We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 80

Equal pay and "piggyback" claims

  • Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 10 2009

In McAvoy v South Tyneside Borough Council, female employees of three local councils who worked in predominantly female jobs brought equal pay claims under the Equal Pay Act 1970 (EqPA) arguing that their work was of equal value to men working in predominantly male jobs but who received extra bonuses

Clear language required in COT3 to compromise future claims

  • Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • April 9 2009

One of the advantages of COT3 agreements over compromise agreements is the greater certainty that the COT3 provides when it comes to the employee waiving future statutory claims of which the employee and employer have no (and can have no) knowledge at the time the settlement is agreed

Employment terminated on the date that pay was stopped

  • Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 15 2009

The Court of Appeal has held that stopping an employee's pay while he was suspended on full pay demonstrated a clear intention to terminate his employment

Failure to make reasonable adjustments can render a dismissal unlawful

  • Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • August 13 2009

Where a dismissal could have been avoided by making a reasonable adjustment (such as a phased return to work or a move to a different job), the employer's failure to make the reasonable adjustment meant that the dismissal itself amounted to discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act

Employers must act on suspicion of misconduct or lose right to rely on it

  • Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • August 13 2009

The Court of Appeal has held that if an employer suspects an employee to be guilty of misconduct, it should instigate disciplinary proceedings against the employee or reserve its position to bring future disciplinary proceedings against the employee

Wide definition of service provision changes under TUPE

  • Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 10 2009

The EAT has held in Metropolitan Resources Ltd v Churchill Dulwich Ltd (in liquidation) and Martin Cambridge & others that, where the activities carried on by the alleged transferee are fundamentally or essentially the same as those carried out by the alleged transferor, this will amount to a service provision change

Attempts at conflict resolution did not prevent disciplinary action

  • Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • August 13 2009

In West London Mental Health NHS Trust v Sarkar, the EAT held that the employer's actions in seeking to resolve complaints against Mr Sarkar through an internal "Fair Blame Policy", designed to deal with less serious matters, did not mean that his subsequent dismissal for gross misconduct was unfair or outside a range of reasonable responses open to the employer

2009 Budget report

  • Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 15 2009

There is to be a one-off increase from £350 to £380 in the maximum week's pay that can be taken into account for the purposes of calculating statutory redundancy pay

Failure to pay damages can be victimisation

  • Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • June 11 2009

In the case of Rank Nemo (DS) Limited & others v Coutinho, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that an employment tribunal can hear a claim for victimisation based upon non-payment of a tribunal award

Consultant was in breach of confidentiality obligations

  • Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • June 11 2009

The High Court has held that a consultant was in breach of obligations of confidentiality to a former client, when he misused confidential information to develop a competing product for another party (Vestergaard Frandsen AS and others v Bestnet Europe Limited and others