The Indicator Podcast

While the reason for a dismissal is often clear, this is not always so. In this case, the reason for dismissal was not clear and accordingly, the EAT had to consider whether what the decision-maker actually decided must be analysed to determine the principal reason for the dismissal in order to resolve the question of whether the dismissal was fair or not. Listen along to see what happened!

Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:

LinkedIn

YouTube

Facebook

Instagram

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

The government has published a new non-statutory definition of anti-Muslim hostility aiming to, among other things, protect Muslims from unacceptable hostile behaviour. Listen along to find out more!

Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:

LinkedIn

YouTube

Facebook

Instagram

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

In this case, the EAT was asked to consider whether significant defects in an internal appeal process, including placing the onus on the employee to nominate a manager to hear the appeal after failed attempts to convene the appeal hearing, meant that the subsequent dismissal was unfair. Listen along to find out what happened!

Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:

LinkedIn

YouTube

Facebook

Instagram

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

This recent EAT decision offers useful guidance as to the scope of an employer’s duty to make reasonable adjustments within the context of a redeployment and, in particular, considers whether “bumping” another employee to create a vacancy for a disabled employee is a reasonable adjustment. Listen along to find out what happened!

Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:

LinkedIn

YouTube

Facebook

Instagram

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

The EAT was tasked in this case with determining whether it had been discriminatory to withdraw  a job offer made to a Christian worker after finding out he had previously written Facebook posts in which he spoke negatively about homosexuality. Listen along to find out what happened!

Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:

LinkedIn

YouTube

Facebook

Instagram

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

In this case, the EAT was asked to consider whether an employee’s previous tolerance of inappropriate language is a relevant factor that should be considered when determining a sexual harassment claim.  The employee complained that she had been sexually harassed at work and the employer argued that the conduct complained off was “office banter”, the kind of which had been ongoing for a significant period of time and about which the employee had never complained before. Listen along to find out what happened!

Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:

LinkedIn

YouTube

Facebook

Instagram

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

In this case the EAT considered whether an employer could objectively justify a pay disparity between two groups of employees, where the disparity had arisen as a result of a TUPE transfer under which the services of one group of previously outsourced workers had been brought back in-house. Listen along to find out what happened!

Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:

LinkedIn

YouTube

Facebook

Instagram

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

In this case, the EAT was asked to determine whether a volunteer who is paid for their volunteering activities and who received payslips and a P60 had worker status in circumstances where they had brought a tribunal claim alleging that they had been deprived of the right to bring a companion to a disciplinary meeting. Listen along to find out what happened!

Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:

LinkedIn

YouTube

Facebook

Instagram

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

In this case, the EAT has provided clarity on how to determine whether collective consultation duties apply in a redundancy situation, specifically in relation to whether employers should be looking at both past and proposed future redundancies when deciding whether they are obliged to collectively consult. Listen along to find out what happened!

Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:

LinkedIn

YouTube

Facebook

Instagram

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

While not binding, this employment tribunal case is a useful example as to how an employer needs to be careful not to prioritise the rights of one protected group over those of another when drafting and enforcing polices.  In this particular case, the competing rights were that of transgender staff and biological females who, by virtue of a uniform policy, were expected to share a changing room. Listen along to find out what happened!

Visit www.indicator.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:

LinkedIn

YouTube

Facebook

Instagram

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.