The 10 most essential employment law cases in 2018 – Personnel Today

Daniel McArthur with spouse Amy, who own the family-run Ashers bakery, discuss the “gay cake” case
Picture: Press Eye Ltd/REX/Shutterstock

As constantly, HR professionals had their reasonable share of employment law cases to monitor in 2018, but what were the 10 most crucial judgments in 2018 that every company should learn about?

The most important cases in 2018 included: violence after a work environment Christmas party; employer liability for ex-employees’ information breaches; the status of the gig economy labor force; the post ponement of disciplinary hearings; and the national minimum wage for care workers.

Other crucial cases in 2018 covered: dismissal for trade union activities; sexual orientation discrimination; inclusion of pregnant workers in collective redundancies; legal advice advantage in tribunals; and boosted shared parental pay.

10. Can a company dismiss a trade union representative if it is unhappy with his or her union activities?

This case highlights the stress in between:

Here, a union representative who was acting in a cumulative grievance was dismissed after he sought to make representations based upon a copy of a page from his supervisor’s desk journal. The employer was concerned that the copy, which had been passed to the union rep by a supervisor, had been acquired without the supervisor’s consent. It dismissed the union representative for keeping and using what it considered as unlawfully acquired product.

The Court of Appeal accepted that the union representative was unfairly dismissed. In doing so, the Court explained that security versus dismissal for taking part in trade union activities is not quickly reserved. It said that the representative’s actions were not a sufficient departure from good commercial relations practice to make up misconduct.

The case demonstrates how wary companies should be if they are thinking about taking disciplinary action against a union associate for union-related actions. There is a great line in between representatives doing what they can to benefit members and acting wrongly in pursuit of their union’s finest interests.

9. No direct sexual preference discrimination in refusal to bake “gay cake”

Why should HR specialists focus on an items and services discrimination case in which a bakeshop chain in Northern Ireland, run by Christian owners, declined to bake a cake featuring a message in support of same-sex marital relationship?

Sexual preference discrimination

In perhaps the highest-profile discrimination case of the last years, the Supreme Court held that the pastry shop could not have actually devoted direct sexual preference discrimination as it would have dealt with other customers, whatever their sexual preference or association with a particular sexual orientation, in the same method by declining to satisfy the order.

The case is very important since it calls into question previous employment cases that developed that companies are entitled to take a dim view of personnel with spiritual views refusing to offer a service when to do so would discriminate.

The Supreme Court’s ruling suggests that there may be narrow scenarios in which a person can refuse to offer a service where he or she exceptionally believes that to do so is contrary to his or her beliefs.

If a company is confronted with a worker declining to bring out an element of his/her tasks on religious grounds, reviewing the “gay cake” case ought to be one of the first things that it should do.

8. Pregnant workers can be included in cumulative redundancies

This Spanish case that went to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) involves one of the more delicate issues that an HR expert can face: needing to consist of a pregnant employee in a round of collective redundancies.

Pregnancy and redundancy

The case was brought by a staff member in Spain whose employer made her redundant while she was pregnant. This was a real redundancy scenario and the staff member got a low rating under the redundancy choice matrix. Indeed, the company was uninformed at the time that the worker was pregnant.

The ECJ validated the accepted wisdom that a pregnant employee genuinely chosen for redundancy for factors unassociated to her pregnancy can be made redundant.

Companies should remember that UK law goes further than EU law. An employee who is made redundant while on maternity leave has unique rights relating to being used suitable alternative work.

UK law likewise provides that a staff member who is dismissed while pregnant or on maternity leave is entitled to a written statement of factors for the termination, regardless of length of service and without having to make a demand.

7. Legal representative’s e-mail on camouflaging discriminatory termination permissible

This choice about the admissibility in employment tribunals of legal guidance from work legal representatives to employers is perhaps the most crucial procedural case of 2018.

Legal benefit

The discrimination case worries the admissibility of an e-mail in which a senior lawyer offered suggestions to the respondent business about how it could use a redundancy/restructuring program as a “cloak” to dismiss the complaintant.

While legal recommendations is generally privileged and does not need to be disclosed in an employment tribunal, there is an exception that allows legal suggestions to be admissible if it has the function of “effecting iniquity” (ie helping the company in dedicating a misdeed).

The Work Appeal Tribunal (EAT) acknowledged that, while tribunal disclosure obligations do not typically apply to documents including legal guidance, the e-mail was acceptable since it set out “not only an attempted deceptiveness of the claimant however also, if persisted in, deception of a work tribunal in likely and expected legal procedures”.

HR professionals associated with discussions with employment lawyers about possible claims need to be aware that, if such advice is sought or given for the function of effecting something underhand, the typical legal suggestions advantage protection may not apply.

X v Y Ltd is being attracted the Court of Appeal.

6. Boosted shared adult pay: finding of sex discrimination overturned

When shared adult leave was introduced, one of the biggest issues was just how much employers that boost maternity pay should pay those on shared adult pay.

Shared parental leave

Employers that enhance maternity pay had to think very carefully about whether or not to provide improved shared adult pay. Employers that do not do so run the risk of a sex discrimination claim from men and have actually to be prepared to validate their policy.

Mr Ali’s company allowed him simply two weeks’ paternity leave on complete pay, while providing moms full pay for 14 weeks (which corresponds with the 14-week maternity-leave period ensured by the Pregnant Employees Instruction). On the other hand, shared adult leave was paid at the statutory minimum. Mr Ali, whose wife had post-natal depression and wanted to return to work, might not afford to take leave at this level of pay.

