Employment and discrimination Publications

3PB Publications

3PB barrister Gareth Graham analyses the latest employment law cases, covering:
•Harassment – Evans v Xactly Corporation Ltd UKEATPA/0128/18LA
•Whistleblowing: Timis & Sage v Osipov [2018] EWCA Civ 2321
•Unfair Dismissal: Hawkes v Ausin Group (UK) Ltd UKEAT/0070/18/BA
•Direct Discrimination – Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others

In other news…
•Employment Tribunal statistics
•Consultation Paper on reforming employment law hearing structures

View Publication

3PB barristers Lachlan Wilson and Sarah Bowen analyse the latest employment law cases, covering:
•Harassment – Evans v Xactly Corporation Ltd UKEATPA/0128/18LA
•Whistleblowing: Timis & Sage v Osipov [2018] EWCA Civ 2321
•Direct Discrimination – Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others [2018] UKSC 49
•Good faith/Bad faith - Saad v Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust UKEAT/0276/17/JOJ
•Amendments – Pruzhanskaya v International Trade Exhibitors (JV) Ltd (2018) UKEAT/0046/18/LA
•Philosophical Belief – A Gray v Mulberry Co (Design) Ltd (2018) UKEAT/ 0040/17/DA
•Practice and Procedure - X v Y Ltd (2018) UKEAT/0261/17/JOJ
•Vicarious liability – Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2214

View Publication

3PB barrister Sarah Clarke analyses the latest employment law cases, covering:
• What constitutes ‘information’ in the context of making a protected disclosure? Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018] EWCA Civ 1436
• When determining the amount of one’s holiday pay, should regular voluntary overtime be included? In the context of the NHS, should non-guaranteed and voluntary overtime be included? Yes to both, says the EAT: Flowers v East of England Ambulance Trust UKEAT/0235/17/JOJ
• Can a dismissal for a first offence of serious (not gross) misconduct ever be fair? Yes, says the EAT: Quintiles Commercial UK Ltd v Barongo UKEAT/0255/17/JOJ
• Supreme Court has upheld previous decisions that an ostensibly ‘self-employed’ plumber was in fact a ‘worker’: Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith [2018] UKSC 29

View Publication

Race discrimination - 'Coconut' - Joseph England considers recent analysis of comparators and striking out

In Walters v Avanta Enterprise Limited [2017] UKEAT 0127_17_2112 (December 2017), Slade J in the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered a case in which the Claimant argued that being labelled a ‘coconut’ (i.e. being black on the outside, white on the inside) demonstrated a racially discriminatory motivation but her claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The case examines how to correctly construct a comparator and also repeats the trite warning against striking out cases too readily at preliminary hearings. Joseph England appeared pro bono for the Appellant at the EAT for the r.3(10) stage, successfully obtaining permission to appeal and drafting the grounds of appeal that succeeded before Slade J.

View Publication

3PB Employment barristers Sarah Clarke and Simon Tibbitts analyse the latest employment law cases, covering:
1. Guidance of whose motivation will be taken into account in determining the “Employer’s” reason for dismissal: Royal Mail Limited v Kamaljeet Jhuti [2017] EWCA Civ 1632
2. EAT find that relying on previous instances of misconduct, for which no sanction had been applied, does not render a dismissal unfair: NHS 24 v Pillar UKEATS/0005/16/JW
3. Subjecting men and women to the same detriment can be ‘less favourable treatment’: HM Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills v The Interim Executive Board of Al-Hijrah school [2017] EWCA Civ 1426
4. The Advocate General has ruled that employees may qualify for protection from pregnancy discrimination before informing employer about their pregnancy: Guisado v Bankia SA (Case C-102/16)

Please click below to read the case law update.

View Publication

3PB Employment barrister Oliver Isaacs analyses the latest employment law cases, covering:

1. Early Conciliation – De Mota v ADR Network UKEAT/0305/16/DA
2. Practice and Procedure - Jhuti v Royal Mail UKEAT/0061/17/RN
3. Burden of Proof - Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd
4. Causation and Apportionment – BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd v Konczak (2017) EWCA Civ 1188
5. Permanent Health Insurance - ICTS (UK) Ltd v Visram (2017) All ER D 229
6. Whistleblowing - International Petroleum Ltd v Osipov & Others (2017) UKEAT/0058/17/DA

Please click below to read Oliver's case law update.

View Publication

In the balance: An employer’s right to monitor communications versus employees Convention Rights in light ofBurbalescu v Romania [2017] ECHR 754 (5 September 2017)

3PB Employment barrister Sarah Bowen considers whether employers can lawfully monitor employees communications following the ECHR’s most recent decision in Burbalescu v Romania [2017] ECHR 754 (5 September 2017)

In her latest article, 3PB Employment barrister Sarah Bowen examines the ECHR’s final decision in Burbalescu v Romania and its impact on private and public employers who chose to monitor staff communications.

Sarah provides a useful summary of the principles relevant to this complex area of law and its impact on convention rights.

To read Sarah’s article, please click below.

View Publication

Employment specialist Matthew Curtis provides an employment case law update covering:

1. Tribunal fees – the latest position
2. Suspension – the risks
3. ACAS Early conciliation – the latest skirmishes in an ongoing war (De Mota v ADR Network & anor UKEAT/0305/16)
4. Presidential guidance – pensions and Vento
5. Burden of proof in discrimination claims

View Publication

The Tribunal Fees Order is unlawful and discriminatory.

3PB Employment barrister Sarah Bowen reviews the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51 that Tribunal fees are unlawful and discriminatory and considers what might happen next!

View Publication