As the year draws to an end, in no particular order of importance, we take a look back at some of the key employment cases that featured in 2024.
- Reasonable adjustments: trial periods
Rentokil Initial UK Ltd v Miller [2024] EAT 37
An employer was found to have failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments by not offering a disabled employee a trial period in a different role, when he was no longer able to continue in his original role due to the effects of his disability.
- Industrial action – no detriment protection
Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer [2024] UKSC 12
The Supreme Court decided that under current legislation, workers have no protection against being subjected to a detriment for taking part in industrial action. As a result, the legislation was held incompatible with Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights (right to freedom of association).
Note, the Government’s Employment Rights Bill will, if enacted, amend the current legislation to give workers protection from detriment on the grounds of industrial action.
- Individual liability for discrimination
Baldwin v Cleves School [2024] EAT 66
The EAT decided that when an employer was held vicariously liable for the discriminatory acts of two employees, who were both named as respondents in the claim, those individuals were also personally liable for the discrimination. A tribunal has no discretion in deciding whether or not the individuals were liable in these circumstances.
- Detriment (long) after blowing the whistle
First Greater Western Ltd v Moussa [2024] EAT 82
The EAT held that the employer had victimised the employee and subjected him to a detriment (by subjecting him to disciplinary proceedings) for making protected disclosures six years previously.
- National Minimum Wage and travel time
Taylors Service Ltd (dissolved) and another v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2024] EAT 102
Time spent travelling to and from clients’ premises, sometimes for up to eight hours per day, was held by the EAT not to be ‘time work’ under the NMW Regulations, meaning that workers were not entitled to be paid the NMW for this time.
- Indirect discrimination: same disadvantage
British Airways plc v Rollett and others (minister for Women and Equalities intervening) [2024] EAT 131
In this case, the EAT confirmed that claimants who do not share a relevant protected characteristic, but who share the same disadvantage as those with that protected characteristic, are entitled to bring a claim for indirect discrimination.
On the facts of this case, male employees with caring responsibilities were entitled to bring a claim of indirect discrimination alongside women, who were disadvantaged as a result of scheduling changes by BA.
- Dismissal and re-engagement
Tesco Stores Ltd v USDAW [2024] UKSC 28
The Supreme Court upheld an injunction to prevent Tesco from ‘firing and rehiring’ a group of employees in order to remove a contractual entitlement to enhanced pay. The Court decided that as the payment was a ‘permanent’ entitlement, Tesco could not terminate the employees’ contracts with the purpose of removing it.
- Sex-related harassment
British Bung Manufacturing Company Ltd and another v Finn [2023] EAT 165
An offensive comment made about a man’s baldness by a colleague amounted to sex-related harassment, since it was inherently related to the claimant’s sex.
- Pre-termination negotiations
Gallagher v McKinnon’s Auto and Tyres Ltd [2024] EAT 174
The employer, who told an employee during a ‘pre-termination negotiation’ that a formal redundancy process would be commenced if he did not accept an enhanced redundancy package, had not behaved ‘improperly’ or placed undue pressure on the employee.
- Redundancy consultation
De Bank Haycocks v ADP RPO UK Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1291
The Court of Appeal decided that for small-scale redundancies (affecting fewer than 20 employees), it is not a requirement for employers to conduct general workforce consultation in addition to individual consultation. Consultation must take place at a ‘formative stage’ but this does not have to happen at workforce level.
Key Contacts
The content of this article is for general information only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. If you require any further information in relation to this article please contact the author in the first instance. Law covered as at December 2024.