Having A NatteRR

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.

 

Having a NatteRR - Series 6 Episode 8

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. 

Having a NatteRR - Series 6 Episode 7

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!

Having a NatteRR - Series 6 Episode 6

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.

 

Having a NatteRR- Series 6 Episode 5

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.  

Having a NatteRR - Series 6 Episode 4

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.