majority (Lewison LJ and Sir Mark Waller) therefore dismissed the appeal. Mummery LJ, dissenting, concluded that the question of objective justification should be remitted to the employment tribunal as the EAT had approached it incorrectly. Mummery LJ's judgment promotes negotiation as a means of saving time, effort and money and achieving better outcomes in equal pay claims. He notes that 30 years of equal pay litigation has not eradicated sex discrimination in pay and that courts may not be the best places in which to end the injustice of workplace discrimination.
CONDITIONAL BENEFITS AND BREACHES OF UNDERTAKINGS
17 December 2012
Is it acceptable for an employer to withdraw a conditional benefit made under a compromise agreement due to the employee breaching his undertakings?
Well, according to Queens Bench Division and as decided in the case of IMAM-SADEQUE v BLUEBAY ASSET MANAGEMENT yes it is, and as reported in Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin Mr Imam-Sadeque (I-S) was a highly paid and senior investment manager. He wanted to leave his employer. If he resigned, he would be a "Bad Leaver" or the purposes of a share option scheme. However, he entered into a compromise agreement which would deem him to be a "Good Leaver"•, and allow him to exercise share options worth £1.7million. But this benefit was conditional on compliance by the employee with promises not to compete or solicit BlueBay's employees.
The employee broke these terms by secretly setting up in competition and poaching an employee. The employer withdrew the benefit on account of these actions.
The High Court held that BlueBay was entitled to do this on account of I-S's repudiatory breach of the agreement, and the shares were forfeited.
Nor was the condition a penalty. All the agreement did was to confer rights on I-S which he would not otherwise have had. The agreement conferred a conditional benefit which simply never accrued because the employee failed to fulfil the condition, namely performance of the agreement on his part. Furthermore this was an agreement struck between sophisticated parties of comparable bargaining power.
In the words of Popplewell J, It would be an "injustice" to BlueBay if the employee could escape his bargain.
WORKER FIRED FOR GIVING EXTRA SPRINKLES ON A MCFLURRY
20 December 2012
An overly generous McDonald’s waitress was fired for giving extra chocolate topping on a McFlurry to a colleague. However in the season of goodwill, she was awarded £3,000 compensation in an out of court settlement.
Workplace Law reported the following details:
Sarah Finch, who worked at a branch in West Wales, took McDonalds to an employment tribunal after being dismissed for ‘giving away food without payment.’
The unfair dismissal claim was eventually settled out of court, and she was awarded more than £3,000 in compensation.
Ms Finch commented:
CIPP Policy News Journal
12/04/2013, Page 73 of 362
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker