Cases within B

• expand

  B and another v A [2010] IRLR 400 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • B and another v A

    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)

  • Does national safety justify dismissal?

    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.

  • Unfair dismissal: Fairness of dismissal must still be considered in national security cases

    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)

  • Whistleblowing: Worker's 'reasonable belief' need not be factually correct

    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.

  • Case of the week: Whistleblowing

    Date:

    20 March 2007

    This week's case of the week, provided by White & Case, covers whistleblowing.

• expand

  Baddeley v Mehta t/a Supascoop [1995] IT/46041/94 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Narrow interpretation for new safety rights

    Date:

    1 May 1995

    In Baddeley v Mehta t/a Supascoop, an industrial tribunal holds that a new right to claim unfair dismissal on grounds of health and safety does not apply to an employee who had resigned.

• expand

  Badger v Telford & Wrekin Council ET/1307836/09 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Failure to offer employee alternative employment made dismissal unfair

    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)

  • Age discrimination: EAT considers enhanced redundancy scheme

    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)

  • Case digest

    Date:

    1 October 2006

    Tina McKevitt, lecturer in employment law at University of Sheffield, provides a round-up of employment tribunal decisions on discrimination.

• expand

  Bah v Pret A Manger (Europe) Ltd ET/2204635/09 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Breaches of the Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures: more employment tribunal decisions

    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)

  • Ex-EOC head's claim upheld in part

    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.

• expand

  Bahl v The Law Society and others [2004] IRLR 799 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Bahl v The Law Society and others

    Date:

    1 October 2004

    In Bahl v The Law Society and others [2004] IRLR 799 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the EAT was correct to decide that the employment tribunal had erred in finding that the former Vice President of the Law Society had been discriminated against on grounds of her race and sex.