In June 2020, we added a post to Employment Law Worldview addressing the complicated situation employers are in when employees express – sometime respectfully, sometimes not – different, and indeed, opposite views on COVID-19 issues (e.g., legitimate public health emergency versus hoax or “plandemic”), racial justice (“Black Lives Matter” versus “All Lives Matter”), and politics … Continue Reading
Back in March we posted here a piece about dismissing to protect the employer’s corporate reputation. In that case the employer made a very difficult choice between the claimed (ultimately, actual) innocence of the employee and the harm which continuing to employ him might do if he turned out to be guilty. On the facts, … Continue Reading
We all know that employers have a legal obligation under federal law, as well as under various state and local laws, to provide their employees with a safe work environment free from sexual harassment, and that under certain circumstances, an employer can be held legally responsible for harassment directed at its employees. However, do companies … Continue Reading
Quite a fun little case on TUPE this week, if you like that sort of thing (and on the upside, even if you don’t, at least it has nothing to do with COVID-19). Regulation 4(4) of TUPE states that TUPE-related changes to terms of employment are void in most circumstances. This has long been read … Continue Reading
If one of your employees is arrested and charged with something more than usually distressing and distasteful, the question will inevitably come up of whether he can be dismissed. The driver for that inquiry will often be a fear on the employer’s part of adverse publicity arising from its continued employment of him against that … Continue Reading
In my post last week, I considered the extent of an employer’s duty to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate an employee whose difficult workplace attitude is alleged to have its origins in a disability. However, there is another angle to this question which the employer must also bear in mind.… Continue Reading
So said German lithographer Herm Albright in a rare moment’s cynicism, but of course if you really want to get on your colleagues’ nerves, a hostile or negative attitude is far more to be commended. So here is a question arising from a matter on which we were recently instructed. Client’s employee has a persistently … Continue Reading
Employers are often surprised to learn that federal labor law grants employees significant protection to make profane or offensive statements, or engage in other offensive conduct, when they are engaging in “protected concerted activities.”… Continue Reading
In January 2018 we wrote about Ribalda –v- Spain, a European Court of Human Rights case in which a number of supermarket employees were awarded compensation for breach of their privacy rights. They had been stealing quite handsomely from their employer over some months, as they freely admitted, but nonetheless thought it entirely improper that … Continue Reading
Between August 29 and September 10, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) issued four decisions that resolve important issues that have been the subject of long-running disputes. It also issued an invitation to submit briefs in a case that provides an opportunity for the current Board majority members to revise the standard for … Continue Reading
Phoenix House Limited -v- Stockman has been kicking round the Employment Tribunal system ever since Ms Stockman was dismissed in 2013. It has something for all the family – discrimination, some victimisation, a touch of whistleblowing and a light dusting of trust and confidence. However, on its second trip to the Employment Appeal Tribunal at … Continue Reading
The mid-term elections are still on people’s minds, as recounts and run-offs for federal congressional and state gubernatorial candidates are finally wrapping up. Meanwhile, and largely taking a media-coverage backseat to these high-profile races, many new state initiatives became law as a result of the mid-terms, three which involved legalizing marijuana for recreational or medical … Continue Reading
As we discussed in our previous posts – see here and here – in April 2018, New York passed legislation intended to combat workplace sexual harassment. Under this new law, employers are required to implement and distribute to employees a written policy prohibiting sexual harassment by October 9, 2018. To assist employers in complying, in … Continue Reading
A useful little reminder from the Employment Appeal Tribunal last week that underneath all the practices and codes and assumptions which govern our conduct of HR matters, there is still The Law.… Continue Reading
Rochford – v – WNS Global Services is a small (9 page) but perfectly formed UK Court of Appeal decision around when you can stand on your principles in the face of discrimination by your employer and when it just gets you sacked. Mr Rochford had been absent for an extended time with a bad … Continue Reading
Akinwunmi – v – Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the perfect example of when employment law reaches the limits of its usefulness in HR practice. For a fuller description of the facts, see Chris Lynn’s blog. For our purposes, however, Dr Akinwunmi fell out with five of his neurosurgeon colleagues over alleged … Continue Reading
Where an employee is absent without leave, how long would it be before dismissal of that employee would be fair? Two weeks? One month? Six months? How about 20 months? That is the question that was faced by the employer in the recent case of Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust v (1) Akinwunmi … Continue Reading
In a closely-watched case, on July 3, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit refused to enforce a National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) decision in which the Board found MikLin Enterprises, Inc. (“MikLin”), owner of 10 Jimmy John’s franchises in the Minneapolis, Minnesota area, violated the National Labor Relations Act … Continue Reading
For a whistleblower to benefit from the statutory protections, his disclosure must be protected, i.e., be (usually) about the breach of a legal obligation and reasonably believed by him to be true and in the public interest. If he deliberately lies or makes his disclosure only to advance his own interests or prejudice somebody else’s, … Continue Reading
Following recent differing decisions of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) it seems that Australian employers must still tread a fine and uncertain line in determining whether employee misconduct on social media is a valid reason for dismissal. In the recent case of Stephen Campbell v Qube Ports Pty Ltd t/a Qube Ports & Bulk in … Continue Reading
If we assume that your asking an employee and his manager to try to mediate a falling-out between them is a reasonable management request, what rights do you have as employer if one of them refuses? This came up at the 1st February Civil Mediation Council seminar on introducing mediation as a proactive part of … Continue Reading
As the Festive Season reaches its peak Down Under, we have taken a look back at the more ‘interesting’ cases of 2016 to help Santa prepare his Naughty or Nice List for Australian employers: First to be considered for Santa’s list is a labourer who, in the midst of a heated discussion, somewhat unchantably called … Continue Reading
Williams, Turner and Stoker -v- The Whitbread Beer Company back in 1995 is one of my favourite Tribunal cases, the sad story of an employer trying to do something nice for its staff and being roundly punished for it. Whitbreads ran a staff seminar and laid on a free bar afterwards. As the evening wore … Continue Reading