While Mr Ali’s direct sex discrimination claim achieved success at first circumstances, the EAT overturned the employment tribunal decision. The EAT decision was somewhat truth particular and dependent on the claimant’s option of comparator, however it is important that HR experts track sex discrimination cases involving enhanced shared parental pay.

Both this case and the similar case are being attracted the Court of Appeal.

5. Employer accountable for handling director’s Christmas celebration violence

Could a company be responsible for a handling director’s random act of violence at a post-Christmas celebration drinking session, or existed sufficient distance between the employer’s event and the director’s actions? That was the concern for the Court of Appeal in this case.

Work Christmas party

The managing director spent for taxis to take staff to a hotel bar to continue drinking after the workplace Christmas celebration. The director, who was inebriated, entered into an argument with staff over his managerial decisions and punched a worker, who was seriously hurt.

In the staff member’s civil claim, the concern for the Court of Appeal was whether the company could be accountable for damages.

The Court of Appeal accepted that the company was accountable for the staff member’s injuries. The managing director was still acting in his function with the business, having arranged, and spent for, staff to continue drinking on the same night as the approved office event. The Court accepted that the assault emerged out of the director’s abuse of his position.

This decision recommends that senior staff are more at threat than ever of being discovered to be acting on behalf of their employers since of the wide ambit of their duties. In advance of the 2018 Christmas party, employers alerting staff to behave on the night out needs to make sure that senior staff are provided the exact same caution as everyone else.

4. Employer accountable for data breaches by staff member with “animosity”

The Court of Appeal held that the grocery store giant was liable for the criminal actions of an ex-employee who revealed the personal information of staff online.

Data security

This well-publicised case emerged after an unhappy previous IT auditor with the company sent out the individual information of around 100,000 staff to papers and published the data on a file-sharing website.

The Court of Appeal backed the previously High Court judgment that there was a sufficient connection between the position in which the IT auditor was used and his wrongful conduct for Morrisons to be responsible. This was despite the supermarket’s security steps and the criminal nature of the IT auditor’s actions.

This case highlights that the task is refrained from doing for organisations that have been pumping resources into adhering to the General Data Defense Regulation (GDPR).

Employers need to continue to evaluate their data security steps, which might consist of stringent guidelines on bringing your own device to work policies, access to external e-mails on work computers and making use of USB sticks. Companies can also take actions to flag up unusual activity, such as big files being emailed from work email addresses and suspicious periods of work computer use outside core company hours.

3. Supreme Court verifies that “self-employed” plumbings are workers

In 2018, the greatest profile work law cases included the status of “self-employed” people who work within the gig economy for the likes of Uber and Deliveroo. Nevertheless, this was the key work status case in 2018.

Employment status

The Supreme Court unanimously held that a plumber whose employer labelled him as “self-employed” in fact qualified as a “worker”, entitling him to standard work rights such as paid yearly leave.

Elements that recommended to the Supreme Court that Mr Smith was a worker included the business’s “tight control” over him (such as the requirements to wear a branded uniform and to follow its instructions carefully); the requirement to offer his services personally; and the suite of limiting covenants to which he needed to agree.

Employers that have actually crafted written agreements with their labor force to disguise them as “self-employed” when they are truly workers ought to be examining their contracts as a matter of seriousness.

Along with pressure from the courts, these companies might soon discover their hand required by the Government, with tips that legislation might be presented to draw a clearer difference in between workers and the genuinely self-employed.

2. Should companies hold off disciplinary hearings to accommodate a companion?

The EAT handled a typical situation dealt with by HR professionals: an employee looks for to delay a disciplinary hearing on the basis that his or her favored buddy is not available.

Delaying hearings

Here, the employer declined to reschedule the disciplinary hearing of a long-serving staff member after it had already been delayed because of her sick leave and vacation. Had actually the hearing been delayed for a couple of weeks, the trade union authorities she wanted as a companion would have been offered.

In discovering that the worker was unfairly dismissed, the EAT essentially cautioned employers that this scenario requires them to remember two distinct employment laws.

On the one hand, the statutory right to be accompanied allows a worker to propose an alternative time that is both affordable and within 5 working days of the original hearing. On the other hand, unfair termination legislation suggests that employers that are thinking about proceeding with the disciplinary hearing needs to think about the effect of this on the total fairness of the procedure.

As a result of this case, HR experts need to believe more thoroughly than ever before refusing to reschedule a disciplinary hearing to allow a particular companion to participate in.

1. Sleep-in care employees not entitled to nationwide minimum wage while asleep

The Court of Appeal controversially held that a “sleep-in” care employee in residential accommodation was not entitled to the national minimum wage while asleep.

Sleep-ins and the minimum wage

The decision, which looks likely to be attracted the Supreme Court, was big news in the care sector. The judgment likewise has an impact on other sectors where staff are allowed to sleep at work until called upon, for example in some emergency situation services and security roles.

The case focuses on what is implied by a worker being “available” in complicated nationwide minimum wage provisions developed to cover sleep-in employees. Is a sleep-in employee “available”, and therefore entitled to the nationwide base pay, only when he or she is awake, or should the employee be paid the base pay even when asleep?

The result is a welcome relief for care-sector companies. However, the case is expected to reach the Supreme Court, which may think about the monetary disadvantage that the Court of Appeal’s stance triggers to care employees who are expected to work long shifts throughout which they can be called upon at any time.