Read them here Government publishes guidance on workplace dress codes The Government equalities office has published a new guidance document for employers and employees entitled "Dress codes and sex discrimination — what you need to know". In light of continued controversy surrounding employer expectations in this area, this guide seeks to help minimise risks associated with what the government clearly accepts can be a legitimate part of an employer's terms and conditions.
What constitutes a reasonable investigation?
Posted on 27 March One of the key steps in ensuring that a fair procedure is followed during disciplinary proceedings is carrying out a reasonable investigation to establish the facts of the case and whether or not there is a case to answer.
That sounds straightforward but it is something many employers get wrong. As a result, even though there may well be a potentially fair reason for dismissal, an inadequate investigation can render any subsequent dismissal unfair. When dealing with disciplinary matters which includes poor performance it is important to bear in mind the principles of fairness as set out in the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance procedures and the supplementary ACAS Guidance.
It had reasonable grounds Employment law case studies uk that belief. At the time it held that belief, the employer had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances. What is a reasonable investigation? Background Mr Shrestha was a support worker for Genesis and was dismissed for gross misconduct after fraudulently over-claiming mileage expenses.
This applied where an employee drove at least 2, miles in a financial year and was payable in addition to the usual mileage expenses. Using the AA route-finder, Genesis discovered that Mr Shrestha was claiming mileage consistently higher than the AA figures, in fact, almost twice as much.
The explanation given by Mr Shrestha was that difficulties in parking, one way road systems and road works causing diversions were the reasons for the higher mileage.
The disciplinary hearing was chaired by Mr East who discussed two specific trips with Mr Shrestha rather than all of them because he did not consider that there was a plausible explanation for higher mileage to be claimed for every single journey.
Mr Shrestha provided the same explanation as before for the high mileage claims. For all these later journeys Mr Shrestha claimed higher mileage than for the previous year and for all the journeys, the mileage claimed was higher than the AA rates.
Mr Shrestha was subsequently dismissed for gross misconduct and his internal appeal against the dismissal was unsuccessful. Mr Shrestha then commenced Employment Tribunal proceedings. Proceedings At the Employment Tribunal, Mr Shrestha argued that Genesis had failed to carry out a reasonable investigation and Mr East should have discussed every specific journey with him and should have made some of the journeys himself to see the impact the parking issues, one way road systems and road closures had on the journeys taken.
Whilst on some occasions there may have been road closures and diversions this would not account for increased mileage claims for every single journey.
The Employment Tribunal held that the investigation carried out by Genesis had been reasonable and applying the Burchell test, Genesis had a reasonable belief that Mr Shrestha had fraudulently over - claimed mileage expenses.
The EAT upheld this decision. Mr Shrestha appealed to the Court of Appeal.
He argued that the Employment Tribunal had failed to apply the Burchell test properly and rather than just considering the reasonableness of the investigation that Genesis had carried out, the Employment Tribunal should also have considered the reasonableness of what Genesis failed to do.
Although an employer must consider any defences raised by the employee, whether and to what extent it is necessary to investigate each specific defence will depend on the circumstances of the case. When assessing the question of reasonableness, the investigation should be looked at as a whole.
The Court of Appeal held that the Employment Tribunal had correctly applied the Burchell test and that a reasonable investigation had been carried out. Comment Although this decision does not change the law in any way, the Court of Appeal has reiterated that an employer only has to carry out a reasonable investigation to meet the Burchell test and does not have to investigate every explanation put forward by an employee.
This provides that any investigation should where practicable be carried out by a different person from the person who subsequently conducts the disciplinary hearing or appeal.
It could be the line manager, someone from HR or an individual with specialist knowledge, for example a member of the IT department if computer misuse is suspected.
The investigation also needs to be carried out promptly.
Finally, there is no statutory right for an employee to be accompanied at an investigatory meeting as opposed to a disciplinary meeting.
The statutory companion is either a colleague, a trade union representative, or an official employed by a trade union certified as being competent to accompany a worker.
What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances of each individual case. For instance, a worker should provide enough time for the employer to deal with the companion's attendance at the meeting.Printed resources. Law reports are shelved in the LawBod according to jurisdiction.
Where the reports are drawn from more than one jurisdiction, then they will be in General. If a human rights approach was taken to the problem, then you many find them in the section with shelf marks starting Internat. The list below shows major sources for English and EU labour law cases - those in bold are.
Several case studies showing how expert employment law advice and support helped clients to remain compliant and develop sustainable HR management procedures. A leading employment law firm suggests we keep an eye on four key cases.
A quick look at the four court actions that have the potential for changing the employment law landscape, courtesy of the Employment Benefits and Labor Practice Group at Blank Rome. Current cases. Cases only appear here a few weeks before the appeal is due to be heard by the Court.
Lists of cases seeking permission to appeal to the Court appear on the monthly lists published on our Permission to appeal page, once such an application is determined..
The abbreviations 'FC' and 'AP' stand for 'Funded Client' and 'Assisted Person' respectively. Employment Law Case Study - Disability Discrimination 15th October For employment legal advice call our Employment Solicitors on or contact us online and we will call you.
Case Study: Unfair Dismissal From Hair Salon Leads To £12, Settlement Summary. How Martin Searle Solicitors settled a maternity and sex discrimination claim for £12, the day before the Employment Tribunal hearing.