This Week at Chadwick Lawrence

The employment team held a Mock Trial at Weetwood Hall which was based on a fictional employment tribunal claim. The tribunal upheld the claim and found that the Claimant was subject to sexual harassment and constructive unfair dismissal. The event ran very smoothly, and we would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who attended, we hope you enjoyed it.

The Media Hub

How can continuity of employment be preserved?

This video explores the concept of continuity of employment, which is important for identifying whether employees qualify for certain statutory rights and payments. There are exceptions to the general rule which could mean service is continuing to accrue where it wasn’t necessarily intended

Watch here: https://youtu.be/0i2qCGmvnFs

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

Guidance to Employers ahead of the World Cup

As I am sure you are aware, the FIFA World Cup kicks off on Sunday 20 November 2022 lasting just under a month. Attached to this week’s dispatch is guidance for employers in managing their employees throughout the duration of the tournament.

World Cup Guidance

University of Cumbria dismissed pregnant employee and ordered to pay £130k

In this recent case the claimant, Miss Law, was employed on a fixed term contract in a charity funded role. When Covid hit, the possibility of securing further funding for her role vanished however an email from the university’s vice chancellor stated that there would be no redundancies due to Covid and that risk assessments would be done to ensure that any cost-cutting measures did not disproportionately affect vulnerable groups. That month, Law’s line manager was informed that her fixed term contract was due to expire soon and there was no consideration of whether there was an ongoing need for the work to continue after the funding expired. The tribunal found that there were no meaningful discussions about redeployment either. The claimant’s redundancy was confirmed, and she appealed referring to the vice chancellors email and stated that her pregnancy made her vulnerable. Her appeal was dismissed, and Law brought a claim against the university. The tribunal held that the decision to make her redundant was “predetermined” and “tainted by discrimination in a way which is unlawful”.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mrs-c-law-v-the-university-of-cumbria-2415967-slash-2021

A successful appeal reinstated an employee even though they did not want to return to work

In this recent case the claimant was dismissed for alleged gross misconduct and appealed, indicating that she wished to be reinstated. She later changed her mind stating that she only wanted an apology and compensation. The appeal was successful, and the claimant was reinstated however she did not return to work, which led to her later dismissal due to her failure to attend. She brought an unfair dismissal claim. An employment tribunal considered that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim, as the January 2019 dismissal had “vanished” on the claimant’s reinstatement. She appealed against the decision which the EAT rejected, stating it was common ground that if an appeal against dismissal is successful, the parties are bound to treat the dismissal as not having occurred, irrespective of the employee’s subjective wishes. Only if an appeal is withdrawn can this outcome be avoided.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/mrs-k-marangakis-v-iceland-foods-ltd-2022-eat-161