ANDREW MCDADE V NORMAN EMERSON GROUP LIMITED IT63140/22IT
For the full judgment click HERE

URSULA MERRICK V CHIEF CONSTABLE  OF PSNI & IAN CAMPBELL IT13689/18
For the full judgment click HERE

The Claimant began working for the RUC in 1993.  She resigned in 2021 following an application for ill-health retirement. At that time she worked within the Professional Standards department and was the author of the PSNI whistleblowing policy.

The IT found that the Claimant was unlawfully discriminated against and harassed on grounds of her sex; subject to disability discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments; and subject to detriment for making a protected disclosure. The tribunal did not find that the Claimant was subject to discrimination on grounds of her part-time status, nor did it find direct discrimination in terms of disability.

At [31] the tribunal found the claimant to be a “careful, credible and consistent historian, whose evidence was generally supported by contemporaneous notes and documents” whilst simultaneously finding that the second respondent had made unwarranted redaction to suppress evidence which would have helped the Claimant’s case or harmed his own. Where evidence conflicted the IT found that it preferred the accounts given by the Claimant.

The financial remedy is to be decided separately.

The judgment provides a useful, up-to-date exposition of the caselaw in relation to Sex and Disability discrimination, Whistleblowing, the burden of proof, and Part-Time Working.

 

GREASLEY-ADAMS V ROYAL MAIL GROUP LIMITED [2023] EAT 86
For the full judgment click HERE

The EAT upheld the decision of the first-tier tribunal to dismiss the Claimant’s claim for harassment relating to disability under S26 of the Equality Act. The Claim was dismissed on the basis that the Claimant was unaware of the unwanted conduct.  The EAT found that in determining harassment, the tribunal had not erred in having regard only to the unwanted conduct of which the employee was aware. The EAT stated the test for harassment is a cumulative one, it must involve unwanted conduct and the effect of violating dignity. The perception of the Claimant was found to be a key and mandatory component in determining whether or not harassment had occurred, and if there was no awareness, there could be no perception.

MOUSTACHE V CHELSEA & WESTMINSTER NHS TRUST
For the full judgment click HERE

The Claimant worked for the Respondent trust for 28 years before taking a claim for disability and age discrimination, and harassment against them. This was later consolidated with a claim for unfair dismissal. At a preliminary hearing, the tribunal directed that a list of issues should be agreed. Discriminatory dismissal was not clearly articulated on the list of agreed issues. At a remote hearing, the tribunal dismissed this claim, recording that the issues to be determined were those contained within the list of agreed issues. The EAT found that in dealing with litigants in person the tribunal should have discussed and clarified the claim. It found that a list of issues is helpful but is not a pleading, claim form or response, The EAT described the list of issues as no more than a useful tool and that “slavish adherence to it, or elevation of it to a formal and rigid pleading, precludes a fair and just trial of the real issues in the case, the principle at the core of the Overriding Objective. Equally, [the tribunal] should be astute to ensure that advantage is not unfairly afforded to any one party through their use”

⚖️EAT rule that an agreement governing pay in lieu cannot result in lower pay than would be payable under the WTR.

⚖️Lawyers urge caution as colleges face £100,000 holiday pay ruling

⚖️ High Court refuses interim injunction to enforce non-compete clause due to employer’s unreasonable delay

⚖️Man rejected for 59 CalMac jobs loses ‘blacklisting’ fight against ferry operator despite his cv being saved as “blacklist.doc”

⚖️Worker rights for foster carers to be addressed in test litigation.

⚖️ET accepts ethical veganism as a philosophical belief but finds that Claimant did not genuinely hold that belief, so dimisses claim.