October 2009 Archives - Employment Law Advocates

Christmas and New Year Office Closure

01-Dec-2011 / Employment Law Advocates / Comments Off

Our office will be closing for the holiday period at 12.00pm on Friday 23rd December 2011 and will reopen again until 10.00am on Tuesday 3rd January 2012. Advocates will be mostly unavailable but may have intermittent access to email or telephone during this period. If you are an existing client, please contact your Advocate directly by email or telephone. If you are a new client or are seeking advice, please email info@employmentlawadvocates.com or complete the enquiry form on our Contact Us page ...

Read & Comment

Direct discrimination

29-Oct-2009 / James Medhurst / 1 Comment

When the Court of Appeal gave judgment in R (on the application of E) v The Governing Body of¬†JFS, it was suggested to me that this might be a good¬†topic for the blog. I did not take the opportunity to write about it then because it seemed to me that, like the vast majority of judicial decisions,¬†it was entirely sound and consistent with authority and, being the contrarian that I am, this was uninteresting to me. I could not dispute ...

Read & Comment

Application of grievance procedures

26-Oct-2009 / James Medhurst / No Comments

According to Judge Peter Clark in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, in Allen v Murdoch, the statutory disciplinary and dismissal procedures apply to claims for redundancy payments and for pay in lieu of accrued holiday arising on termination and, therefore, there is no need for a grievance to be raised in respect of these matters. This result would have knock-on effects for time limits and would be highly significant for other cases were it not for the fact that the statutory ...

Read & Comment

The BNP and the Race Relations Act

23-Oct-2009 / James Medhurst / 2 Comments

This is the week where everyone is talking about the BNP. The appearance by Nick Griffin on Question Time yesterday came shortly after he finally conceded the¬†need to change¬†a constitution which restricts membership on racial grounds. Frustratingly, the media coverage has¬†not analysed the relevant law which is not as straightforward as it seems and so¬†it is worth giving¬†some thought to this tricky issue. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, which used its powers to bring the case, provided the best summary ...

Read & Comment

Employment status

16-Oct-2009 / James Medhurst / No Comments

The case of Autoclenz v Belcher is the last in a long series¬†which caused a lot of confusion but resulted in the law being in much the same position it was in when the confusion began. The story starts with the case of Consistent Group v Kalwak¬†in the Employment Appeal Tribunal in May 2007, in which¬†President Elias stated the seemingly uncontroversial proposition that tribunals should examine the reality of the situation to see whether an employment relationship¬†is perceived¬†in the way ...

Read & Comment

Exemplary damages

10-Oct-2009 / James Medhurst / 1 Comment

The case of Ministry of Defence v Fletcher got a great deal of media attention at first instance (see for example here), mainly because the claimant was a female soldier who was awarded ¬£186,895.52¬†for sexual harassment and victimisation. Of this, ¬£100,000 represented injury to feelings, including ¬£30,000 for the upper band of Vento adjusted for inflation, ¬£20,000 for aggravated damages, and ¬£50,000 for exemplary damages. It¬†comes as¬†absolutely no surprise¬†that the Ministry of Defence¬†decided to appeal. There was no dispute¬†that exemplary damages ...

Read & Comment

Employment Law Advocates