Blog
From garage to unicorn – Employment law lessons for scaling tech teams
Catherine Bourne
Chesterton Global Limited (trading as Chestertons) and another v Nurmohamed
We recently had a new test introduced into the whistleblowing legislation (by Section 17 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013) to reverse the principle in a case called Sodexho. This was the case that established that an employee was able to blow the whistle with respect to a breach of his own employment contract.
At the end of April, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) gave its judgment in the long-running saga concerning the closure of Woolworths and Ethel Austin stores. The judgment is good news for employers as it limits the operation of the rules on collective redundancies.
This point was addressed in the recent case of Donelien v Liberata UK Ltd. The employee had a very poor attendance record and cited as reasons for her absence a plethora of different conditions, ranging from viral infections to wrist pain to stress and anxiety. Liberata referred her to its Occupational Health service. Occupational Health, on two occasions, failed to address the specific questions Liberata put to it, and Liberata did not follow up further. However, Liberata did conduct a number of return to work meetings, engaged with the employee regarding the reasons for her absence and reviewed correspondence from the employee’s GP. The employee was dismissed for unsatisfactory attendance.
It has long been accepted that the Vento guidelines, which were later updated in Da’Bell, should be used in assessing the level of injury to feelings awards in relation to discrimination cases brought in the Employment Tribunal. However in the case of Simmons v Castle, the Court of Appeal held that the level of general damages in certain types of claims should be increased by 10% after 1 April 2013. So does this principle apply to injury to feelings awards made by the Employment Tribunal?
This point was addressed in the recent case of Donelien v Liberata UK Ltd. The employee had a very poor attendance record and cited as reasons for her absence a plethora of different conditions, ranging from viral infections to wrist pain to stress and anxiety. Liberata referred her to its Occupational Health service. Occupational Health, on two occasions, failed to address the specific questions Liberata put to it, and Liberata did not follow up further. However, Liberata did conduct a number of return to work meetings, engaged with the employee regarding the reasons for her absence and reviewed correspondence from the employee’s GP. The employee was dismissed for unsatisfactory attendance.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility