Sector focus
In Bull and another v Nottinghamshire and City of Nottingham Fire and Rescue Authority; Lincolnshire County Council v Fire Brigades Union and others [2007] All ER (D) 372 (Feb) CA, the Court of Appeal has held that it is not part of fire-fighters' normal contractual duties under a collective agreement to go to accidents and emergencies that would normally be dealt with by ambulance crews.
In Craigie v London Borough of Haringey EAT/0556/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has considered when a contract of employment can be implied between an agency worker and an end user.
In Fowler v London Borough of Waltham Forest EAT/0116/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has reiterated that the duty to make reasonable adjustments for the disabled does not normally include giving full pay to an individual during sickness absence.
In Griffiths and another v Salisbury District Council [2004] All ER (D) 104 (Feb) CA, the Court of Appeal held that the Implementation Agreement reached as part of the establishment of the new national agreement setting up the National Joint Council for Local Government Services formed part of the contracts of employment of the council's employees. The results of a regrading exercise that was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Implementation Agreement were therefore incorporated into the employees' contracts of employment as legally binding terms.
In Heath v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, the Court of Appeal holds that proceedings before a Police Disciplinary Board are judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings to which the rule of immunity from suit attaches.
In London Borough of Southwark v Ayton EAT/515/03, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an employment tribunal's reasoning in finding victimisation and its recommendation that the respondent should arrange training in respect of racial awareness for the person held to have victimised the claimant, but remitted the claim to the employment tribunal to consider whether the allegation made by the claimant was false and not made in good faith.
In Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Cambridge [2003] IRLR 566 EAT, the EAT held that an employer's failure to carry out an assessment to enable a decision to be reached as to what steps would be reasonable to prevent a disabled employee or prospective employee from being at a disadvantage amounts to a breach of the duty of reasonable adjustment under section 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
In Ngengfack v London Borough of Southwark [2002] EWCA Civ 711 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employee who had been seen working in the hairdressing salon that she owned while on sick leave from her teaching job had been fairly dismissed.
In Scott v London Borough of Hillingdon [2001] EWCA Civ 2005 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employment tribunal was wrong to infer knowledge of a protected act on the part of three councillors who had decided not to offer a job to the claimant, and therefore to find victimisation, since knowledge on the part of the alleged discriminator of the protected act is a pre-condition to a finding of victimisation.
In Ashton v Chief Constable of West Mercia Constabulary [2001] ICR 67 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an employment tribunal's decision that a male to female transsexual dismissed due to poor performance had not been discriminated against on grounds of sex, although the poor performance was linked to the side effects of medical treatment for gender reassignment. It also upheld a finding that the employee was not disabled within the meaning in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
HR and legal information, news and guidance relating to specific industry sectors.