The Employment Appeal Tribunal slashed a £10,000 award for injury to feeling by 80% after an original tribunal ruling was deemed not to be Meek compliant as it failed to provide adequate reasons for the quantum awarded. A Miss Graham was employed by Eddie Stobart Ltd. for just over ten months as a planner when she became pregnant and immediately notified her line manager. Miss Graham asserted her right to be offered suitable alternative employment during her maternity leave under the MAPLE Regulations. She was interviewed for a new role but was unsuccessful and was terminated by reason of redundancy although her grievance Email to HR was blocked by the firewall.

Miss Graham complained that she had been "automatically" and unfairly dismissed as per Section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 on the basis that the new role should have been given to her in priority to others who were not on maternity leave. The first Tribunal found that Miss Graham had not been unfairly dismissed but upheld her claim of detrimental treatment and pregnancy/maternity discrimination and awarded £10,000 for injury to her feelings. Eddie Stobart Ltd. appealed and the second tribunal found the award excessive given that she had soon found alternative employment and had not endured prolonged suffering.

This case underscores the importance of presenting evidence supporting any claim for injury to feelings in the form of a ‘checklist’, although HR departments should note that those who are forced to chase up their grievances during allocated maternity or paternity leave may have grounds for such claims, however excessive or seemingly irrational.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld claims of constructive dismissal and disability discrimination against Whyte & Mackay Limited (W&ML) in the case of Mr. Duployen , a former forklift truck and warehouse operator, following his termination.   

W&ML had appealed the ET's decision on several grounds, seeking reinstatement or re-engagement, a higher award for injury to feelings, and any interest due on the awards. However, reinstatement proved impracticable due to the breakdown in relations and, while theoretically possible, it was not reasonable given the circumstances. Although the issue of re-engagement, while not addressed by the ET, is a required step per Sections 113 and 116 of the Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996, tribunals are not compelled to order either a reinstatement or re-engagement, even though they have the discretion to do so.

The tribunals found that the appellant suffered embarrassment, humiliation and distress as a consequence of the discriminatory treatment by the respondent with a detrimental impact on his mental health.  

This is a cautionary tale for employers and HR departments alike, and the letter of the law should be followed diligently in terms of the Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996, the ECHR, and the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 to avoid claims of discrimination or constructive dismissal, especially given that not all handicaps or disabilities are self-evident.

A recent case [London United Busways Ltd. (LUB) v De Marchi and Abellio London [2024] EAT 191] revealed the complexities of working under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, or TUPE.

A Mr. De Marchi had been working as a bus driver for two decades by LUB from his local bus depot, even though his contract contained a clause to the effect that employees may be expected to work at any of the depots across London. After LUB lost its tender for his route, his employer elected to exercise this right of transfer, unless the employee objected by a specified deadline under Regulation 4(9). Given the options to transfer, resign or object, Mr. De Marchi objected to his transfer and requested redundancy, as the new depot was over an hour from his domicile. As this was not one of the three alternatives, LUB rejected his approach, and Mr. De Marchi took a leave of absence suffering from stress and anxiety as he had been informed that, if he failed to sign a new contract by the deadline, his employment would effectively be terminated.

Mr. De Marchi failed to respond and later brought a claim for unfair dismissal against the transferor. The tribunal found that, while the employee may object to becoming employed by the transferor under Regulation 4(7) of TUPE, the effect of that objection is to preclude the transfer of his contract and any of the rights and obligations under Regulation 4(2) of TUPE.  However,  Regulation 4(8) TUPE operates to terminate the contract with the transferor to the detriment of the employee.

This ruling serves to provide useful guidance in terms of who is liable. If the objection occurs before the transfer, then the liability falls on the transferor. However, if the employee does not object to the transfer in a timely fashion and then tries to argue Regulation 4(9), then the liability falls on the transferee. It is thus advisable to seek legal advice before transferring employees to other positions or locations.

A tribunal recently ruled on the failure of a private limited company, El Recruitment Ltd., to submit its Re-DOC before the statutory deadline as required under the 'Employer Duties' of the Pensions Act 2008. The Pensions Regulator had sent two prior letters, although the company failed to do so and received a compliance notice addressed to the registered office address which was considered properly served.

The regulator unsuccessfully attempted to call the appellant using the number held within its records. El Recruitment did not complete the Re-DOC by the extended deadline and so the Pensions Regulator issued a £400 fixed penalty per Section 144A of the Act.

The director argued that they had moved out of the registered office and forgot to update the registered office address, although they could not be reached by telephone. However, the Tribunal was unmoved and unconvinced by this argument, as one of the reminders had been sent before the move and was still ignored.

While the Pensions Regulator is not obliged to send reminder communications it usually does so as a courtesy and the Company’s appeal over its £400 fine was unsuccessful. This case highlights the importance of filing promptly and allowing sufficient time for delivery.  Re-enrolment must take place every three years at a date of your choosing. To do so today visit https://declaration.ae.tpr.gov.uk/