Skip to main content
Search
close
SIGN UP
Blog |

Need to Know: December 2021

Employment - Office desk by window
Share

In this latest edition of our ‘Need To Know’ employment and HR newsletter, we look at the new advice published by Acas on maintaining good employment relations; an article on the importance of considering hypothetical contracts in the context of employment tax status determinations; a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) decision and much more.

 

Contact the Author(s)

Our key articles this month:

HR Bullets

  • The EAT held that it was unfair to dismiss an employee for making controversial comments about Zionism without providing him with the opportunity to respond to the specific allegations relied upon at the grievance hearing. London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Mr S Keable
  • The EAT held that an ET was wrong to conclude that it could not make a positive finding regarding the Claimant’s conduct without hearing from the witnesses who claimed to have seen the alleged conduct. Hovis Limited v Mr W Louton
  • The EAT held that the question of whether a claimant’s impairments have an adverse effect on their ability to carry out day-to-day activities is an objective one and cannot be determined by the claimant’s subjective beliefs about how to manage their condition. Miss S Primaz v Carl Room Restaurants t/a McDonald’s Restaurants Limited and Others
  • The EAT held that if an employee agrees to attend an appeal hearing outside the three-month “decisions period” for resolving flexible working requests this does not mean that he or she has also agreed to extend the decisions period. Mr J Walsh v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
  • The EAT held that an ET had correctly awarded the maximum 25% uplift available for an employer’s failure to follow the Acas Code on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. In its judgment, the EAT provided guidance on how to assess an appropriate uplift for breach of the Code. Slade and another v Biggs and others
  • The EAT found that an ET was entitled to strike out a response, due to the Respondent’s non-compliance, as it was no longer possible to conduct a fair trial within the trial window. Emuemukoro v Croma Vigilant (Scotland) Ltd and Others

If any of these issues impact you or your business, or you have any questions, please get in touch with the authors below, or any member of the Employment Team.

Share this article

Contact the Author(s)