The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals ……………………………………………………………Policy News Journal
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin which provided the details of this case.
Back to Contents
Indirect religious discrimination 18 May 2016
Was it indirect religious discrimination to dismiss a teacher for refusing to leave her husband after his conviction for sex offences?
Yes, held the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) on the facts in Pendleton v Derbyshire County Council , upholding the Claimant’s appeal against the dismissal of a claim of indirect religious discrimination.
The Claimant was a teacher of many years unblemished service. Her husband, a Headteacher, was convicted of making indecent images of children and voyeurism. The School dismissed the Claimant for failing to end her relationship with her husband. The Claimant won an unfair dismissal claim as the School failed to show that the dismissal was for gross misconduct or SOSR. As the dismissal was based on a ‘practice’ of dismissing someone who had chosen not to end a relationship with a convicted sex offender, the Claimant alleged indirect religious discrimination; her Christian faith meant that she regarded her marriage vows as sacrosanct. The employment tribunal rejected that claim, but the EAT overturned the decision and substituted a finding of indirect religious discrimination. The EAT held that on the facts, it was inevitable that the Claimant would be in a group (those holding a belief in the sanctity of marriage vows) that was put at a particular disadvantage by the School’s ‘practice’ of dismissing those in her situation, and there was no justification for the dismissal. The EAT noted that on these highly unusual facts, a ‘practice’ was established, and in the crisis of conscience that faced the Claimant (and others of similar beliefs) there was a ‘particular disadvantage’ and so unlawful discrimination.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin which provided the details of this case.
Back to Contents
Injury to feelings under Working Time Regulations for no rest breaks? 24 May 2016
Can a worker claim compensation for injury to feelings if not allowed rest breaks under the Working Time Regulations (WTR)?
No, held the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Santos Gomes v Higher Level Care Ltd , dismissing the Claimant’s appeal.
The Claimant won compensation from an employment tribunal after her employer had failed to provide her with 20-minute rest breaks in shifts over 6 hours, breaching Regulation 12 (1) of the WTR 1998. The Employment Judge refused to award compensation for injury to feelings. The EAT rejected a series of arguments to the effect that either UK or EU law required compensation to be paid for injury to feelings, noting that compensation to a worker for a breach of the entitlement to rest breaks was akin to a claim for breach of contract, although an award takes into account any loss sustained by the worker and the default of the employer in not allowing rest breaks. The EAT noted that a claim for compensation for damage to health might be made, e.g. if a worker were made ill by a lack of rest breaks. Nothing in the Directive or EU law provides for compensation for injury to feelings for this right, nor does UK law.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin which provided the details of this case.
Back to Contents
cipp.org.uk
Page 85
of 588
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker