Having A NatteRR

Having a NatteRR - Series 6 Episode 3

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.

 

Having a NatteRR - Series 6 Episode 2

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. 

 

Having a NatteRR - Series 6 Episode 1

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. 

Having a NatteRR - Series 5 Episode 7

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.

Having a NatteRR - Series 5 Episode 6

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.

Having a NatteRR - Series 5 Episode 5

This week, Simon, David and Imogen discuss the Employment Tribunal case of Jasmine Stunell v Leo Bancroft Salon Ltd.

We discuss the issues in the case, focussing on the Claimant’s claims of age discrimination in respect of comments made to her when she was 16 years old, including ‘grow up’ and ‘pull yourself together’.

We each give the others’ view on the Tribunal’s findings that the remarks complained of are not intrinsically linked to age. 

David also expresses his anger towards the automated voices for zoom and lifts. 

Having a NatteRR - Series 5 - Episode 4

This week David and Imogen discuss the Employment Tribunal case of Mrs R Malone v The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland. We discuss the issues in the case, focussing on the findings of the Tribunal that there was a ‘sexist boys’ club culture’ within the armed response vehicle unit. We go on to discuss further findings that much of the witnesses’ evidence for the Police, which included high ranking officers, was deemed not credible.

The Tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s claim of sex discrimination but upheld her complaint of victimisation.

We also discuss updates amongst the team, including the suspicious loft, and try our best to give each other's viewpoints on the case.

Having a NatteRR - Series 5 Episode 3

This week Simon, David and Imogen discuss the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of Moore v Phoenix Product Development Limited. We discuss the issues of the case, focusing on the Employee who was dismissed not having been afforded an appeal. The dismissal was found to be reasonable in all the circumstances and ultimately it was found that an appeal was not necessary on the facts.

We discussed the importance of the facts of the case in the EAT arriving at this decision, including that this was a dismissal for some other substantial reason (SOSR). We discuss the potential for this case to have been decided differently, should the actual reason for dismissal have been found to be conduct related on its facts.

We also discuss our team member Imogen moving into a new house... and a rather suspicious loft.

Having a NatteRR - Series 5 Episode 2

This week Simon, David and Imogen discuss the case of Lacatus v Barclays Execution Services Limited. The case had many issues, but we focus on the Tribunal’s findings that the male line manager of the female Claimant, in referring to women as “birds”, subjected the Claimant to direct sex discrimination. The Tribunal found that “the use of the phrase ‘bird’ was a misplaced use of irony which inadvertently caused offence”, thus demonstrating that it is the effect on the individual that is usually relevant in discrimination or harassment claims, rather than the intention of the perpetrator.

We also explore the differences between Orville the Duck and Uri Geller. As you’d expect.

Having a NatteRR - Series 5 - Episode 1

The podcast returns this week with a brand new series of 'Having a NatteRR'!

This week for the first episode, Simon, David and Imogen discuss the case of Mr David Seccombe v Reed in Partnership Ltd. They discuss the case concerning whether the Claimant had a disability and the fundamental distinction between a Claimant having a disability and the Respondent (Employer) being aware of that disability, including where this has not been disclosed by the Employee at the outset of employment.