A law firm which offers more

Call us: 0113 246 0622

Employment Law Bulletin - March 2020


News round-up 

The outbreak of coronavirus has put the world in an unprecedented situation. Every day the economic and legal landscape changes and businesses are expected to keep up. 

Almost every business will be impacted in some way by COVID-19 - some more substantially than others. If you have any questions about the government’s new ‘furloughing’ scheme, lay-offs, pay reductions, restructures, sick pay and self-isolation or any other related issues, please do not hesitate to give us a call to discuss

With the legislative changes to compensation limits, leave and wages in force in April, we have provided you with a summary of current facts and figures. The employment facts and figures should prove to be a useful reference tool, but are for guidance only.

Mental health difficulties is a disability 

A disability is defined in the Equality Act 2010 as a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the individual’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities. If there is a mental impairment, the focus is on the symptoms, rather than a specific diagnosis.

In Plowright v Sky-in-Home Services Ltd [2019] the employee was an engineer installing equipment for customers. In a routine inspection, he was spotted at the top of a ladder without the appropriate safety equipment and he had not secured the ladder correctly. He said that he was going through a divorce, and his partner and child were moving out that day and he was distracted. He was dismissed.

This was found to be an unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. After the event, occupational health declared him unfit to work, and his GP diagnosed him with a mood disorder and a depressive disorder. The Employment Tribunal found that the situation was likely to recur, and therefore this was a long-term situation and was a disability. Even though there was not a diagnosis at the time of the incident, the employer should have realised that the situation impaired his ability to carry out his tasks correctly.


Too old or too expensive? 

A recent case has emphasised the importance of being clear about the reasons for rejecting an applicant for a job. In Levy v McHale Legal Ltd [2019] the individual had over 30 years’ experience as a lawyer. He applied for a job for which it was stated that five years’ post-qualification experience was needed. At the interview salary was discussed and it was later concluded that he was too expensive.

He was told that he was unsuccessful because it had been decided to re-advertise for someone with three to five years’ experience, so that the applicant could be ‘moulded’ to fit the needs of the firm. He claimed age discrimination and was successful. The Employment Tribunal found that the length of experience requirements was changed so that he could not get the job, due to the cost, and that they were not essential to do the job.


Resigned in anger 

If an employee resigns in answer s/he should be given time to calm down, and then consider if s/he really does want to leave. In Rae v Wellhead Electrical Supplies Ltd [2019] a director had an argument with other directors, which resulted in him walking out and saying, ‘I won’t be back’. The other directors accepted his resignation, but the next day he made contact to say that he did not mean to resign, and he was suffering from stress. He was told that his resignation had been accepted. He successfully claimed unfair dismissal.


Managing a pregnant employee 

The words used to communicate with an employee can indicate a discriminatory approach. In Camara v East London NHS Foundation Trust [2019] the employee was working in a temporary administration role and had only worked for a few months. Her performance was unsatisfactory, but before that was addressed, she informed her employer that she was pregnant. When talking to her employer she was asked ‘Did you plan this?’ and ‘Will this have to come out of my budget?’ (with reference to the costs of maternity pay).

The Employment Tribunal accepted that the words reflected the frustration felt because the manager thought she would not be able to dismiss (both for poor performance and because there was not sufficient budget to continue with the role) now that the employee was pregnant. However, the subsequent dismissal was found to be fair. The employee succeeded in a discrimination claim, due to the words that were spoken by her manager.


Careless words 

The importance of taking care with words is also shown in the recent case of Pemberton v HMRC [2019]. The employee suffered from rheumatoid arthritis and needed a mobility scooter to get around. When she was having a flare up with the condition, she sometimes vocalised the pain, and she was also argumentative.

In a referral letter to the HMRC’s Reasonable Adjustments Support Team her manager commented that she could become ‘lively’ during a flare up. He was referring to her argumentative nature and vocalisation of pain. The employee got sight of the letter and brought a claim of harassment on the grounds of disability, arguing that the expression ‘lively’ violated her dignity. She was successful.


Breach of contract 

An employee can resign and claim constructive dismissal if the employer breaches the contract of employment, the employees resigns in response to the breach and does so in a timely manner. It is not essential for the employee to raise a grievance before resigning, as shown in the case of Hobbs v Avon Care Homes [2019].

The employee was involved in recruiting staff for care homes and had found a candidate that she thought was ideal to be a Home Manager. The candidate was of black ethnic origin. Her manager told her that she would not offer the candidate a job, because she did not want to employ someone who was black. The employee resigned, saying that she would not be complicit in illegal and discriminatory actions. She was successful in claiming constructive dismissal.


Dismissal when accused of a crime 

If an employee is accused of a crime, outside of work, it could potentially be fair to dismiss. Each situation will depend on the facts. In Lafferty v Nuffield Health [2020] the employee worked as a hospital porter, transporting patients who were often anaesthetised. He was accused of a serious sexual offence, outside of work, which he denied. His employer was informed of the allegation. He was dismissed due to the reputational risk, given that he had access to vulnerable patients, should he be convicted.

This was a fair dismissal. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal noted that an employer must not just take what it is told at face value, it must carry out reasonable enquiries into the situation. The potential impact of continuing to employ the individual must also be considered.