|
FL Memo Ltd © 2007 |
|
Employment Memo 2007 Newsletter Issue 2 |
|
PDF printer friendly version |
|
RECENT CASES |
|
In this case, a support worker in a residential home, C-M, made protected disclosures about a fellow worker, H. When the employer made known the source of the complaints, H subjected C-M to various acts, including calling her a liar, shouting at her and (C-M alleged) physically assaulting her. The employer investigated the incidents in an inadequate fashion. At the EAT, the employer accepted liability for the acts of anyone in authority over the victim, but argued that acts by anyone who did not have that authority were not acts of the employer. The employer had not encouraged H to victimise C-M. The EAT held however that the acts of H were sufficiently closely connected to the employer, and that the employer was liable for them. Cumbria County Council v Carlisle-Morgan [2007] IRLR 314, EAT
Remuneration Bonuses Whether unlawful deduction of wages claim ¶2832 Court of Appeal has held that where an employer was under an obligation to put in place a bonus scheme which, properly and fairly operated, was capable of replicating the benefits of the original scheme, the claim for any unquantifiable loss suffered should be brought as a breach of contract claim and not a quantifiable claim for unlawful deduction of wages. Coors Brewers Ltd v Adcock and ors [2007] EWCA Civ 19 now reported at [2007] ICR 983, CA Comment Contrast this with the situation where a discretionary bonus has been declared on certain terms. In such circumstances, this creates an obligation to pay the bonus on these terms and withholding some or all of the bonus will be an unlawful deduction of wages (see ¶2832). Right to minimum wage Low wage was discrimination ¶2865 A worker was successful with a race discrimination case, when he was paid less than the national minimum wage, and the EAT accepted that a British or British-based comparator would not have been so underpaid. The employer’s pressure on the worker to not apply for a NI number was also held to be discriminatory. Mehmet t/a Rose Hotel Group v Aduma [2007] EAT case 0573/06
Sickness, injury and absence Occupational sick pay Contractual sick pay and disability discrimination ¶¶4173, 5526 The Court of Appeal has upheld the EAT’s decision in O’Hanlon v HM Commissioners for Revenue and Customs that an employer is not obliged to maintain a disabled employee indefinitely on long-term sickness absence at full pay. O’Hanlon v HM Commissioners for Revenue and Customs [2007] Times, 20 April (CA) now reported at [2007] IRLR 404, CA |