Working Time – Shop Worker’s Automatic Unfair Dismissal Claim Upheld

If you have been sacked for asserting your statutory rights, an employment lawyer will see to it that you are justly compensated. The point was powerfully made by the case of a retail sales assistant who complained that, by instructing her to work on 14 consecutive days, her employer was…

Sep 07, 2021

The woman was very upset when her employer asked her to work continuously for a fortnight whilst her manager was on holiday. No satisfactory solution was found and the employer refused to engage temporary staff to provide cover. She worked the hours, as instructed, and was given notice of termination of her employment two days after the manager returned from leave.

After she launched proceedings, an Employment Tribunal (ET) found that, prior to her manager going on holiday, she had made a valid assertion that the employer’s instruction that she work 14 days on the trot breached her rights under Regulation 11 of the Working Time Regulations 1998.

However, the ET dismissed her claim that she had been automatically unfairly dismissed for asserting a statutory right, contrary to Section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It did so on the basis that, when she made the assertion, the alleged breach of her rights was only anticipated or threatened.

Upholding her challenge to that outcome, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that, in order for her claim to succeed, it was not necessary for her to have worked the instructed hours prior to making the assertion. It was the employer’s instruction itself that was alleged to have infringed her rights and her assertion thus fell within the ambit of Section 104.

She had made the assertion in good faith and it did not matter whether it was well-founded. The ET had made a clear finding that her complaint about her working hours was the principal reason for her dismissal. In the circumstances, the EAT substituted a finding that her dismissal was automatically unfair. The amount of her compensation would be assessed at a further hearing, if not agreed.

Age Discrimination, Redundancy and the Burden of Proof – Guideline Ruling

Where an older employee is treated less favourably than a younger one in a similar position, the burden shifts onto the employer to prove that age discrimination had no effect on its decision-making. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in the case of an administration manager who was made redundant at the age of 67. The man had worked for a car sales company for more than 20 years when he was selected for redundancy. He contended that his dismissal was pre-determined and motivated by…

Lay Member of EAT Recused from Hearing Matter of Heated Public Debate

Judicial officeholders are commonly high-achieving individuals with wide experience outside the confines of the law. However, as an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling made plain, they must always be alive to the risk that their extra-judicial activities may give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The case concerned a school pastoral administrator who was sacked after expressing on social media certain views relating to the hotly debated issue of mandatory relationship education in…

Employment Judge Embarked on ‘Frolic of his Own’ – EAT Ruling

Employment judges may reconsider their initial conclusions on a case, but that does not give them licence to embark on a wholesale change of mind on the basis of arguments that have not been presented to them. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) made that point in finding that an employment judge went on a frolic of his own. The case concerned a senior employee of a global company who was seconded on a short-term basis to run its operations in Canada. After his commission payments – which in…