Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Case round-up

by Personnel Today 24 Jun 2003
by Personnel Today 24 Jun 2003

Case round-up by Eversheds 020 7919 4500

That’s settled then… or is it?
Whiley v Christopher Clarke Workshops Limited, EAT, [11 March 2003]

Informal agreements can often be difficult to prove and, therefore, equally
difficult to enforce.

Mr Whiley sustained a back injury and was eventually signed off work by his
GP. After he had been absent for approximately two months, his manager spoke to
his GP. The manager updated the company’s managing director of that
conversation. However, instead of referring to a likely three-month absence,
the manager misleadingly informed him that Whiley would be off work for months
and might not work again. As a result, Whiley was dismissed with immediate
effect. He brought complaints of unfair dismissal and disability
discrimination.

The tribunal found that the company’s failure to follow any proper procedure
was unfair. However, the claim for disability discrimination was dismissed on
the basis the company could not have known that Whiley was
"disabled". Having delivered its decision, the tribunal invited the
parties to discuss a settlement, and the sum of £2,000 was agreed by handshake.

Nevertheless, Whiley still sought to appeal the tribunal’s finding that
there had been no discrimination.

Despite the company’s protestations that the appeal should not be heard as
the case had been compromised by the settlement, the EAT upheld the appeal. It
found that the terms of the settlement had not been recorded or signed by the
representatives. It also concluded that the agreed sum only related to the
tribunal’s finding that Whiley had been unfairly dismissed and was not "in
full and final settlement". As such, he was not barred from pursuing his
appeal and, having done so successfully, was entitled to further compensation.

No time for part-time?
Sibley v The Girls’ Day School Trust, Norwich High School for Girls,
EAT, [20 May 2003]

In recent months, even prior to the new flexible working rights, there have
been many successful cases against employers who have refused part-time work.
As this case demonstrates, however, while employers must give all such requests
serious consideration, not every job is suited to that arrangement.

Ms Sibley was a teacher. Following a period of maternity leave, she asked to
return to work part-time. While the school agreed to grant her request if a
part-time post came up, it did not accept that she could undertake her current
post on a part-time basis as it included form tutor duties.

Sibley resigned, claiming constructive unfair dismissal and sex
discrimination. She alleged that the school’s requirement meant that, as a
woman, she was less able to meet the full-time condition it was imposing than a
male teacher would be. As such, she believed its conduct was indirectly
discriminatory.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

However, the tribunal rejected both claims. In particular, it found that the
school’s belief that form tutor duties should be carried out full-time was
reasonably held, and was objectively justified as a policy.

Sibley appealed unsuccessfully. The EAT accepted the tribunal’s decision
that the school’s approach was both professional and reasonable, and that the
condition it was applying in this case was objectively justified.

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Porn abuse at work leads to the sack
next post
HSE seeks public input on safety strategy

You may also like

Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders receive 400% pay rise

4 Jul 2025

FCA to extend misconduct rules beyond banks

2 Jul 2025

‘Decisive action’ needed to boost workers’ pensions

2 Jul 2025

Business leaders’ drop in confidence impacts headcount

2 Jul 2025

Why we need to rethink soft skills in...

1 Jul 2025

Five misconceptions about hiring refugees

20 Jun 2025

Forward features list 2025 – submitting content to...

23 Nov 2024

Features list 2021 – submitting content to Personnel...

1 Sep 2020

Large firms have no plans to bring all...

26 Aug 2020

A typical work-from-home lunch: crisps

24 Aug 2020

  • Empower and engage for the future: A revolution in talent development (webinar) WEBINAR | As organisations strive...Read more
  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+