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.

Disability Discrimination – Diabetic Cake Shop Worker Compensated

Discrimination against disabled employees is a social evil with which Employment Tribunals (ETs) will have no truck. In one case, a cake shop worker who was dismissed because of her diabetes was awarded thousands of pounds in compensation. The woman’s condition meant that, without daily insulin injections, she would suffer a hypoglycaemic episode and fall into a coma. At the date of her dismissal, she was in stage B renal failure. In sacking her by text, her manager expressed the view that she…

Low Caste Hindu Refused Anonymity Order in Employment Case

The subject matter of Employment Tribunal (ET) cases can be highly sensitive, and those involved are often keen to maintain their anonymity. However, as was shown by a case in which controversial religious issues took centre stage, the open justice principle will usually require them to be identified by name. The case concerned a senior electrical engineer who was of Tamil origin and came from a low Hindu caste. In ET proceedings he asserted, amongst other things, that his line manager, a high…

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…