contract, but argued that the two Claimants who carried out these services did not transfer, as they did not form part of the organised grouping of employees devoted to the routine work. Upholding the employment tribunal's decision, HHJ Burke QC held that the lack of contractual commitment was not a relevant consideration. The focus must be on what was going on 'on the ground'. Following the principles in Enterprise Management Services v Connect-Up, both Claimants carried out work that was or was intended to be carried out by the new provider after the transfer. The existence of an organised grouping had been admitted, so both Claimants transferred.
Reasonable adjustments and paying for medical treatment
10 October 2013
Is it outside the scope of reasonable adjustments to require an employer to fund private medical treatment?
No according to the Employment Appeal tribunal (EAT) in Croft Vets Ltd v Butcher .
The Respondent was employed by the Appellants as a reception and finance manager. She suffered from work-related stress and severe depression. She resigned from her employment when the Appellants did not act on the recommendations made by the clinical psychiatrist to whom they referred her. The Employment Tribunal held her claims that the Appellants failed to make reasonable adjustments to be well-founded, that she was unfairly constructively dismissed and that her dismissal was an act of discrimination arising from disability. The EAT dismissed the Appellants' appeal on liability (save for the finding that the dismissal was an act of discrimination arising from disability as that was not one of the agreed issues before the ET) and the appeal on remedies against the award of compensation. The EAT, inter alia, found that there was no error by the ET in identifying the relevant "provision, criterion or practice" (PCP); and the ET correctly found that the Appellants had not made reasonable adjustments by failing to pay for the Respondent to have private psychiatric services and counselling. The issue was not the payment of private medical treatment in general, but, rather, payment for a specific form of support to enable the Respondent to return to work and cope with the difficulties she had been experiencing at work.
Employment Status
11 October 2013
Did an employment tribunal make an error in law when it determined that a low level of control exercised over workers precluded there being an employment relationship?
Yes, said the Court of Appeal in Troutbeck SA v White and Todd .
Daniel Barnett reports:
The parties had entered into an agreement to record their relationship which referred to "this employment agreement"• and had various references to being "employed"•. The agreement was terminated and a claim for unfair dismissal pursued. The Court of Appeal held that the tribunal had wrongly treated the low level of actual day-to- day control by Troutbeck over the activities of the individuals as precluding an employment relationship when, viewed in the round, the relationship between the parties recorded in the
CIPP Policy News Journal
16/04/2014, Page 117 of 519
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker