In the latest edition of our ‘Need To Know’ employment and HR newsletter, we look at how exclusion of evidence works in Employment Tribunal proceedings, the challenges inherent in re-opening disciplinary processes in the EAT, and give an update on Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill making it’s way through parliament.
- How evidence can be excluded in Employment Tribunal proceedings
- A can of worms? Re-opening disciplinary processes in the EAT
- Update on the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill
We also have included our usual HR Bullets – which cover other significant employment law updates from the past month.
- The Court of Appeal has held that if a COT3 is widely drafted enough, it may prevent a subsequent victimisation claim against the same Respondent (Arvunescu v Quick Release Ltd)
- An employment tribunal was wrong to reduce the compensation awarded for unfair dismissal to nothing because it deemed that a redundancy pool of one meant that the dismissal was unavoidable (Teixersa v Zaika Restaurant Ltd and another)
- The EAT has found that an appeal may have been properly lodged despite a failure to attach written reasons (Elhallabi v Avis Budget UK Ltd)
- The High Court has found that there is an assumption that the contents of personal email accounts used by the employees can be within the employer’s control and so may be subject to orders for disclosure (Republic of Mozambique v Credit Suisse International)
- There was a ‘dispute’ for the purposes of applying the without prejudice rule where an employee had complained of infringements of their legal rights and referred to ACAS and Early Conciliation (Garrod v Riverstones Management Ltd)
- The Court of Appeal has found that an employee who chose not to attend his workplace throughout the Covid-19 pandemic was not automatically unfairly dismissed: his claim of serious and imminent danger was not upheld (Rogers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd)
- In certain circumstances, documents which related to the Claimant’s previous employment with the same employer could be of relevance at a remedy hearing (Health and Safety Executive v Jowett)
- The EAT has found that it must be shown that the fact someone was married rather than in a close relationship was the reason for unfavourable treatment for marital status discrimination (Ellis v Bacon)