A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

29 May 2020

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

Bridges v Yodel Delivery Network C-692/19

6 May 2020

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”.

BDW Trading Ltd v Kopec UKEAT/0197/19/OO

29 April 2020

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.

HMRC v Middlesbrough FC: UKEAT/0234/19/LA

30 March 2020

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.

Riley v Belmont Green Finance Ltd: UKEAT/0133/19/BA

25 March 2020

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.