Avsnitt
-
In the latest episode of our 'Having a NatteRR' podcast, David and I discuss the case of Cooper v (1) Sainsbury’s and (2) Hourihan.
This case considered (amongst other things) a complaint under s.26 and s.15 EqA 2010 about the second Respondent failing to include the Claimant on an ‘International Men’s Day’ post sent to all internal colleagues and published on LinkedIn.
We look at the facts, the judgment, and what employers can learn from this case.
In this episode's banter section, we just list the things we are doing over the next few days, which may or may not be of interest.
-
We look at the case of Pilawa v Spericle Ltd T/a Properties on The Market, in which an employee who was rendered bedbound by endometriosis, was awarded more than £31k for unfair dismissal.
We also talk about David's camping trip, which included playing a Swedish game called 'kubb' and the time I shouted at some youths.
-
Saknas det avsnitt?
-
In the latest episode of the non-award winning 'Having a NatteRR', Simon and David examine the case of Taneja v Phoenix Whirlpools Limited, which included an allegation that the Claimant being called the incorrect name on four occasions was an act of harassment and/or direct race discrimination.
They also discuss whose weekend plans are best, with camping vs sleeping in a house, along with a teaser for the next episode: a fascinating explanation of initialism vs acronym.
-
In this episode, we discuss the case of Legge v the Environment Agency, in which the Claimant who had argued he had been sacked for not being a feminist, was ordered to pay £20k costs for bringing a vexatious claim.
We also discuss Dave's hurty knee, my hurty shoulder and fights between people over sitting and standing at events.
-
In this episode, David and I discuss the case of Wright Turner v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, which included a claim of direct disability discrimination.
We also talk about our upcoming trip to Chorley and how I was inconvenienced by the amount of 'looking' I had to do at a recent visit to Harry Potter Studios.
-
In this episode, Simon and David discuss the case of McLaren V Hiflow Property Services, a pregnancy discrimination case in which the Claimant won and received a £22k reward.
They look at what respondent did wrong in terms of case preparation, talk through the judgment and look at the lessons all employers can learn from this.
It also includes the ever-popular ‘banter bit’ in which Dave discusses the unhygienic state of his son’s flat in Edinburgh, and Simon reveals how to steal chocolate from your children.
-
In this week’s episode of Having a NatteRR, David and Simon discuss the case of In Richardson v West Midlands Trains Ltd, in which the Claimant won his claim of unfair dismissal after being sacked for played two pranks, involving placing, firstly, a tarantula’s shed exoskeleton, and, subsequently, a snakeskin in a colleague’s pigeonhole.
The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant £22,571.22, representing his loss of earnings until 6 July 2023, plus £704.99 per week from 7 July 2023 until reinstatement.
The boys discuss where the Respondent went wrong.
In addition, the “banter section” hits a new low.
-
In the second episode of this series of Robinson Ralph’s Having a Natter podcast, David and Simon discuss the case of Ms Lad v Lily Head Dental Practice. The Claimant in this case was removed from a work whatsapp group whilst on maternity leave and brought a claim for maternity leave discrimination. There were other aspects to the case, but that is the aspect they focus on; there are lessons to be learned for employers with employees absent on maternity leave, when it is necessary to put in place measures to ensure those employees are included in events and announcements.
They also discuss the trauma Simon anticipates suffering as a result of David not being able to accompany him for the usual evening curry whilst they are away delivering training., and the business plan for the “bus tour of injustice”.
-
In this episode, the first of a new series of Robinson Ralph’s Having a NatteRR podcast, Simon and David discuss the case of Muir v AstraZeneca, where the employee was dismissed in December 2020 for misconduct relating to bullying and harassment. The Tribunal criticised the employer for failing to have due regard to Mr Muir’s mental health disability, which had impacted on his behaviour. The tribunal found that Mr Muir’s line manager and other relevant managers were aware of his disability and they could have taken steps to support him, rather than dismiss him.
They also discuss how few or many people probably listen to the podcast; the “banter” section of course being the best reason to listen to the podcast and tell everyone else about it!
-
This week, Simon and David discuss the case of P v Crest Nicholson Operations Ltd.
It's a truly awful case of sexual harassment and vicarious liability relating to a manager's behaviour both during and after a works organised party.
David and Simon raise the importance of both reminding employees that they are still subject to codes of conduct at work dos and also the requirement to challenge bad behaviour immediately.
-
This week Simon and David discuss the EAT case of Mr Darrell Miles v Driver and Vehicles Standards Agency.
They focus on the Health and Safety detriment and dismissal aspect of the claim, which arose because of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The question in the case was whether the Claimant reasonably believed there were circumstances that placed him in serious and imminent danger.
The case also had to consider whether the Claimant could have raised concerns with a Health and Safety Representative / Committee, who were not based in the same office location as the Claimant.
A belief that something is harmful to health is not the same as a reasonable belief in serious and imminent danger. Subsequently, the EAT did not find that there was a reasonable belief in serious and imminent danger.
