In the latest edition of our ‘Need To Know’ employment and HR newsletter, we have focussed on Labour’s planned changes to UK employment law which were announced in the Kings Speech on 17 July 2024.
- Labour’s planned changes to UK employment law: What can we expect?
- The rise and fall of the zero hours contract: What can we expect under Labour reform?
We also have included our usual HR Bullets – which cover other significant employment law updates from the past month.
HR Bullets
- The EAT held that consultations on redundancy should take place at a time when they can make a difference. The Respondent had not consulted the Claimant about the pool for selection and the ET had failed to consider whether a pool of one person was a reasonable approach; Valimulla v Al-Khair Foundation [2023] EAT 131
- The EAT held that an ET erred in not finding that an employer’s policy of requiring employees to ensure that, during the pandemic, they returned from leave on the pre-authorised date or otherwise risk being disciplined for unauthorised leave, putting non-UK nationals at a particular disadvantage, was objectively justified; NSL Ltd v Zaluski [2024] EAT 86
- An ET (with whom the EAT agreed) held that it was objectively justified for the fixed-term locum appointment of a consultant who was employed under a series of fixed-term contracts for four years to continue when she sought a declaration that her employment had become permanent; Lobo v University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2024] EAT 91
- The EAT held that an ET erred in determining that it had jurisdiction to hear the complaints of an employee who was employed to work exclusively in the UAE; British Council v Beldica [2024] EAT 92
- The EAT ruled that an ET erred in rejecting claims of pregnancy discrimination and automatic unfair dismissal by a woman dismissed during her maternity leave, purportedly by reason of redundancy; Ballerino v Racecourse Association Ltd [2024] EAT 98
- The EAT upheld an ET decision that former part-time fee-paid recorders were not treated less favourably under the Part-time Workers (Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 when they were automatically enrolled in the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 pension scheme when they were appointed full time salaried circuit judges; Clayson v Ministry of Justice [2024] EAT 99
- The EAT disagreed with HMRC and an ET’s conclusion that zero-hours workers travelling to farms around the country providing poultry services ought to be paid at the national minimum wage, on the grounds that time spent ‘just’ travelling is not ‘time work’ for the purposes of Regulation 30 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015 unless it is deemed so by Regulation 34 of the 2015 Regulations; Taylor’s Services Ltd v HMRC [2024] EAT 102
- The EAT held that an ET was entitled to find that there was no TUPE transfer when two NHS clinical commissioning groups were merged together; Bicknell v NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Integrated Commissioning Board [2024] EAT 103
- The EAT set out a reminder of the elements of the justification defence for indirect discrimination which the Claimant at the ET stage had alleged on the grounds of a visual impairment which amounted to a disability; Minis Childcare v Hilton-Webb [2024] EAT 108
- The EAT held that an ET decision to make an Unless Order requiring the Claimant to serve his witness statement and pay the sum awarded against him by way of an earlier Costs Order was wrong – it had the effect of turning the Costs Order into a Deposit Order and placed a condition on the Claimant’s access to justice; Chumbu v The Disabilities Trust [2024] EAT 113
- The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) set aside the First-Tier Tribunal’s decision as it had erred in law by focusing on whether the taxpayer was carrying on a business in his own account and if so, whether the hypothetical contracts were a part of that business, rather than on the terms of a hypothetical contract; HMRC v Basic Broadcasting Limited [2024] UKUT 165
- The High Court upheld a data controller’s refusal to disclose the identities of recipients of a recording of a heated telephone conversation in response to a subject access request as there was a significant risk of those recipients facing intimidation by the requesting party; Harrison v Cameron and other [2024] EWHC 1377 (KB)
- The High Court ruled that trade unions can sue in defamation on the basis of the current rules on trade unions in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Although trade unions are not bodies corporate, Parliament had given them sufficient personality to bring an action in libel to protect their reputation; Prospect v Evans [2024] EWHC 1533 (KB)