- closes down altogether,
- re-locates or
- the employer has a reduced need for employees to carry out work of a particular kind.
The other 2003 examples include a ruling by the Exeter employment tribunal in March 2003 that it was not unlawful sex discrimination for the prison service to require an employee to wear a tie at work. (reference can also be made to the Ian Jarman V Annavoca case-similar professional standards.)
- Does the company require men not to wear jeans (or does it proscribe a dress code) and how was this communicated?
- If there is a list of specific items of clothing which neither men nor women could wear, but the list of those items was not exhaustive.
- Is the standard for women to dress appropriately a similar standard” (which we have understood to mean to a level of smartness equivalent to a collar and tie for men).
- Does the dress code act, as an “overarching requirement was for members of staff to dress in a professional and business-like way.”
- Is the dress code appropriate to that of the business unit ,
a limit to weekly working time, which must not exceed 48 hours on average, including any overtime
a minimum daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours in every 24
a minimum weekly rest period of 24 uninterrupted hours for each seven-day period, which is added to the 11 hours’ daily rest
paid annual leave, of at least four weeks per year
extra protection in the case of night work (e.g. average working hours should not exceed 8 hours per 24-hour period; night workers should not perform heavy or dangerous work for longer than 8 hours in any 24-hour period).
In the 2011 case of GOLDEN OCEAN GROUP LIMITED, the commercial court certainly took that view that an email using terms such as:
Many employers would argue that they have disclaimers on the foot of all emails, but these emails typically include those emails that are meant to be binding, so undermining the validity of the disclaimer.
I recommend adding “subject to contract” or similarly appropriate wording to any negotiation with any potential new hires or contractors.
Firstly consider this, imprisonment may not amount to sufficient grounds and yet in a recent case Leach v OFCOM we see that “the risk” of the employees alleged and unproven criminal conduct can give grounds for dismissal.
In this case it was not established that the employee was a danger to children, in fact his dismissal would not reduce the risk of his offending (opportunities for child abuse were not afforded by the employee’s job) so the case was concerned solely with saving the employer’s reputation.’
In this case, OFCOM were “jealous of its public reputation” and given the risk of harm to their reputation should the employees conduct be ‘further’ disclosed in the media, it was found to be legitimate for the employer to dismiss.
To most, this sounds like an injustice, but an injustice by whom? The EAT found that, ‘if an injustice was done, it is not by the employer, but by those who have falsely accused him and/or given credence to those accusations.
Note: Mutual trust and confidence is at the heart of all employee employer relationships and in deciding that the reason for dismissal was substantial and sufficient to justify the dismissal, an ET has to examine all relevant circumstances. In this case the employer (OFCOM) had undertaken an investigation and made substantial enquires before the dismissal, it was no knee jerk reaction.
Citation:  EWCA Civ 959
Institute of Personnel Management (CIPD) reports that the treasury are considering a German model of tax-free ‘mini-jobs’ plan
Sources close to the chancellor have told newspapers that the idea is under serious consideration by the Treasury as part of its efforts to promote growth and cut red tape. London Mayor Boris Johnson has also spoken out in favour, telling the Financial Times: “Flexible employment, lower taxes and less burdensome regulation are essential drivers for jobs and growth. The German mini-job system is at least worthy of further investigation.”
However, critics say that the mini-job system has encouraged employers in Germany to split full-time jobs into several small parts to take advantage of the tax break. Furthermore, Germany has no minimum wage and system has been blamed for driving keeping wages artificially low.
Business Secretary Vince Cable is said to be sceptical of the idea, believing that similar goals are achieved by the Lib Dem-inspired government policy of raising the personal allowance threshold for income tax.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said in a statement: “This proposal is a German solution designed to deal with particular issues in the German labour market, driven by their relatively high taxes on labour. This is quite different to the situation in the UK.”
The CIPD article goes on to say “The government is already taking action to take more people out of income tax and we are carrying out a root-and-branch reform of labour laws to make business more effective while maintaining protections for employees.”
ACAS and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) have developed short good practice guidance to help small businesses and employers deal effectively and fairly with pregnancy and maternity when one of their employee’s is facing redundancy.”
Free guide is available to download here: http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3832
The grounds for the claim were that the remuneration paid to the sole director of the company prior to insolvency was excessive and trading under the name of the company for no payment and undervaluing the sale of the trading name on the eve of its liquidation was a breach of duty.
Further, there is a strong deterrent element in the imposition of liability for breach of fiduciary duty and non-compliance generally indicates that unfair prejudice has occurred;
Interestingly, the tribunal found that Mr Prior had been unfairly dismissed because the length of the prison sentence was not sufficiently long to justify creating a frustration (viz. no reason for dismissal falling within section 98(1) of the Employment Relations Act 1996).
It should be noted that the Tribunal had adduced from all the facts found that “….. the [employer] had had difficulties with the Claimant and saw the prison sentence as an opportunity to terminate his employment, but unfortunately for them erroneously using, as a reason, frustration of contract.”
This case is interesting because the employers argued (and won on appeal) to reduce their exposure to costs by suggesting that the employee was contributory to his dismissal.
Contributory conduct is long established in two judgements. “The first of Brandon LJ in Nelson v British Broadcasting Corporation (No 2)  ICR 110, namely:
Hutchinson helps us in that it further clarifies that the fairness of the dismissal is not relevant to the question of a causative link between the dismissal and the conduct which is said to be blameworthy. In this respect the EAT agreed, the employee was part contributory and the EAT upheld the contributory reduction.
Refusal to make the payment will be an unlawful deduction from wages.