Need to Know: October 2024

In the latest edition of our ‘Need To Know’ employment and HR newsletter, we cover the new Employment Rights Bill, explain the new duty to prevent sexual harassment in UK workplaces, look at positive action in recruitment and consider some key considerations for a successful constructive dismissal claim.

• • The new Employment Rights Bill
  • New duty to prevent sexual harassment in UK workplaces
  • Positive action in recruitment – when is it justified?
  • Failure to exhaust grievance process not relevant to constructive dismissal claims

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

HR Bullets

• The Supreme Court has held that contracts between part-time football referees and their administrative body, which were entered into each time they were engaged to officiate a particular match, met the minimum requirements necessary to establish the existence of a common law contract of employment; Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd [2024] UKSC 29
• An agency worker’s belief in English nationalism, which included a desire to forcibly remove Muslims from the United Kingdom, was not a protected belief under S.10 Equality Act 2010; Thomas v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust & Others [2024] EAT 141
• The EAT has summarised the approach to be taken when considering whether to exercise its discretion to extend time under rule 37 of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 where an appeal has been lodged in time, but without the required documents; AB v University of East London and other appeals [2024] EAT 157
• The Supreme Court has restored the High Court’s decision to grant an injunction restraining Tesco from ‘firing and rehiring’ employees in order to remove a contractual entitlement to enhanced pay; Tesco Stores Ltd v Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and others [2024] UKSC 28
• The EAT has held that an employment tribunal erred in its decision to order the claimant to pay the respondent’s costs of defending the claimant’s unsuccessful claims and its costs in respect of the hearing. The tribunal ordered that the principal costs award should be assessed on an indemnity basis; Mr M Dowding v The Character Group Plc [2024] EAT 153