Sacking Employees for Asserting Their Statutory Rights is Always Unfair

Workers who exercise their entitlement to take a firm stand on their statutory rights may sadly be viewed askance by some employers. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling made plain, dismissing them for doing so is, as a matter of law, automatically unfair.

The case concerned an…

Oct 10, 2023

Markus spiske oo89 95auc0 unsplash 683x1024

Workers who exercise their entitlement to take a firm stand on their statutory rights may sadly be viewed askance by some employers. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling made plain, dismissing them for doing so is, as a matter of law, automatically unfair.

The case concerned an early-years practitioner who worked for a company that ran a pre-school. Various issues had arisen between her and a director of the company in respect of the calculation of her pay, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. She was ultimately summarily dismissed on the stated ground that she had committed repudiatory breaches of her employment contract.

After she launched proceedings, the ET noted that it was fair to say that allegations had been made on both sides and that the language of their correspondence had become increasingly forceful and emotive. The director did not appreciate being subject to challenge in respect of his calculations and viewed her pursuit of her rights in respect of her pay as insubordination.

Whilst expressing sympathy for the owner of a small business having to navigate the complexities of employment law, particularly during the pandemic, the ET found that the principal reason for her dismissal was her assertion of her statutory rights in relation to her wages. Her dismissal was thus automatically unfair within the meaning of Section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

In also upholding her wrongful dismissal claim, the ET found that the company had breached her contract by failing to pay her four weeks’ wages in lieu of notice. Unauthorised deductions had been made from her pay and pension contributions had been made at rates below her contractual entitlement. If not agreed, the amount of her compensation would be assessed at a further hearing.

Allergy Rules Should Be Tightened for Restaurants, Says FSA

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is urging the government to make it compulsory for restaurants to print allergy information on menus, in a bid to better inform consumers and limit the risk of extreme allergic reactions. There is currently no legal requirement for businesses to make allergens known to customers in print, although FSA guidance recommends they do this. In an effort to mobilise the hospitality sector into listing allergens on menus, the FSA now wants written information to be a…

Employment and an Egregious Case of Pregnancy/Maternity Discrimination

Employers who discriminate against pregnant women or new mothers can expect to reap a bitter harvest of financial and reputational damage. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in describing a woman’s suspension and dismissal whilst on maternity leave as one of the most egregious acts of discrimination possible. The woman’s boss viewed it as highly inconvenient when she and another employee became pregnant at roughly the same time and decided to engineer their departure. Not much more…

College Student Required to Work Late Succeeds in Age Discrimination Claim

Mentions of age discrimination may bring to mind images of grey-haired employees being treated less favourably than their younger colleagues. As a case concerning a teenage college student showed, however, young people enjoy the same legal protection as their elders. The student was delighted to find his first job as a restaurant waiter. He was contracted to work 16 hours a week, later reduced to 11 hours, and objected when his manager quite often required him to work between 11pm and midnight.…