This week we celebrate the qualification of one of our team, as well as delving into the usual updates from the world of employment law.

Daniel has prepared a video on potential limitations in the use of settlement agreements while there is still time to register for our Mock Tribunal event on the 14 November 2022.

This Week at Chadwick Lawrence

Ciara Scanlon, one of our employees in the employment team, completed her training contract and qualified as a solicitor.  Ciara joined Chadwick Lawrence in 2018 starting out as an office assistant.  We are incredibly proud of her for her achievements and wish her the best of luck in her career.

The Media Hub

Do settlement agreements always cover all claims?

This video examines a potential limitation on the use of settlement agreements in cases where termination is mutually agreed between employer and employee. We discuss recent case law focusing on a discrimination claim which was not in existence at time of signing the agreement.

To watch this video please click: https://youtu.be/3C-J7Mh7OUI

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

Vodafone franchise worker asked personal questions about her sexual orientation by her manager

In this recent case, an employee was asked a series of personal questions by her manager, including “how do lesbians have sex?” In another incident, a different manager had told her she “looked like a normal lassie”, referring to her sexuality. The company brought in an external HR consultant to help investigate the claims against the two managers, and the outcome of the grievance procedure was that in appropriate comments had been made and the claimant no longer had to work with the two managers involved. The claimant appealed the outcome however this was dismissed, she then contacted ACAS and launched a tribunal claim. An initial settlement offer of £2,500 via Acas was rejected and the claim proceeded to tribunal where the claimant was awarded £30,000 in compensation.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-c-v-thistle-communications-ltd-in-liquidation-c-slash-o-c-middlebrook-middlebrooks-business-recovery-and-advice-4100336-slash-2022

Royal Mail whistleblower unfairly dismissed after raising concerns of fraud

In this recent case, a royal mail employee raised doubts about the legitimacy of how some staff were awarded bonuses and reported that some staff were “defrauding the company.” After raising these concerns, the claimant was told that if they were unfound then her job would be under threat. These concerns were later confirmed by an expert. The claimant was subsequently placed on a performance improvement plan for 6 weeks and told that if she did not comply, she would fail her trial period. The claimant suffered from severe depression and post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of her treatment after raising her concerns of fraud and was eventually signed off from work with work related stress. The Supreme Court ruled that the employee was unfairly dismissed and awarded her £109,065 in compensation.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-k-jhuti-v-royal-mail-group-ltd-2200982-2015

Tribunals should not strike out a claim for non-compliance with an Unless Order because it thinks the witness statement is inadequate

The claimant was a litigant in person who’s health issues required the tribunal to make reasonable adjustments. She had brought discrimination claims arising from the withdrawal of a job offer. During the proceedings, and Unless Order was made, requiring her to exchange witness statements by a specified date. She applied to the tribunal to vary the order but did not receive a response by the deadline, and submitted a holding statement in the same terms as her ET1 in order to still comply with the order. The respondent treated this as non-compliance with the Unless Order. The Claimant did not attend the start of the full merits hearing where this issue was addressed and the tribunal made a decision in her absence, dismissing her case. On appeal the EAT held that this was an error by the tribunal to treat the statement as an ‘interim statement’ and that the claimant had in fact complied with the Order.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/mrs-n-leeks-v-brighton-and-sussex-university-hospitals-nhs-trust-2022-eat-153

Dates for the Diary

Mock Tribunal – What’s Your Verdict?

When? Monday 14^th November 2022

Where? Weetwood Hall Estate, Otley Road, Weetwood, Leeds LS16 5PS

Time? 8:30am registration, 9am start

This interactive seminar will involve a mock trial based on a fictional employment tribunal claim.

The Claimant in this case was employed by the Respondent as a policy advisor. During his 3 years working for the company, he alleges that he was subjected to sexual harassment from his line manager. The Claimant raised his concerns, and his grievance was investigated by the company. The Mock Tribunal will decide upon his claims of constructive unfair dismissal and sexual harassment when the Claimant resigned following an unsatisfactory conclusion to his grievance.

At the event, we shall be using practising solicitors and barristers to ensure the event provides a very realistic view of the tribunal process with you. As attendees in the audience, you will act as the ‘jury’ and also have the opportunity to participate in the Q&A at the conclusion of the event.

To book your place at the event, please email the team at EmploymentHub@chadlaw.co.uk