Suspending Disciplinary Hearing for Grievance 7 May 2015
Is an employer obliged to put a disciplinary process on hold whilst the employee's grievance is dealt with?
No, held the EAT in Jinadu v Docklands Buses .
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin for the following case summary.
In this case the employee was employed as a bus driver. Owing to poor driving she was subject to disciplinary proceedings. During those proceedings the employee made certain allegations about some of the managers involved. Despite these the employer continued with the disciplinary proceedings and ultimately dismissed her. The employment tribunal found that her dismissal was fair. On appeal the employee argued (amongst other things) that the dismissal was unfair because the employer had not put the disciplinary procedure on hold until the employee's allegations had been dealt with as a grievance. The EAT (per Supperstone J, sitting alone) emphatically rejected this point of appeal in one sentence, at paragraph 18. Whether this one sentence can be considered an authoritative statement of the law remains to be seen, but it does at least confirm that the default position is not that a dismissal will be unfair if an employer does not postpone disciplinary proceedings where a grievance has been raised. As always, each case will depend on its own facts. Such facts may depend on the grievance(s) raised and how they relate to the disciplinary proceedings in question.
Employment Status: Ministers of Religion 8 May 2015
Was a Rector, the holder of a statutory office, an employee or a worker for the purposes of protection from unfair dismissal and whistle-blowing detriment?
No, held the Court of Appeal this morning in Sharpe v The Bishop of Worcester .
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin for a summary of the case.
The employment tribunal had found that there was no express contract between the Bishop and the Rector. And although the terms of the Claimant’s appointment were clear, there was no necessity to imply a contract, because the terms were incidents of his statutory office. That being so, the Claimant could neither be an employee for the purposes of unfair dismissal, nor a worker for the purposes of the whistleblowing provisions of the Employment Rights Act (ERA). In particular, the freedom of the clergy to go about "the cure of souls" in accordance with their own consciences was inimical to the existence of an employment relationship.
The Court of Appeal found no basis on which to disturb those findings, and confirmed that section 43K(1)(a) of the ERA can apply only where there is a contract.
Union Representatives and Working Time 13 May 2015
Is attending meetings at the workplace, in the capacity of a trade union or health and safety representative, working time for the purposes of the Working Time Regulations?
Yes, held the EAT in Edwards v Encirc Ltd.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin for the following case summary.
Mr Edwards and Mr Morgan were employed by Encirc on 12 hour shifts. Mr Edwards was also a health and safety representative and Mr Morgan was a trade union representative.
They attended, respectively, health and safety meetings and trade union meetings. These finished in the late afternoon leaving Mr Edwards only 6 hours break between his meeting and the start of his night shift and allowing
CIPP Policy News Journal
25/04/2016, Page 67 of 453
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker