Blog
From Certificates to Belief Statements: The CPS and the Limits of Forum Bar Intervention
Rebecca Niblock
18 December 2014
Legal update: A failure to comply with Early Conciliation requirements can be rectified, and the claim is treated as presented on the date the defect was rectified
It has been held that a Claimant who incorrectly completed her ET1 form in respect of Early Conciliation requirements could rectify that defect.
18 December 2014
Legal update: Can an employer rely on an employee continuing to work as implied consent to revised terms and conditions?
In Wess v Science Museum Group it was maintained that, when considering whether the conduct of an employee (i.e. their continued working) amounts to acceptance of a variation in terms and conditions in a situation where the employee has not signed those revised terms, Employment Tribunals should treat with caution the argument that the employee has impliedly accepted those terms, at least where the effect of those new terms is not immediate.
28 November 2014
Acas statistics for Early Conciliation - 6 months on
Whisper it quietly but Acas Early Conciliation (“EC”) does seem to be settling down well and may yet prove the critics wrong. That is what Acas wants us to believe, but are they right?
30 October 2014
Legal update: What happens if a Tribunal member falls asleep on the job?
This is exactly the question the EAT considered recently in Elys and Marks and Spencer plc.
The Claimant, Mrs Elys (who had lost her case in the Tribunal) appealed the Tribunal decision on the ground of procedural irregularity, stating that one of the Tribunal members had not paid sufficient attention as he had appeared to be asleep during the three week hearing. There had been one particular incident which lasted 15-20 seconds, where the Tribunal member was actually seen “drooling” and needed to be nudged awake by the judge.
30 October 2014
Legal update: Can employers be responsible for the discriminatory effect of their income replacement policy?
Hall v Xerox UK Limited
Can an employer incur liability if their income replacement policy (in this case effected with Unum to cover employees’ salaries in the event they are struck down by ill health and therefore off work for more than 26 weeks) potentially has a discriminatory effect, against one of their fixed term employees?