Skip to main content

Need to Know: June 2023

Workplace meeting room - NTK

In the latest edition of our ‘Need To Know’ employment and HR newsletter, we look at the new laws providing additional rights for carers, expecting parents and new parents, guidance from the ICO for employers responding to employee information requests, and how (not) to calculate holiday pay on termination.

We also have included our usual HR Bullets – which cover other significant employment law updates from the past month.

HR Bullets

  • The employment appeal tribunal overturned the tribunal’s decision to award the claimant nearly £67,500 because of the employer’s failure to comply with a reinstatement order, as the claim made reference to an incorrect section of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and instead awarded the claimant just over £63,500 in University of Huddersfield v Duxbury[2023] EAT 72.
  • The tribunal held that extending an employee’s probationary period (in this case, a male carer who had been employed to care for a physically disabled woman) was unlawful, even though it had would have been lawful to discriminate against him in selection for the role (on the basis of his sex) under the ‘general occupational requirement’ defence – Donnelly v PQ ET/2402650/22.
  • Tribunals are not required to refer separately and/or expressly to the possibility of subconscious discrimination in every decision – Kohli v Department for International Trade [2023] EAT 82.
  • When deciding whether a claim should be heard in the tribunal or the High Court, the following points should be considered: taking into account all relevant circumstances – the complexity of the issue, the amount involved, the technicality of the evidence and the appropriateness of the procedures, which is the test in Bowater [1991], as confirmed in Lycatel Services Ltd v Schneider [2023] EAT 81.

Share this article