Case Reports

Statute reference: Hamam v Foreign and Commonwealth Office UKEAT/0123/19

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that in TUPE situations, transfer-related contractual changes are void even if they benefit the employee and not just when they are detrimental.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has found that in claims of constructive dismissal, even if the last straw act that led to a resignation is considered “innocuous”, claimants can still rely on prior actions from the employer.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has assessed whether a gig-economy worker who was able to provide substitutes when doing work for an organisation could still be classed as a “worker” and not “self-employed”.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that a tribunal had erred by finding an organisation had harassed an employee despite also finding its officers had not been motivated by discrimination.

The High Court has provided further clarity on how the Job Retention Scheme works during a situation of company insolvency.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Barclays were not liable for sexual assault committed by a GP on employees after the bank contracted him to conduct medical checks.

The Supreme Court has overturned previous rulings, finding that Morrisons were not vicariously liable for the actions of an employee who illegally distributed personal data of nearly 100,000 staff.

The EAT has overturned a previous ruling from the employment tribunal, finding that Middlesbrough FC had unlawfully deducted wages from their staff when taking money from salaries for season tickets.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that a claimant did not make protected disclosures and, therefore, was not subjected to a detriment in the eyes of whistleblowing law.

Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, workers are protected from dismissal if the reason, or principal reason, for their dismissal is that they have made a “protected disclosure”. They are also protected from being subjected to a detriment. In order for a complaint to be considered a protected disclosure, it needs to meet a number of specific criteria; complaints about personal working conditions will not be sufficient unless they also meet these.