Issue:
8033
/
Categories:
Features
,
Employment
,
Tribunals
,
Disciplinary&grievance procedures
,
Discrimination
Back to school already? Ian Smith sets out some instructive lessons from the courts on the definition of a worker, the conduct of disciplinary hearings, & the perils of making a mistake
- The ‘worker’ definition and the use of a service company.
- Who should conduct the disciplinary hearing in a misconduct dismissal case?
- Can a judgment be reconsidered because of an error by a representative?
Three fairly fundamental questions are considered (and largely settled) by the cases considered this month. In the first case, the well-worn law on ‘worker’ status had to be applied to the novel (to employment law) context of the person claiming that status post-termination, having operated during their engagement through the intermediary of a service company. The result is instructive. In the second case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) reconsidered the question of the fairness of a misconduct dismissal where the dismissing manager does not actually hear the disciplined employee, but relies on a report from an investigating officer. The pre-existing
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
