Employee grievances — handle with care
In Martin v Devonshires Solicitors, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that it was not victimisation to dismiss an employee who had raised a number of unfounded grievances against her employer alleging sex discrimination.
According to the EAT, there were a number of factors leading to the decision to dismiss that were ‘properly and genuinely separable’ from the fact that the complaints had been made. These included the fact that the claimant’s allegations were linked to mental illness and that it was likely that similar allegations would be made in the future. The dismissal of the claimant because of a breakdown in the employment relationship caused by the grievances was not an act of victimisation.
Last week, another EAT decision, Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Ltd, reminded employers that the decision in Martin is applicable only in truly exceptional circumstances. The mere fact that an employee has raised a number of grievances over a period of time is not in itself exceptional…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Hogan Lovells briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Hogan Lovells
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Hogan Lovells
The decision of the US Court of Appeals has raised questions about how issuers should present their disclosures on conflict minerals under Exchange Act Rule 13p-1 and Form SD.
An interesting judgment was delivered by the Honourable J Majiki on 19 November 2013 in the Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth.
Analysis from The Lawyer
As international firms question their future in these small, closely linked markets, local lawyers too are eyeing the business environment with caution
Beyond the headline infrastructure projects, UK construction work is still recovering from the clobbering it took during the slump