This month’s case round up news in brief
Additional working hours could be required without an instruction
Grant was entitled to additional wages over and above his normal pay if he
was "required" to carry out on-call duties. Grant worked a large number of "on-call" hours but was
not paid for them. The EAT rejected an
employment tribunal decision that Grant was entitled to be paid only if the
employer expressly requested, through a direct instruction or in the contract
itself, that the on-call hours should be worked. They preferred Grant’s
argument that a "requirement" to carry out the work could arise from
the circumstances in which it was performed.
In other words, the work was "required", if it was necessary
for Grant to carry out the work during on-call hours. Grant v Kent County
Council, EAT
Possible bias rendered dismissal unfair
Firth was dismissed following anonymous allegations that he was siphoning
petrol from his employer’s customers’ vehicles while they were on the
employer’s site. An employment tribunal considered that the dismissal was
unfair, since the manager who heard the disciplinary hearing was alleged by
Firth to have victimised him over a period of time. Firth v BRC Barnsley
Limited, EAT
Outcome of unheard disciplinary proceedings relevant to compensation
Cameron was dismissed on the grounds of ill-health and brought a successful
unfair dismissal claim. At the time of
his dismissal, he was facing disciplinary proceedings that had not been heard
due to his sick leave. The EAT upheld a tribunal ruling that the likely outcome
of those disciplinary proceedings could be taken into account when addressing
compensation. Cameron v Stagecoach Scotland Limited, EAT
Comments are closed.