hours, the reason for her dismissal was redundancy. This analysis is consistent with an early, Divisional Court, decision in Hanson v Wood [1967] 3 KIR 231.
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION AND SICK LEAVE
4 July 2012
Does the duty to make reasonable adjustments end when an employee goes on sick leave?
Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin reports:
Sometimes, but in Olenloa v North West London Hospitals the EAT emphasised that such a conclusion must be based on specific findings of fact.
Mr Olenloa said his employer failed to make reasonable adjustments to his disability. He went on sick leave from 29th September 2010 and presented a claim on 28th January 2011.
At a PHR the tribunal dismissed much of the claim as out of time. They concluded any failure to make adjustments to his work ended when Mr Olenloa went sick. Adjustments to his job became moot once he was no longer at work.
The EAT disagreed, finding the tribunal had not reached the factual findings needed to justify its conclusion.
Mr Olenloa's case was that reasonable adjustments would have prevented him going sick. And, even if made later, allowed him to return. Therefore, the tribunal needed to identify what adjustments were reasonable and what affect they would have had. Without such findings, it could not determine for what period the duty applied or identify the deadline for presenting a claim.
PREPARING TO COMPETE
11 July 2012
Is it gross misconduct for an employee to take preliminary steps towards setting up in competition with his employer?
Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin reports:
Not necessarily. The judgment of the EAT in Khan & anor. v Ladsker Child Care Ltd is a salutary reminder that for summary dismissal for gross misconduct to be fair, the misconduct in question must be capable of amounting in law to a fundamental breach of the contract of employment. And although employers have a considerable freedom to define what they will treat as gross misconduct, that freedom is subject to common law limits on restraint of trade. Here, the employees had put together a detailed plan for a business competing with their employer, making use of knowledge and expertise acquired in the course of their employment. The first instance decision dismissing their unfair dismissal complaint was quashed and remitted for rehearing because the ET had failed to engage with the question whether the kind of information they had used for their own purposes could, as a matter of law, be regarded as confidential to the employer.
UNFAIR DISMISSAL - REDUNDANCY SCORING
23 July 2012
CIPP Policy News Journal
12/04/2013, Page 51 of 362
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker