Employment Law Bulletin - Issue 150 - 11 June 2013

Tuesday 11 June 2013

Share This Page

Email This Page

Employment News

Building firms could face bans over blacklisting of workers
Construction companies involved in the blacklisting of workers could be prevented from tendering for public contracts worth billions of pounds. The Scottish government is considering preventing companies from bidding for work if they are implicated in a scheme to blacklist construction workers. Additionally, councils across England, Scotland and Wales are considering moves to exclude the companies from local government contracts. Click here to read the full article.

Dave Smith, one victim of such blacklisting and who set up the Blacklist Support Group, added "Local authorities are telling us that when contracts come up for renegotiation we know they will be thrown off it." David Renton of Garden Court Chambers has been representing Mr Smith in his claim against Carillion at the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Employment Case Law

Employment Appeal Tribunal

Practice and Procedure | Costs

Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham & Ors [2013] UKEAT/0533/12/0606
The EAT (Underhill J and lay members) upheld the decision of the Employment Tribunal ordering the Claimant to pay one-third of the Respondent's costs (estimated prior to assessment at £260,000) on the basis that the claim was misconceived from the start. The Court noted that in some cases it may be of relevance whether a claimant had been put on notice of the possibility of such an order being made, either through correspondence or by the making of an application for a deposit order. However, the fact that none of those steps were taken in the present case was no bar to a costs order being made. Click here to read the full judgment.

Redundancy | Composition of pool

Contract Bottling Ltd v Cave & McNaughton [2013] UKEAT/0525/12/
For economic reasons the Respondent needed to make cuts in administration and accounts staff. They created a single pool of employees comprising of more than one kind employee and applied a generic scoring matrix. The Respondent further expressed a willingness to retrain those employees who scored well in the matrix. The Employment Tribunal was not satisfied that the employer had proved that the dismissal of the Claimants was for redundancy and so found in favour of the Claimants.

Overturning the decision of the ET, the EAT (HHJ Richardson and lay members) applied the two stage test set out in Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd [1999] 3 WLR 356 and held that the ET should have found that the reason for the dismissals was redundancy. There was, the EAT held, a genuine diminution in the Respondent's requirements for employees to carry out particular kinds of work; the dismissals were attributable to that diminution; the disparate and unsatisfactory nature of the pool did not affect that conclusion. Click here to read the full decision.

Employment Law Events

What employment lawyers need to know about the Jackson Reforms
ELA, 12 June 2013, 14.00 - 16.45

The Employment Lawyers Association will be holding a half day afternoon conference which will be held at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 27 Sussex Place, Regent's Park, London NW1 4RG. There are 2.5 CPD points available. Click here for more information.

 

Latest tweets from Garden Court Chambers

Follow us on Twitter

Tweets by gardencourtlaw

We are top ranked by independent legal directories and consistently win awards

+ View more awards