Another issue was whether the tribunal had erred by looking at the discrimination allegations individually rather than cumulatively when deciding if the burden of proof shifted to the employer. This ground also failed; the EAT was satisfied on a fair reading of the judgment that the tribunal had been "alive to the need to consider matters in the round as opposed to taking a purely fragmentary approach" .
Back to Contents
Part Time Workers: Comparators 1 June 2018
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has found that if someone is employed under a zero hours contract, it renders that contract incomparable for the purposes of a part-time workers discrimination claim.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin for providing this case summary.
Does the fact a Claimant is employed under a zero hours contract render that contract incomparable for the purposes of a part-time workers discrimination claim?
No, held the EAT in Roddis v Sheffield Hallam University.
The Claimant, an associate lecturer employed under a zero hours contract, brought a claim under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 comparing himself with a full-time lecturer working under a permanent contract. A tribunal struck out the claim, finding the claimant was not "employed under the same type of contract" for the purposes of reg.2(4)(i)(a) because he worked under a zero hours contract. The claimant appealed. The EAT, substituting the decision with one finding the contracts were the same type, found reg.2(3) provides a set of mutually exclusive categories defined broadly in a way that allows for a wide variety of terms and conditions within each category. If the difference in hours rendered contracts not capable of comparison, the purpose of the 2000 Regulations would be self-defeating. Since no other difference had been found by the tribunal, both lecturers had to be working under the same type of contract.
Back to Contents
Misconduct does not need to be 'gross' to make dismissal fair 5 June 2018
After failing to complete compliance training and missing a compulsory training course, the Claimant was dismissed with notice for 'gross misconduct'. On appeal, the employer re-categorised the misconduct as 'serious', but nonetheless upheld the dismissal.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett's Employment Law Bulletin for its coverage of this case.
Does 'misconduct' need to be 'gross' to make a dismissal (without prior warnings) fair?
No, held the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Quintiles Commercial v Barongo.
The Claimant worked in pharmaceutical sales. After failing to complete compliance training and missing a compulsory training course, the Claimant was dismissed with notice for 'gross misconduct'. On appeal, the employer re-categorised the misconduct as 'serious', but nonetheless upheld the dismissal.
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Payroll: need to know
cipp.org.uk
Page 94 of 598
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker