-
expand
B and another v A [2010] IRLR 400 EAT
(1 report relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 16 September 2009
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has overturned an employment tribunal finding that an employer was motivated by an employee's gender when it failed to follow its disciplinary process when it dismissed him, following an allegation of rape made against him. The EAT held that, although tribunals must be alive to the fact that stereotypical views of male and female behaviour exist, there must be evidence for a tribunal to conclude that an employer has been motivated by those views.
-
expand
B v BAA plc [2005] IRLR 927 EAT
(2 reports relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 7 March 2006
Dismissing staff who pose a national security risk could still land employers in a tribunal. David Appleton, partner, employment and incentives department, Lewis Silkin explains.
-
- Date:
- 16 September 2005
In B v BAA plc, the EAT holds that even where the stated reason for dismissal is "safeguarding national security", the fairness of the dismissal still has to be considered by the employment tribunal in the usual way.
-
expand
Babula v Waltham Forest College [2007] IRLR 346 CA
(2 reports relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 13 June 2007
In Babula v Waltham Forest College [2007] IRLR 346 the Court of Appeal held that to qualify for protection from detriment or dismissal for whistleblowing, a worker must hold a "reasonable belief" that the information disclosed tends to show that a criminal offence will be committed or that there will be non-compliance with a legal obligation.
-
- Date:
- 20 March 2007
This week's case of the week, provided by White & Case, covers whistleblowing.
-
expand
Badara v Pulse Healthcare Ltd EAT/0210/18
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
Baddeley v Mehta t/a Supascoop [1995] IT/46041/94
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
Badger v Telford & Wrekin Council ET/1307836/09
(1 report relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 24 June 2010
This case is a reminder for employers that, even if they go through an otherwise fair redundancy process, they must ensure that employees on maternity leave are offered any suitable alternative employment that exists.
-
expand
BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd v McDowell EAT/0318/16
(1 report relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 6 July 2017
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that, in assessing the employer's justification defence, the tribunal had failed to adopt a holistic approach and consider an age-related cap on redundancy payments within the broader context.
-
expand
Baggs v Dr FDA Fudge [2005] ET/1400114/05
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
Bah v Pret A Manger (Europe) Ltd ET/2204635/09
(1 report relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 20 December 2011
In the second of a two-part round-up, we summarise the main issues and outcomes in five more employment tribunal cases in which it was alleged that there were breaches of the "Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures". Although the decisions are not binding on other tribunals, they provide useful illustrations of how employers have had to pay increased compensation for breaches of the code.
-
expand
Bahl v Law Society and others [2001] ET/2201590/00
(1 report relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 1 September 2001
A Watford employment tribunal (Chair: T P Ryan) in Bahl v Law Society and others has upheld part of the complaint by Kamlesh Bahl that she was discriminated against on grounds of race and sex by senior officials of the Law Society, even though the tribunal concluded that "she was not a witness of truth" and that she had deliberately lied on oath to the tribunal.