1996 and were therefore excluded from the definition of 'wages' in S27(1), so there was no jurisdiction to hear the complaints. 'Expenses' covers a payment 'in respect of expenses', e.g. a generous mileage allowance, not only simple re-imbursement of costs incurred.
The EAT also explored the application of misrepresentation and the non est factum doctrine to employment contracts.
STYLIST FAILS IN ATTEMPT TO CLAIM WAGES FOR TIME IN JAIL
14 November 2012
A hairdresser has failed in a bid to force her former employer to pay her wages for the time she was in prison.
Workplace Law reported that Kelly Atkins was jailed for two years in December 2011 and Miss Atkins' civil claim against her former employer, Hair by Loretta, was rejected at an employment tribunal after she failed to turn up for the hearing, despite staff trying to contact her. Atkins had demanded £7,000 in back-pay for the nine months she served in prison, but her claims of constructive dismissal were thrown out by Chairman Victoria Wallace at Ashford Employment Tribunal. Both Miss Atkins and her ex-boss said that Atkins had taken annual leave to attend her trial in December 2011 in written statements to the tribunal, and in other documents submitted, Miss Atkins claimed that her employer made assurances her job was safe before she was convicted. "She said no matter what happens I will always have my job. "I came home on 27 June 2012, and rang Mrs McDonald to ask if I could come back to work and the reply to that was 'no'." However, Mrs McDonald said there was no agreement to keep a job open and that her business was stigmatised by her worker's conviction. In a written statement, she told the tribunal: "The case became national news and was featured on radio, television, newspapers and on the internet. "Of course, this became a problem for me. Her regular customers deserted the salon." In her statement, Miss Atkins said of her ex-boss:
WHAT SHOULD A TRIBUNAL DO IF AN EMPLOYEE REFUSES TO COOPERATE WITH AN EMPLOYER’S MEDICAL ADVISOR
14 November 2012
Pinsent Masons have this week published the case of GCHQ v Bacchus. The case refers to an employee who refused to attend the employer’s chosen medical advisor in a disability discrimination claim.
You can find the full details from Pinsent Masons here .
DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF POLITICAL OPINION
14 November 2012
CIPP Policy News Journal
12/04/2013, Page 68 of 362
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker