In Royal Surrey County NHS Foundation Trust v Drzymala UKEAT/0063/17/BA, the EAT held that if an employer complies with the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 (the Regulations), it does not necessarily mean that it has been fair when a fixed-term contract has not been renewed In this case, a locum consultant […]
Surveillance Cameras and Privacy at Work
In Lopez Ribalda & Ors v Spain, the European Court of Human Rights held that covert surveillance in the workplace did breach the employees concerned right to privacy (contained in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights) In this case, a supermarket had been experiencing theft and subsequently installed some surveillance cameras. Workers […]
Perceived disability discrimination
In Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey the EAT upheld a finding of disability discrimination by perception. It was found that if a non-disabled job applicant is rejected due to the perception that a condition may become a disability in the future then this is considered direct discrimination. In this case the Claimant, Ms Coffey, […]
Protected Conversations
In Basra v BJSS Ltd the EAT held that, if the date of termination is in dispute, a tribunal can hear evidence about ‘protected conversations’ in an unfair dismissal case. Under section 111A Employment Rights Act 1996 any pre-termination discussions about settlement that take place between employer and employee before termination of employment are protected […]
Surveillance Cameras and Privacy at Work
In Antovic and Mirkovic v Montenegro the European Court of Human Rights held that video surveillance of lecture halls violated a professor’s right to privacy. In this case the Dean of the School of Mathematics at Montenegro University installed video surveillance within a public lecture theatre in order to “protect safety of property, people and […]
Whistleblowing
In Parson v Airplus International Ltd the EAT decided that a disclosure would not be protected if the worker involved did not believe it was made in the public interest but instead made them only with her own self-interest in mind. The Claimant, Ms Parsons, who was a qualified non-practising barrister had made a number […]