This week Nils O’Donoghue has prepared a video on the topical subject of sponsorship licenses for employees. On the employment law front we have a number of case law updates, including two on disability discrimination.

The Media Hub

Sponsorship Licences for Employers

In this week’s video, Nils O’Donoghue of our Regulatory Team discusses key elements on sponsorship licenses for employers including:

• what a sponsorship license is
• why employers would need to apply for this license and how they can do this.
• some common problems

To watch the video please click the following link: https://youtu.be/hpuS38tCRes

There have been lots of relevant employment law/HR updates this week.

Requiring a disabled employee to attend a redundancy interview could amount to a substantial disadvantage.

In this recent case the claimant was asked to attend a redundancy selection interview however did not attend as he believed that the managers were conspiring to dismiss him. The EAT held that the tribunal in this case applied the wrong test when considering disadvantage as it considered whether the claimant was capable of attending the interview rather than whether it was more difficult to attend the interview due to their disability. The tribunal had found that the claimant had problems with their memory, concentration, and with social interaction which the EAT held would hinder the claimants effective participation in the interview when compared with a person who was not disabled.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/mr-j-hilaire-v-luton-borough-council-2022-eat-166

A miscalculation of a claimant’s expenditure is a material error for the purposes of calculating a Costs Order.

In this recent case the claimant brought claims for ordinary unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriment, all of which were dismissed by the tribunal. The respondent applied for costs under Rule 76 of The Employment Tribunal Rules and Procedure 2013. The tribunal considered the costs order on the basis that the claimant had acted unreasonably in making multiple Scott Schedule changes and his refusal of the respondent’s previous settlement offer of £18,500. In the claimant’s witness statement, they had set out their monthly expenditure as £1245.28 however the tribunal proceeded on the basis of only £690 and made a Costs Order against the claimant for £5000. The claimant appealed and the EAT held that the error made by the tribunal was material and the issue has been remitted to the same tribunal.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/mr-mark-ward-v-dimensions-uk-ltd-2022-eat-159

Employee dismissed as their autism influenced their conduct, tribunal held was neither fair nor unfair.

In this recent case, the claimant was a social worker who suffered from autism and dyslexia. The claimant had given a gift to a child for whom she was responsible for without the authority of her manager. She had also written a case note consisting of inappropriate terms and her own thoughts and feelings. She was later dismissed and brought an unfair dismissal claim against her employer. She asserted that her conduct had been influenced by her autism and claimed that as she was dismissed for her conduct, the council had subjected her to discrimination arising from her disability. The tribunal found that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed and had not been subjected to discrimination. All appeals were dismissed.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/ms-m-morgan-v-buckinghamshire-council-2022-eat-160