Ian Smith considers the latest employment law developments
Three cases in the last month concern widely different aspects of employment law, but each arose in an area that has been of some controversy and/or difficulty recently: (i) can an employer defend a claim for victimisation/detriment on the basis that it took the action against the employee not because of what he did (which was protected by the law) but because of the unacceptable way that he did it?; (ii) where there has been a failure to consult on an impending TUPE transfer due to the transferee’s fault, can there be a direct action against that transferee?; and (iii) where the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) discerns an error of law in a tribunal’s judgment, when can it decide the result of the case itself, without the extra delay and expense of a remission to the tribunal?
It’s not what you say, it’s the way you say it
The claimant in Panayiotou v Kernaghan UKEAT/0436/13 claimed to have suffered a detriment due to having made protected disclosures. The employer responded that
