Category: Employment Blog

In Jakowlew v Nestor Primecare Services Ltd t/a Saga Care and another, the EAT reinforced a strict application of TUPE, ruling that, despite a contractual breach on the part of a transferor to remove an employee from a contract which was to be transferred, the employee in question remained subject to TUPE.

In Mbuyi v Newpark Childcare (Shepherds Bush) Ltd the Watford Employment Tribunal held that a Christian nursery assistant who was dismissed for expressing her belief that homosexuality is a sin was discrimination on grounds of religion.

The EAT confirmed last week in Jinks v London Borough of Havering UKEAT/0157/14/MC that TUPE can apply to a transferor and a sub-contractor, protecting the employment of employees under a sub-contract if there is a service provision change.

Recently employment tribunals have been asked to consider the fairness of dismissals relating to driving whilst using a hand-held phone.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that ‘establishment’ refers to an individual workplace, as opposed to an aggregated total of workplaces.   This will be both a welcome clarification and relief for larger employers. Their obligations under the Collective Redundancies Directive 98/59 and s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA)

Diet controlled Type 2 diabetes does not amount to a disability under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) according to a recent finding by the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) in Metroline Travel Ltd v Stoute.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) has recently considered whether the non-payment of a bonus due to the employees sickness absence amounted to disability discrimination in the case of Land Registry v Houghton.

According to reports there are now over two million people in the UK who use e cigarettes. So should employers expressly include the use of e-cigarettes, or “vaping”, in their no smoking policies?

The Advocate General of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has now issued his opinion on the meaning of “establishment” for the purpose of determining when collective redundancy applies in the linked cases of Usdaw & Wilson v Woolworths and others, Lyttle v Bluebird and Cañas v Nexea. For previous blog entries in relation to

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held in Braithwaite and ors v HCL Insurance BPO Services Ltd and another case, that an employer’s decision to impose new terms and conditions was not unjustified indirect age discrimination. The claimants transferred to HIBS Ltd under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE). As a