Last week a Malaysian student of Chinese descent returned to her rented home in Perth’s southern suburbs after visiting family in Malaysia for a few weeks. Upon arriving home, she found the locks had been changed and a handwritten sign was on the door, notifying her she was no longer welcome in the house given the coronavirus “emergency”.… Continue Reading
Tag archives: disability discrimination
Employees on Long term sickness – when can an employer dismiss?
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has recently confirmed that employers should take care when dismissing an employee who is entitled to participate in a permanent health insurance (PHI) scheme and is absent from work by reason of long term ill health. It held that there is an implied term that an employer will not dismiss an employee for incapacity if that would prevent the employee being entitled to long term disability benefits.
Where an employee is absent due to ill health then on termination of employment, the employer may face a claim for unfair dismissal and for disability discrimination. Capability … Continue Reading
“High heels and workplace dress codes” – the UK Government Equalities Office publishes guidance
In December 2015, an agency worker arrived to work as a receptionist and was sent home without pay for failure to wear high heels in accordance with the agency’s dress code. The story attracted widespread media attention, and led to an enquiry by a House of Commons Committee whose report was published in January 2017. As a result, the Government promised to update its guidance on dress codes during 2017, but the Government Equalities Office (GEO) has only just published the long-awaited guidance.
“High heels and workplace dress codes”
The enquiry resulted in publication of the report “High heels … Continue Reading
UK Supreme Court holds that plumber engaged by Pimlico Plumbers was a “worker” and not a self-employed contractor
The Supreme Court has dismissed the latest appeal by Pimlico Plumbers Ltd (the Company) against the employment tribunal’s decision that one of its plumbers, Mr Smith, was a “worker” under the provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) and the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR). The Supreme Court held that, on the facts of the case, Mr Smith satisfied the key elements of worker status in that he undertook to carry out work personally for the Company and that the Company was not in the position of a client or customer of a business carried on by him.
Background… Continue Reading