Share this page!

Jason Braier Profile picture
Twitter logo
4 May, 4 tweets, 2 min read
This really is one to look forward to. Some really interesting issues on interim relief & illegality, with top notch counsel for any practitioner or barrister wannabe to watch for advocacy tips (I think it's @jamesladdie v Heather Williams. I'll be corrected if wrong). #ukemplaw
2/ Robinson v Al-Qasimi has been before the EAT a few times. Here's my thread on the judgment under appeal:
3/ I'm not entirely sure how @jacquimcguigan does it, by the way. As a 1-woman whirlwind, she has already had Smith v Pimlico's holiday pay appeal & the glorious success in the NUPFC case in the last couple of months, & now this. Are there enough hours in the day?!
I'm a little surprised at the panel for this appeal: Holroyde, Singh & Baker LJJ. I'd presumed 2 of Underhill, Bean, Singh, Simler and Lewis for a #ukemplaw appeal of this importance, with a non-employment lawyer to make up the numbers/give a different perspective on illegality.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Jason Braier

Jason Braier Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JasonBraier

Jason Braier Profile picture
5 May
1/ In Somerville v MPTS, we already have our 1st application of Smith v Pimlico Plumbers (No. 2) to time limits under Reg 16 WTR in an unpaid holiday pay claim.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/609299f9… #ukemplaw
2/ S was a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service member for 4 years. His relationship with them ended on 4.4.18. His last pay slip on which he expected any payment for unpaid holiday pay was 5.3.18, he didn't contact ACAS until 30.6.18 & put in his ET1 on 20.7.18.
3/ C had been treated as self-employed. He claimed the loss of entitlements of a worker. In F&BP, he claimed entitlements under Reg 16 WTR (payment for periods of leave) but not Reg 14 (compensation for leave outstanding on termination).
Read 6 tweets
Jason Braier Profile picture
5 May
Some fascinating insights in this (unsurprisingly) brilliant and thought-provoking paper on the benefits and dangers of the online publication of the employment tribunal register. #ukemplaw
2/ The authors express a particularly prescient concern about unscrupulous employers using automated screening tools to weed out job applicants who've previously brought claims - raising fascinating issues for potential victimisation & discrimination claims. ImageImage
3/ Relatedly there are concerns about employers using algorithmic analysis of judgments to determine the likelihood of an applicant to take the employer to tribunal in due course. Unsurprisingly, reliance on such analysis would further entrench discriminatory hiring practices. ImageImage
Read 15 tweets
Jason Braier Profile picture
29 Apr
1/ Following a judgment on health & safety dismissals and a judgment on separability, the President's decision in Sinclair v Trackwork combines the 2 - a decision on separability in a health & safety dismissal context. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/608983d3…

#ukemplaw
2/ S was a track maintenance supervisor, required to implement a safe system of work procedure. He was given a mandate to implement a Network Rail safety system, NR019. Trackworks didn't tell S's colleagues he'd been given this mandate.
3/ C implemented the safety system diligently, which caused friction & caused colleagues to raise concerns with management. Due to the upset & friction Trackworks decided to dismiss S. S claimed this was automatically unfair under ERA s.100(1).
Read 8 tweets
Jason Braier Profile picture
29 Apr
1/ Flatman v Essex provides a useful reminder that once an employer has committed a fundamental breach, he can't cure it but can only keep fingers cross the employee will waive the breach/affirm the contract. bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT… #ukemplaw
2/ F worked in a school as a learning support assistant. Her job required her to weigh-bear a disabled pupil. She requested manual handling training over some months without the school providing it. She then developed back pain & was signed off for 3 weeks with this.
3/ Around the time F was due to return to work, the head told her she wouldn't be required to lift the pupil on return & that manual handling training was being organised for the following few weeks. C resigned & claimed constructive dismissal.
Read 12 tweets
Jason Braier Profile picture
29 Apr
1/ Watson v Hilary Meredith Solicitors Ltd is an EAT judgment principally applying the Martin v Devonshires separability principle to a whistleblowing case, but its point of greater practical utility concerns waiver of privilege. bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT…

#ukemplaw
2/ In brief, the case concerns a solicitor who became aware of financial irregularities at his firm, disclosed them & resigned with notice. During the notice period he was dismissed for gross misconduct for the speed of his resignation. He brought s.47B & s.103A claims.
3/ The ET found his dismissal was not materially influenced (the Fecitt standard) by the fact he'd made the disclosures but was separable from that, prompted by swiftly resigning & running for the hills rather than sticking around to help sort the problem.
Read 8 tweets
Jason Braier Profile picture
28 Apr
1/ City of London Police v Geldart: CA allows appeal against ET/EAT finding that not paying the London Allowance to a police officer throughout maternity leave was direct discrimination. G's indirect discrimination claim was remitted back to the ET. #ukemplaw
2/ This appeal concerns the London Allowance paid to London-based police officers. It's paid to officers in City of London & Met police for recruitment and retention purposes rather than for cost of living reasons (for which there's London weighting).
3/ G was paid London Allowance for her 1st 18 weeks of maternity leave though not for the additional period of maternity leave which followed. Was she entitled to it under her Terms of Service? Was it directly discriminatory to fail to pay it for that additional period?
Read 17 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @JasonBraier has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @JasonBraier!

Read all threads by @JasonBraier