Although piecemeal, recent cases have made important contributions to employment law, reports Ian Smith
The cases covered this month are in a sense fairly eclectic and specific to individual points, rather than involving wider principles. However, what unites them is that they all make important contributions to their areas of employment law, albeit in a completely piecemeal manner. Thus, these five cases establish that: (i) the old control test for employment status is now not to be construed as requiring day-to-day control; (ii) there cannot in law be “industrial action” by just one person; (iii) if a tribunal wants to put an employee back into employment but on altered duties it cannot do so by an order for reinstatement; (iv) due to a drafting glitch in the Equality Act 2010 an action for victimisation cannot now be established on the basis of post-termination events; and (v) costs can be awarded to a successful claimant in respect of expenses incurred by his or her backing organisation (eg a law centre).
Control need not be day-to-day
Cases
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
