Work Relationships May Be Informal But Employment is Employment

When you engage someone to work in the informal sanctum of your own home, it is easy to forget that you are very likely to owe them all the legal duties of an employer. An Employment Tribunal (ET) powerfully made that point in upholding a home carer’s unfair dismissal complaint.

The carer…

Jun 10, 2022

Kenny eliason mgzx2mopr s unsplash 1024x683

When you engage someone to work in the informal sanctum of your own home, it is easy to forget that you are very likely to owe them all the legal duties of an employer. An Employment Tribunal (ET) powerfully made that point in upholding a home carer’s unfair dismissal complaint.

The carer was employed by a mother to look after her son, who had round-the-clock care needs. His role demanded the utmost trustworthiness and reliability. He formed a close bond with his charge and, although the employment relationship ultimately came to an unhappy end, the mother regarded him as a very good carer.

After the son made a number of serious allegations to his mother concerning the carer’s conduct, all of which he vehemently denied, the mother sent him a text message announcing that he was being let go. Shocked and upset by the termination of his employment, he launched proceedings.

Upholding his claim, the ET noted that his employment in a domestic setting had a high degree of informality and familiarity about it. The mother had described herself as just a mum seeking to provide care for her son. It was entirely understandable that she should regard herself first and foremost as a parent. However, the ET emphasised that she was also an employer.

The mother was, on any view, a small employer. However, the carer was entitled to the benefit of a process that satisfied the basic elements of fairness. At the very least, he should have been given the chance to respond to the mother’s concerns about him. A fair process need not have taken long and could possibly have been completed within a week. The ET also found that the carer’s dismissal without reasonable notice amounted to a wrongful breach of contract.

Although there was no contributory fault on the carer’s part, the ET ruled that the amount of his compensation should be reduced by 80 per cent. That was because it was highly likely that his relationship with the mother and, crucially, her son had broken down irretrievably and that he would have been dismissed in any event. Other remedy issues, if not agreed, would be the subject of a further hearing.

Workplace Banter May Be Fine, But Not If it Tips Over Into Harassment

A certain amount of foul-mouthed banter is only to be expected in a robust working environment. As an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, however, employers who allow it to tip over into hostile and discriminatory abuse are likely to pay a high financial and reputational price. The case concerned a white worker, aged in his early 50s, who was employed by a tyre recycling company. He worked as part of a small team in which white people were in a minority. He said that a younger black…

Non-Executive Directors and ‘Worker’ Status – Guideline Ruling

Can a non-executive director who receives no more than an honorarium for services that he provides voluntarily enjoy the protected status of a ‘worker’? That was the thorny issue addressed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in a guideline case. The case concerned a professional who was appointed to a four-year non-executive directorship of a national sporting body. In Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings, he alleged that he had been subjected to detriments for whistleblowing. His claim…

Restrictive Covenants and Employers’ Legitimate Business Interests

When it comes to considering the enforceability or otherwise of restrictive covenants in employment contracts, judges are required to focus on the need of employers to protect their legitimate business interests. The Court of Appeal emphasised that point in a guideline case. A software company sought a pre-trial injunction against a former employee, alleging that he had breached a non-compete covenant in his employment contract. The covenant forbade him from working for a competitor for 12…