The Employment Appeal (ET) held that the dismissal was unfair, holding that for 'serious' misconduct dismissals, prior warnings are to apply.
The EAT upheld the employer's appeal. Under Section 98 (4) ERA, there was no rule that dismissing an employee without prior warnings for conduct that is less than gross misconduct must be unfair, although in most cases such dismissals are outside the band of reasonable responses. The ET took a rigid view that where conduct fell short of gross misconduct, dismissal could only be appropriate if other warnings were in place. The ET should have considered the entire circumstances of the case, including the ACAS code and the employer's disciplinary procedure; it had substituted its view for that of the employer. The case was remitted to a new ET for reconsideration.
Back to Contents
Equality Clause: Comparator being promoted 12 June 2018
In a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal the judge held that an equality clause can remain in place even if the comparator is promoted out of the role.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett's Employment Law Bulletin for its coverage of this case.
Reading Borough Council v James
A group of the Council's female employees from brought claims under the Equal Pay Act (as it was) seeking to equalise pay from 2002 to judgment, asserting the work they performed was of equal value to a male employee, C, who worked as a highways operative. The Council challenged the duration sought, arguing as C had been promoted in 2006, from that time he ceased to be a valid comparator and the claimants would have to rely on less favourable comparators. They contended those claims should be curtained to 2006. The tribunal disagreed, ordering pay for the full duration and the Council appealed. The EAT held, dismissing the appeal, presence of other compactors did not undermine the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Once the conditions for the equality clause were satisfied in 2002, it took effect and amended a claimants' contracts to equalise them. No temporal limitation or other provision of the Act restricted this. This would continue until such time as the claimants' contracts were validly terminated or varied.
Back to Contents
Employment status – Plimlico Plumbers 14 June 2018
In the case Pimlico Plumbers v Gary Smith, the Supreme Court has held that Mr Smith was a ‘worker’ under s230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act.
Was the Pimlico Plumbers tribunal entitled to conclude that Mr Smith was a ‘worker’ under s230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act?
Yes, held the Supreme Court this morning in Pimlico Plumbers v Gary Smith.
Mr Smith issued several claims in the tribunal in 2011. An employment tribunal found that Mr Smith was not an employee but was a 'worker' and 'in employment' within the meaning of the Equality Act . This finding was upheld by the EAT and the Court of Appeal.
For Mr Smith to qualify as a worker, the Supreme Court had to agree that he had undertaken to personally perform work for Pimlico Plumbers and that the company was neither his client nor his customer.
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Payroll: need to know
cipp.org.uk
Page 95 of 598
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker