Having A NatteRR

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!

 

Having a NatteRR - Series 8 Episode 6

This week Simon and David discuss the case of Mr Bryce v Sentry Consulting Limited.

The Claimant suffered with Asperger’s Syndrome and Dyslexia. As a result of his condition the Claimant’s timekeeping and ability to plan ahead were impacted.

The Respondent decided not to offer more shifts to the Claimant following his lateness and performance on site, namely not monitoring the site, spending time while on shift using social media and not patrolling the site because of an alleged tripping hazard.

Simon and David discuss the Claimant’s successful claims for discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments.

Listeners will also find out their favourite Robin Hood film.

Having a NatteRR - Series 8 Episode 5

This week Simon and David discuss the case of Ian Drury v Ministry of Defence.

The Claimant succeeded with claims of Unfair and Wrongful Dismissal. The Claimant stated he had suspended himself and there were concerns for the Claimant’s mental ill health. The Claimant was then dismissed for gross misconduct relating to his absence without leave, irrespective of these concerns.

They also discuss the determination that a 25% reduction in compensation should apply under the Polkey principle and the importance of only treating an Occupational Health report as advice, as it cannot replace the responsibility for management to make appropriate internal decisions.

There are also Ian Drury song references for our listeners!

 

Having a NatteRR - Series 8 Episode 4

This week Simon and David discuss the case of Mrs V Nimoni v London Borough of Croydon.

They discuss the successful claims for unfair dismissal, failure to make reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from a disability.

The Claimant worked as a Travel Trainer. The Claimant later became unable to work in this role because of her disability.

They discuss the Respondent’s failure to make reasonable adjustments by not adjusting its redeployment policy to allow the Claimant to move into a vacant role at her level, instead making the Claimant apply for the role.

The Claimant’s application was unsuccessful, and she was dismissed at a Capability Hearing on ill-health grounds.

Simon and David comment on an employer’s obligation and duty to treat disabled employees more favourably in certain circumstances.

They will also provide you with some train station trivia.

Having a NatteRR - Series 8 Episode 3

This week Simon and David discuss the case of Ms T Webb v London Underground Ltd, in which the Claimant alleged unfair dismissal and race discrimination.

The Claimant’s dismissal was because of posts on social media that the Respondent determined were offensive, inflammatory, and racially divisive following the death of George Floyd, in breach of their policies and guidance.

The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent’s determination of the Claimant’s activity on social media. The Tribunal also found that the Claimant was not the subject of racial discrimination.

The claimant was, however, found to be (procedurally) unfairly dismissed. Simon and David discuss the flaws in the Respondent's process, namely that they failed to consider any mitigation, including the Claimant’s 32 years of service and previously unblemished record.

They go on to explain what this is likely to mean in terms of arguments based on contributory fault or a Polkey deduction at the separate Remedy Hearing, as well as the Human Rights arguments advanced and how they failed to succeed.

They also discuss a variety of locations for where they may be recording our podcasts from!

Having a NatteRR - Series 8 Episode 2

This week Simon and David discuss the case of Earl Shilton Town Council v Ms K Miller.

They discuss the Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment regarding the provision of inadequate toilet facilities for women.

They discuss this in the context of the EAT finding that the Tribunal did not err in law in finding that this subjected the Claimant to direct sex discrimination.

The case involved whether the treatment of women in accessing toilet facilities, notably involving a risk of seeing a man using the urinals, amounted to a detriment because of sex.

Simon and David discuss how the issue amounted to a series of detriments. They further discuss the case giving rise to all women being in a less favourable position than all men, with sex being the reason.

They discuss how this means the motivations of the Respondent did not need to be considered, and that whilst a difference in treatment is not necessarily less favourable treatment, that difference in treatment was clearly less favourable in this case. 

They also discuss why you should never ask Simon about his dreams!

 

Having a NatteRR - Series 8 - Episode1

This week in the first episode of a brand-new series, Simon and David discuss the case of Mr A Tunnicliff v Baytree Car Sales and others.

They discuss the case and the findings of unfair and wrongful dismissal.

They also discuss the fact that the Respondent’s main witness was away on a cruise at the time of the Hearing, meaning that no live evidence was given on behalf of the Respondent, as well as  the Tribunal finding that there had been falsification of evidence.

They consider this in the context of the Tribunal’s comment that the Respondent’s conduct was ‘reprehensible’, the Claimant’s request for an application for costs, and an award being made for the maximum uplift of 25% for a failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice.

They also discuss their recent travels and search for an Indian restaurant.

 

Having a NatteRR - Series 7 Episode 3

 

This week Simon and David talk about the case of X v Y & Z, in which a female executive who was bombarded with peach emojis by her boss and was eventually awarded £420,000 after successfully claiming sex-related harassment and victimisation.

We will discuss the harassment suffered by the claimant, as well as the problems the Respondent caused itself by its approach to the grievance investigation.

David and Simon also tell you why they can’t tell you the name of the case; in short, they don’t want to go to jail.

Having a NatteRR Series 7 Episode 2

In this week’s case Simon and David discuss the case of Mr D Duployen v Whyte & Mackay Ltd.

This week’s case reiterates the importance of properly exploring reasonable adjustments and working with an employee collaboratively to reduce the impact of their absences.

They also consider how a blanket approach to absence management and trigger points will rarely be reasonable.

The Tribunal in this case upheld that the absence trigger points were a PCP which placed the employee at a substantial disadvantage, with the employer having no mechanism to account for disability or disability-related absence.

Having a NatteRR - Series 7 Episode 1

In this week’s podcast Simon and David discuss the case of Mr D Finch v Clegg Gifford & Co Ltd and S Bellamy.

The Claimant brought claims of direct discrimination and harassment on age and disability grounds, discrimination arising from a disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation.

Simon and David discuss the details of the claims, noting that not all claims succeeded.

They also provide their views on dealing with difficult and sensitive topics, including working with the employee to resolve any concerns.  

This week’s case also serves as a reminder that some settlement discussions can become admissible in evidence.