1. TUPE and collectively set pay rates: The Court of Appeal is due to give its judgment as to whether, if an employee's contract provides that pay is set by collective agreements negotiated by the transferor and union from time to time, this will continue to apply even after the employees have transferred under TUPE to a transferee. The EAT ruled that it does, so that pay rates agreed by the transferor post-transfer will bind the transferee. However, this goes further than required by ECJ law, which allows rights to be frozen at the point of transfer. It will be particularly significant for businesses which have acquired ex-public sector employees under TUPE. (Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure)
  2. Indirect religious discrimination: The Court of Appeal will consider whether it was unlawful to prohibit the visible wearing of a cross, in particular whether an employee has to show that her belief is shared by others to establish indirect discrimination. (Eweida v British Airways)
  3. TUPE and pre-pack administrations: Following an EAT decision that TUPE might not apply to transfer employees on a pre-pack administration where there was no prospect of a rescue, the Court of Appeal expressed doubts as to whether this was correct (but decided the case on a different point). The issue may well come before the Court of Appeal directly in two other cases currently being appealed to the EAT. (Oakland v Wellswood, CA; EAT is due to hear Olds v Late Editions with Otford Tool v Barke)
  4. Associative discrimination: The EAT was prepared to write whole new sections into the Disability Discrimination Act to give effect to an ECJ decision prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of association with a disabled person. Leave to appeal has been sought. If granted, the Court of Appeal will have to decide if this stretched the concept of purposive interpretation of legislation too far. (Coleman v Attridge Law)
  5. Age discrimination: In addition to several ECJ cases on this topic, the Court of Appeal and EAT are due to hear two cases concerning whether an employer can dismiss an employee to avoid paying an enhanced pension. (Woodcock v Cumbria Primary Care Trust; Tower Hamlets v Wooster)

Also likely next year are the first cases on the new Acas Code on discipline and grievance and no doubt more claims from disgruntled bank employees about their bonuses!