"Speak Freely, Report Boldly"
Tribunal Cases
Ms. N. Hinds v. Mitie Ltd: Pregnancy Discrimination and Unfair Dismissal, awarded £350,000
Ms. N. Hinds brought claims against Mitie Ltd, alleging pregnancy and maternity discrimination, sex discrimination, and unfair dismissal. The Employment Tribunal ruled in her favor, finding that she was subjected to discriminatory practices and dismissed unfairly due to her pregnancy. As a result, Ms. Hinds was awarded £350,000 in compensation, highlighting the significant financial and legal consequences for employers failing to uphold maternity rights. This case reinforces the importance of protecting the rights of pregnant employees in the workplace.
Firm Who Sacked Pregnant Worker After She Took Three Days Off for Morning Sickness Ordered to Pay Her £22k
A Clydebank-based property services firm was ordered to pay £22,150.33 in compensation to Amy McLaren, a former employee who was dismissed after taking three days off due to morning sickness. McLaren brought the case to an employment tribunal, accusing Hiflow Property Services of pregnancy discrimination. The tribunal found that the firm's directors surveilled and pressured her to find a new job, leading to her dismissal after being disciplined for the absence. Despite claiming other reasons for her firing, the tribunal judged that McLaren was treated unfavorably because of her pregnancy. The employer's justifications were deemed unfounded, and the tribunal concluded that her dismissal arose solely due to her pregnancy.
Paragon Bank Auditor Fired for Whistleblowing, Tribunal Told
Mr. N Hall, a former internal auditor at Paragon Bank, has filed an employment tribunal claim, alleging his dismissal was due to whistleblowing. Hall reported discovering significant issues with the bank’s control environment and compliance with accounting standards during audits in 2022. He found discrepancies in how plant and equipment valuations were handled and identified a security breach in a subsidiary's IT system. Hall reported these concerns to management, who disputed his findings and directed him to omit certain issues from his reports. After submitting a whistleblowing grievance in July 2023, Hall initiated discussions on his dismissal, which culminated in his termination in February 2024. Paragon Bank denies the allegations, citing Hall’s lack of qualifications and alleged unmanageability as reasons for his dismissal. Hall’s request for interim relief was denied, but the judge noted this decision did not preclude the possibility of Hall winning the case at a later hearing. The case underscores ongoing debates about corporate governance and whistleblowing protections.
Ignoring a Colleague When They Say Hello Breaks Employment Law, Tribunal Indicates
A tribunal has ruled that ignoring a colleague's greeting can constitute a breach of employment law. The case involved a recruitment manager, Nadine Hanson, who won an unfair dismissal claim after being ignored by her new boss, Andrew Gilchrist, upon greeting him three times. Judge Sarah Davies stated that while the behavior may not alone breach the contract fundamentally, it contributed significantly to such a breach. Mr. Gilchrist, who just took over as MD of Interaction Recruitment, developed a negative opinion about Hanson shortly after joining. He dismissed her greetings, thinking she was late, pushed aside her phone when she tried to explain her medical appointment, and suggested she leave the company. Subsequently, he offered pay rises to her staff without notifying her. Ms. Hanson resigned a month later, leading to the tribunal in Leeds ruling her dismissal unfair, with compensation to be decided in a later hearing.
https://www.thesun.ie/news/14012367/ignoring-colleague-breaks-employment-law/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Calling a Woman 'Frumpy' Could Be Sex Harassment, Judge Rules
A UK judge has ruled that calling a female colleague "frumpy" can be considered sexual harassment under equality legislation. The ruling emerged from the case of Yuanyuan Zhang, an investment firm worker who claimed that her boss's comment about her outfit being "frumpy" humiliated her. Although Zhang's claim was eventually dismissed due to a missed filing deadline, the tribunal acknowledged that such comments related to gender and had the potential to violate dignity. This decision follows recent cases where other comments were deemed discriminatory, including referring to a woman as "pretty" and using age-related expressions at work. The ruling highlights the ongoing expansion of workplace discrimination definitions to include various types of potentially offensive comments.
Next Retail Ltd Equal Pay Case
Over 3,500 shop workers at the UK retailer Next, most of whom were female, launched a legal battle for equal pay, arguing that they were paid less than male warehouse workers. The Employment Tribunal ruled in favor of the claimants, stating that Next failed to provide a valid justification for the pay disparity. The decision acknowledged that female sales consultants were entitled to equal pay for equal work. This landmark ruling requires Next to pay substantial back pay to affected workers, estimated to be around £30 million, and sets an important precedent for equal pay cases across various industries.
Link: https://wpfnews.co.uk/next-retail-equal-pay-case-awards-pound30-million-to-female-workersX v Y and Others: Disability, Race, and Sex Discrimination
In this case, the claimant, referred to as X, brought forward allegations of unfair dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of disability, race, and sex. The tribunal found that the employer, Y, had not sufficiently addressed issues of bias and failed to follow proper procedures during the dismissal process. The decision emphasized the importance of unbiased treatment in the workplace and the need for employers to ensure they adhere to anti-discrimination laws, especially when handling sensitive dismissal cases. The tribunal ruled in favor of the claimant on specific claims, resulting in an award for damages.
Link: https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/x-v-y-and-others-1300694-slash-2021Ms K Hargreaves v I Ambrose and Others: Multiple Discrimination Claims
Ms. Hargreaves brought forward a series of claims against her employer, including allegations of age, disability, sex, and sexual orientation discrimination. She also included claims of unfair dismissal and other grievances related to her treatment in the workplace. The tribunal examined each aspect of her claims, concluding that there was evidence of discriminatory practices and procedural unfairness in how her complaints and dismissal were handled. The tribunal’s decision in favor of Ms. Hargreaves on several counts served as a reminder of the legal obligations employers have in fostering a respectful and law-abiding workplace.
Link: https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-k-hargreaves-v-i-ambrose-and-others-2407961-slash-2022Lesley Coia v Event Medical Group: Pregnancy Discrimination
Lesley Coia, a 27-year-old from Glasgow, filed a complaint against her employer, Event Medical Group, after her director repeatedly questioned her about whether she was pregnant. The tribunal found that this persistent questioning constituted sex discrimination, as a male employee would not have faced similar inquiries. Coia argued that her treatment created a hostile work environment, and the tribunal agreed, awarding her over £6,000 in compensation for “injured feelings.” This case highlights the need for employers to be mindful of potential discrimination related to gender and pregnancy in the workplace.
Link: https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/13718140/woman-wins-sex-discrimination-pregnant-male-colleague/Addison Lee Executive Admits to Faking Email in Tribunal Case
In an ongoing tribunal case, a senior executive at Addison Lee admitted to fabricating an email intended to serve as key evidence for the company in a case involving worker status for 700 drivers. The drivers are pursuing employment rights such as holiday pay and minimum wage, arguing that they should be classified as workers under UK law. This admission has placed Addison Lee in a challenging position as the tribunal examines the company’s business model and its compliance with gig economy regulations. The case follows the UK Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling on Uber, which similarly reclassified drivers as workers, and highlights ongoing disputes over employment rights in the gig economy.
Link: https://www.ft.com/content/d04664d4-7fa4-4ec9-97d4-65af0da20307
Contact
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay informed with global news updates on our main site, www.worldpressfreedom.com
© 2024. All rights reserved