As usual, 2009 was a busy year in the employment tribunals, courts and in the European Court of Justice. But what employment law cases can we look forward to in the next 12 months? Here are 10 significant employment decisions expected in 2010.
You can get more news on employment law cases in the XpertHR case law stop press service [subscription required].
- Eweida v British Airways plc One of a number of religious discrimination cases that hit the headlines in 2009. The claimant was a Christian British Airways employee who was sent home when she insisted on wearing a cross visibly, in breach of the employer's uniform policy. The Employment Appeal Tribunal said that she did not suffer indirect religious discrimination. British Airways has since changed its uniform policy to allow crosses to be worn. The Court of Appeal is hearing the case.
- Masih v Awaz FM An important ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is expected for the voluntary sector. The employment tribunal has asked the ECJ to rule on whether or not volunteers are protected by anti-discrimination legislation. A Christian minister had done volunteer work as a radio presenter on Asian station Awaz FM but lost his position after a "lively" debate about differences between Christianity and Islam.
- R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School The Court of Appeal is hearing an appeal against the High Court decision that an employee should have been allowed to be accompanied by a lawyer at a disciplinary hearing in circumstances where a consequence of the hearing could be the addition of his name to the register of individuals deemed unsuitable to work with children.
- British Airways plc v Williams This is one of the first employment cases to go before the Supreme Court, which has replaced the House of Lords as the highest court in the land. It is hearing a challenge to the Court of Appeal decision that British Airways was not in breach of statutory holiday pay requirements when it calculated pilots' paid annual leave by reference to their basic salary rather than what they would expect to earn when flying allowances were added.
- Hartlepool Borough Council v Llewellyn and other appeals The Court of Appeal is hearing an appeal against the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling that a man can bring a "piggyback" claim comparing himself with a female colleague doing like work, work rated as equivalent or work of equal value who has herself succeeded in an equal pay claim.
- Alemo-Herron and others v Parkwood Leisure Ltd In this important TUPE decision, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that transferred employees were entitled to pay increases in accordance with the terms of a collective agreement incorporated into their contracts before the transfer, notwithstanding that the agreement was renegotiated and revised post-transfer, with the purchasing company playing no part in that process.
- Woodcock v Cumbria Primary Care Trust The justification of redundancy dismissals timed to avoid age-related windfalls may be a hot topic in 2010. In this age discrimination case, an employment tribunal controversially decided that the decision to dismiss an employee before his 49th birthday, so that he would not become entitled to substantial early retirement and pension benefits, was justified. Will the Employment Appeal Tribunal agree?
- Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Wooster A case that raises very similar issues to Woodcock (above). The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an employer committed direct age discrimination against an employee when it made him redundant at the age of 49 in order to avoid paying an early retirement pension that he would be entitled to if he left employment when he was aged 50 or over. The Court of Appeal is hearing an appeal.
- Kücükdeveci v Swedex Gmbh and Co A German court has referred the question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) of whether or not a German law giving younger workers shorter minimum notice periods contravenes the Equal Treatment Directive. Under German law‚ the minimum notice an employer must give an employee increases with length of service‚ but any service before age 25 is not taken into account. Can this law can be justified on the grounds that employers have "a commercial interest in flexibility regarding staffing" and that younger people need less protection in terms of notice periods than older people because of the "lesser social‚ family and private obligations" that they are assumed to have?
- Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt Am Main Another German age discrimination case that has been referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The ECJ has been asked to rule on the legality of restricting fire-fighter recruitment to people under 30. A significant case for types of employment that have age limits, with the issue of justification again likely to be key.
| Tweet |
|
| Permalink | Email this |
