In North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust v Fox [2010] EWCA Civ 729, the pay terms of the Whitley Council agreement were replaced by the Agenda for Change (AfC) agreement.
The Court of Appeal held that the terms of the AfC agreement did not end the stability of the employment relationship between the hospital and its nurses - e.g. the AfC agreement did not fundamentally alter the job of a nurse or lead to any break in the employment relationship between the hospital and its nurses.
Therefore, the six-month time limit for bringing an equal pay claim did not begin on the date on which the pay terms of the Whitley Council agreement were replaced by the AfC agreement.
Prudent HR decisions are based on up-to-date information. Trotman's Employment Law Alerts (TELA) was an email news service that quickly informed HR professionals about the latest employment law developments. This is proven by the publication dates of the news items shown below. TELA provided accurate; concise; in-depth; and practical coverage of topical employment law developments. See @tonytrotman on X (formerly known as Twitter) for the latest employment law developments.
30 June 2010
25 June 2010
Penalty of £20,000 for breaching Information and Consultation laws
In Brown v G4 Security [EAT/0526/09], the EAT imposed a penalty of £20,000 on G4 Security for its failure to arrange the election of information and consultation representatives. The maximum penalty is £75,000 [reg. 23(2) of the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004].
Also see Darnton v Bournemouth University [EAT/0391/09].
Also see Darnton v Bournemouth University [EAT/0391/09].
18 June 2010
Racial Victimisation
It was possible that a worker could suffer from a detriment – because their employer took disciplinary proceedings against them – even though they had been acquitted of the disciplinary charges: Gayle v Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust [EAT/0338/09].
17 June 2010
Discrimination: working outside Great Britain
In Neary v Service Children’s Education [EAT/0101/10], Mr Neary worked abroad on various assignments and returned to Great Britain after those assignments were completed.
From April 2007 to November 2008, Mr Neary taught mathematics in Germany. On 25 March 2008, he applied for a teaching job at a school in Cyprus. The job application stated that his home address was in Germany.
On 7 August 2008, Mr Neary was told that his job application had been rejected. As a result of this, Mr Neary claimed disability and age discrimination.
EAT’s decision
The tribunal was entitled to find that Mr Neary was “ordinarily resident” in Germany - on the dates on which his job application was made and rejected - and therefore, he could not pursue his discrimination claims.
Mr Neary had to be “ordinarily resident” in Great Britain in order to pursue his discrimination claims.
The EAT stated that it was possible that a person may be “ordinarily resident” in more than one country at the same time [see para. 44].
From April 2007 to November 2008, Mr Neary taught mathematics in Germany. On 25 March 2008, he applied for a teaching job at a school in Cyprus. The job application stated that his home address was in Germany.
On 7 August 2008, Mr Neary was told that his job application had been rejected. As a result of this, Mr Neary claimed disability and age discrimination.
EAT’s decision
The tribunal was entitled to find that Mr Neary was “ordinarily resident” in Germany - on the dates on which his job application was made and rejected - and therefore, he could not pursue his discrimination claims.
Mr Neary had to be “ordinarily resident” in Great Britain in order to pursue his discrimination claims.
The EAT stated that it was possible that a person may be “ordinarily resident” in more than one country at the same time [see para. 44].
10 June 2010
Disciplinary Hearings
An employee’s dismissal was fair – where they had received a final written warning for misconduct – and their employer held another disciplinary hearing in relation to the same misconduct and two new allegations of misconduct which led to the employee’s dismissal: Pinto v Gloucestershire NHS Primary Care Trust [EAT/0351/09].
The employee had agreed that the previous and new allegations of misconduct could be heard together at the disciplinary hearing in exchange for putting aside the final written warning. In addition to this, the employee did not challenge the evidence presented by their employer in relation to any of those allegations.
Comment
The employee’s final written warning had not expired at the time of the disciplinary hearing. Therefore, if the hearing was only related to the new allegations of misconduct – the employee’s dismissal may still have been fair - since their employer could have considered the unexpired disciplinary warning.
The employee had agreed that the previous and new allegations of misconduct could be heard together at the disciplinary hearing in exchange for putting aside the final written warning. In addition to this, the employee did not challenge the evidence presented by their employer in relation to any of those allegations.
Comment
The employee’s final written warning had not expired at the time of the disciplinary hearing. Therefore, if the hearing was only related to the new allegations of misconduct – the employee’s dismissal may still have been fair - since their employer could have considered the unexpired disciplinary warning.