Category: Employment Law

It is not always possible to mend fences – Reinstatement is not always a practicable option where there is a breakdown in employment relations

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld claims of constructive dismissal and disability discrimination against Whyte & Mackay Limited (W&ML) in the case of Mr. Duployen , a former forklift truck and warehouse operator, following his termination.   

W&ML had appealed the ET's decision on several grounds, seeking reinstatement or re-engagement, a higher award for injury to feelings, and any interest due on the awards. However, reinstatement proved impracticable due to the breakdown in relations and, while theoretically possible, it was not reasonable given the circumstances. Although the issue of re-engagement, while not addressed by the ET, is a required step per Sections 113 and 116 of the Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996, tribunals are not compelled to order either a reinstatement or re-engagement, even though they have the discretion to do so.

The tribunals found that the appellant suffered embarrassment, humiliation and distress as a consequence of the discriminatory treatment by the respondent with a detrimental impact on his mental health.  

This is a cautionary tale for employers and HR departments alike, and the letter of the law should be followed diligently in terms of the Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996, the ECHR, and the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 to avoid claims of discrimination or constructive dismissal, especially given that not all handicaps or disabilities are self-evident.

Beware the legal minefield of the transferring of contractual undertakings

A recent case [London United Busways Ltd. (LUB) v De Marchi and Abellio London [2024] EAT 191] revealed the complexities of working under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, or TUPE.

A Mr. De Marchi had been working as a bus driver for two decades by LUB from his local bus depot, even though his contract contained a clause to the effect that employees may be expected to work at any of the depots across London. After LUB lost its tender for his route, his employer elected to exercise this right of transfer, unless the employee objected by a specified deadline under Regulation 4(9). Given the options to transfer, resign or object, Mr. De Marchi objected to his transfer and requested redundancy, as the new depot was over an hour from his domicile. As this was not one of the three alternatives, LUB rejected his approach, and Mr. De Marchi took a leave of absence suffering from stress and anxiety as he had been informed that, if he failed to sign a new contract by the deadline, his employment would effectively be terminated.

Mr. De Marchi failed to respond and later brought a claim for unfair dismissal against the transferor. The tribunal found that, while the employee may object to becoming employed by the transferor under Regulation 4(7) of TUPE, the effect of that objection is to preclude the transfer of his contract and any of the rights and obligations under Regulation 4(2) of TUPE.  However,  Regulation 4(8) TUPE operates to terminate the contract with the transferor to the detriment of the employee.

This ruling serves to provide useful guidance in terms of who is liable. If the objection occurs before the transfer, then the liability falls on the transferor. However, if the employee does not object to the transfer in a timely fashion and then tries to argue Regulation 4(9), then the liability falls on the transferee. It is thus advisable to seek legal advice before transferring employees to other positions or locations.

Just because an employee is a lawful resident of the UK does not give them the right to work

A restaurant in Middlesborough recently challenged a civil penalty notice of £15,000 issued by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under Section 15 of the Immigration Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (IANA 2006) arguing that their employee was lawfully present in the UK and that they were not given the opportunity to mitigate the penalty.

However, the Court emphasised that the 2006 Act's purpose was to discourage illegal employment and that employers are responsible for conducting any necessary checks on employees' right to work, according to Section 15(3).

This judgement highlights the importance of employers carrying out right-to-work checks to avoid finding themselves in a similar situation. Ensure your employees have the right to work by using an identity service provider offering Identity Document Validation Technology (IDVT).