Simon and David convey a key message to employers of taking complaints seriously and dealing with an employee’s concerns.
They also invite you to write in with any jokes they should have used in this episode!
-
This week Simon and David discuss the case of D Martin v Jet Maintenance Limited.
They discuss the Claimant’s summary dismissal ‘in the heat of the moment’ during an altercation with a co-owner of the business.
The facts of that altercation were disputed. The Claimant acknowledged swearing but denied acting in an aggressive manner.
An internal Hearing was then carried out to hear the allegations into the Claimant’s conduct during the altercation, which was adjourned following the Claimant raising a grievance.
An HR Consultant was engaged to hear the case against the Claimant and made recommendations.
David and Simon comment on the Disciplinary Officer’s approach to those recommendations, which resulted in a finding of unfair dismissal.
Listeners will also find out how many countries begin with an ‘O’ and how long it takes Simon to answer a trivia question!
-
This week Simon and David discuss the case of Maxwell v HBOS Plc.
The Claimant had a long-term sickness absence and the Tribunal had to consider whether that was sufficient reason for dismissal.
They discuss the Tribunal’s considerations in respect of whether a fair process had been conducted.
The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant was in an entrenched position with a loss of faith in the Respondent and there was no realistic prospect of him returning within any reasonable time frame.
The Claimant’s claim for Unfair Dismissal was subsequently dismissed.
Listeners will also find out about Simon and David’s recent travels.
-
This week Simon and David discuss the case of Mrs Dumigan v The Mount School Limited.
All staff members were requested by email on a Saturday to attend a meeting on Monday.
This was a day off for the Claimant and she was due to meet her family to discuss the care of her elderly mother suffering with cancer.
Following the Claimant raising that she could not attend the meeting, she was told it was not optional. The Claimant reiterated that she could not attend, and she was told her resignation was accepted. The Claimant confirmed she had not resigned and was essentially told she was dismissed.
Simon and David discuss how employers should deal with ambiguous resignations and the issues this employer faced at the Final Hearing. This included the process that followed this email exchange, failing to follow their internal policies and the predetermined outcome of dismissal.
They reiterate the importance of our advice!
-
This week Simon and David discuss the case of Mr Bryce v Sentry Consulting Limited.
The Claimant suffered with Asperger’s Syndrome and Dyslexia. As a result of his condition the Claimant’s timekeeping and ability to plan ahead were impacted.
The Respondent decided not to offer more shifts to the Claimant following his lateness and performance on site, namely not monitoring the site, spending time while on shift using social media and not patrolling the site because of an alleged tripping hazard.
Simon and David discuss the Claimant’s successful claims for discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Listeners will also find out their favourite Robin Hood film.
-
This week Simon and David discuss the case of Ian Drury v Ministry of Defence.
The Claimant succeeded with claims of Unfair and Wrongful Dismissal. The Claimant stated he had suspended himself and there were concerns for the Claimant’s mental ill health. The Claimant was then dismissed for gross misconduct relating to his absence without leave, irrespective of these concerns.
They also discuss the determination that a 25% reduction in compensation should apply under the Polkey principle and the importance of only treating an Occupational Health report as advice, as it cannot replace the responsibility for management to make appropriate internal decisions.
There are also Ian Drury song references for our listeners!
-
This week Simon and David discuss the case of Mrs V Nimoni v London Borough of Croydon.
They discuss the successful claims for unfair dismissal, failure to make reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from a disability.
The Claimant worked as a Travel Trainer. The Claimant later became unable to work in this role because of her disability.
They discuss the Respondent’s failure to make reasonable adjustments by not adjusting its redeployment policy to allow the Claimant to move into a vacant role at her level, instead making the Claimant apply for the role.
The Claimant’s application was unsuccessful, and she was dismissed at a Capability Hearing on ill-health grounds.
Simon and David comment on an employer’s obligation and duty to treat disabled employees more favourably in certain circumstances.
They will also provide you with some train station trivia.
-
This week Simon and David discuss the case of Ms T Webb v London Underground Ltd, in which the Claimant alleged unfair dismissal and race discrimination.
The Claimant’s dismissal was because of posts on social media that the Respondent determined were offensive, inflammatory, and racially divisive following the death of George Floyd, in breach of their policies and guidance.
The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent’s determination of the Claimant’s activity on social media. The Tribunal also found that the Claimant was not the subject of racial discrimination.
The claimant was, however, found to be (procedurally) unfairly dismissed. Simon and David discuss the flaws in the Respondent's process, namely that they failed to consider any mitigation, including the Claimant’s 32 years of service and previously unblemished record.
They go on to explain what this is likely to mean in terms of arguments based on contributory fault or a Polkey deduction at the separate Remedy Hearing, as well as the Human Rights arguments advanced and how they failed to succeed.
They also discuss a variety of locations for where they may be recording our podcasts from!
-
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!
-
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.
- Visa fler
