In the MMD this week we look back at our first seminar of the year.

We also have a video from our regulatory team on GDPR distress claims.

From outside the world of employment and regulatory law, our commercial team has provided an update on the importance of a written contract.

This week at Chadwick Lawrence

This week, the employment team held a seminar in conjunction with Hays Recruitment on the topic of their Salary Guide and an employment law update. Thank you to all who attended, and we look forward to the next one!

 The Media Hub

GDPR distress claims update

In this video, Nils O’Donoghue talks you through the latest case law on data protection distress claims and why they are good news for employers. Please consider this video alongside the following link to the article on Business Rates.

To watch the video please click the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uCzQFosUQo

https://www.chadwicklawrence.co.uk/legal-news/business-rates/

There have been lots of relevant employment law/HR updates this week.

Woman’s ‘Christine Lagarde’ nickname was not age discrimination  

In this recent case, the Claimant worked for Deutsche Bank. During her employment, the Claimant was nicknamed Christine Lagarde and felt as though there was a culture of discrimination against older women within the bank however never raised a formal complaint or grievance about this. The Claimant was placed at risk of redundancy in June 2020 due to a restructuring exercise in the bank’s wealth management and was subsequently dismissed. The Claimant brought tribunal proceedings against the bank, however the tribunal found that her dismissal had been fair, and the company had not acted in a discriminatory way. The tribunal considered that the Claimant was already 52 when she joined the company and that the bank had several women on its executive committee.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-e-maugars-v-db-group-services-uk-ltd-3220765-slash-2020

Car dealership fabricated documents to justify dismissal

In this recent case, the Claimant had worked at Baytree Car Sales since he was a teenager and worked his way up to a management position, during which he would sign cheques on behalf of the business owner Manuel. When Manuel died, it was agreed by the family that the Claimant should continue to run the business however this relationship became strained. In October 2021, the Claimant was suspended pending an investigation for gross misconduct however no details were provided. Documents that Baytree provided included an invite to a disciplinary hearing, notes from the supposed meeting, and confirmation of a written warning, however the tribunal did not believe that these documents were genuine. The Claimant was told to come back to work one week after his suspension.  In February 2022, the Claimant received a letter informing him that he had been given a final warning, making several serious allegations against him that were never investigated, however Baytree provided a further document to the tribunal showing an invite to a disciplinary hearing in March that the tribunal also found to be fabricated. The tribunal also found that a further meeting alleged by Baytree did not take place. The Claimant’s subsequent dismissal was found to be unfair by the tribunal.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-a-tunnicliff-v-baytree-car-sales-and-others-2601351-slash-2022

Met Police discriminated against officer with hearing loss.

In this recent case, the Claimant with hearing while training outside and had difficulties hearing what was said on the radio and was subsequently moved into a non-operational role in 2016 shortly after joining the Met. Later that year, an occupational health assessment confirmed that the Claimant was fit for full operational duties however in order to pass his probation, he needed to undergo a full hearing test in an operational setting and was posted to a role within a police station in the meantime, during which his probation was extended more than a dozen times. In 2018, the occupational health doctor recommended reasonable adjustments including good-quality in-ear hearing aids, of which he was told he would need to pay two sevenths of the costs. As these were expensive, Access to Work opted for a cheaper alternative, which later proved inadequate during the Claimant’s test. The officers who conducted the test found that the Claimant was not fully capable however had not undergone any disability awareness training despite provisions being made for this. The Claimant was dismissed in 2021 and the tribunal found that the Claimant had been put at a substantial disadvantage and was dismissed for something arising out of his disability.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-s-karim-v-the-commissioner-of-police-of-the-metropolis-2207504-slash-2021

Focus On – Commercial Law

Each week we thought we would provide you with an insight into our other commercial areas of law outside of the Employment team. This week Adam McKie from our Corporate and Commercial team has prepared an insight into the importance of a written contract.

Commercial MMD Contribution