non-award winning 'Having a NatteRR', Simon and David examine the case of Taneja v Phoenix Whirlpools Limited, which included an allegation that the Claimant being called the incorrect name on four occasions was an act of harassment and/or direct race discrimination.

They also discuss whose weekend plans are best, with camping vs sleeping in a house, along with a teaser for the next episode: a fascinating explanation of initialism vs acronym.

 

Series 10 Episode 6

In this episode, we discuss the case of Legge v the Environment Agency, in which the Claimant who had argued he had been sacked for not being a feminist, was ordered to pay £20k costs for bringing a vexatious claim. 

 

We also discuss Dave's hurty knee, my hurty shoulder and fights between people over sitting and standing at events. 

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”.