The Claimant had emailed the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) after a work colleague at Greenwich Council informed him that a manager had insecurely emailed home hundreds of documents containing personal data. That allegation was wide of the mark, and the Claimant had not checked the basis of it with his employer, he could have done so. The Council instructed him not to contact the ICO about the matter during its investigation, but he then phoned the ICO to discuss that instruction. He was dismissed for misconduct by breaching a reasonable instruction, being already on an unrelated conduct final written warning. The Claimant lost at the employment tribunal, the Claimant did not have a reasonable belief that the contents of his email to the ICO were true, so it was not a protected disclosure, and his dismissal was fair because of conduct. His various grounds of appeal were rejected. The EAT rejected an argument that the Claimant's phone call to the ICO could be aggregated to his initial email, so as to make a protected disclosure, 'each disclosure must be considered separately' following Bolton School v Evans . The phone call's purpose was to seek advice on the Claimant's employment situation, it could not have been a protected disclosure, with the ICO not being prescribed for that purpose. The judgment contains a useful analysis of competing reasons for dismissal where a potentially fair reason competes with automatically unfair reasons. The EAT declined to consider if it was illegal for the Council to have instructed the Claimant not to contact the ICO about the investigation, illegality was a new point on appeal, not raised at the employment tribunal, but it did suggest obiter that it would not have upheld that argument on the facts.
Gay v Religious Beliefs 8 June 2015
Is a gay customer's rights to access goods and services more protected than the service provider's religious belief?
Yes, held the County Court for Northern Ireland, delivering judgement this morning in the much debated and politicised Ashers Bakery case.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin for the following case summary.
The Bakery had been sued following the manager's decision to cancel an order for a cake with an image and slogan in support of gay marriage. The customer, whose case was backed by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, complained that the bakery should not be permitted to refuse service on the grounds of sexual orientation. The bakery argued that it was not discriminating against the customer because of their sexuality but because of the message on the cake. In her judgment, Judge Brownlie found that two directors of the bakery were guilty of direct discrimination for which there could be no justification, and breaches of regulation 5 of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 and Article 3 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 in their failure to provide goods and services to an individual on the grounds of their sexual orientation and political opinion. The judge also confirmed that as the bakery was a purely commercial venture, the directors were not permitted to rely on the statutory exemption for organisations in relation to religious belief (pursuant to regulation 16) – highlighting that there was no reference to furthering religious values within the bakery's Memorandum and Articles of Association.
The 'Gay Cake' row has prompted a proposal to include a so called 'conscience clause' in equality legislation – a move which has already attracted political input from Westminster.
Status of Employee after TUPE Objection 9 June 2015
Does the TUPE transfer of a contract of employment amount to an offer of employment?
No, held the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in NHS Direct v Gunn .
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin for the following case summary.
CIPP Policy News Journal
25/04/2016, Page 70 of 453
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker