|
Employment Monthly Briefing: September 2006 NEWSCommission for Equality and Human Rights RECENT CASES
Reference Guide: DTI guidance in breach of Working Time Directive Commission v United Kingdom (ECJ C-484/04) The ECJ has ruled that the United Kingdom failed in its obligations under Articles 3 and 5 of the Working Time Directive. Articles 3 and 5 of the Directive set out workers’ rights to minimum daily and weekly rest periods. These rights were implemented into domestic UK law by the Working Time Regulations 1998. The ECJ found that the rights to rest periods 'constitute rules of Community social law of particular importance', from which every worker should actually benefit. Compliance with the Directive did not extend to requiring an employer to force its workers to claim rest periods due to them. However in the present case, guidance which was published by the DTI to supplement the Working Time Regulations stated that although employers could not prevent a worker from taking such breaks, they did not have to ensure that workers are actually able to exercise their right to rest breaks. The DTI guidance effectively rendered the rights, which were protected under Articles 3 and 5 meaningless. The UK had therefore failed in its obligations under the Directive. Clandestine recordings – permitted in Unfair Dismissal claims Chairman and Governors of Amwell View School v Dogherty UKEAT/0243/06/DA The EAT ruled that it is not an infringement of human rights to allow the use of the clandestine recordings of disciplinary and appeal hearings, but that there is a public interest in the parties to disciplinary hearings complying with the agreed ‘ground rules’, such as respecting the privacy of private deliberations. The case concerned a teaching assistant who had been dismissed for misconduct, after a disciplinary procedure and appeal. The teaching assistant had secretly recorded the disciplinary and appeal hearings. In a claim against the school for unfair dismissal, the Claimant sought to rely on the recordings. The tribunal did not hold that the recordings were inadmissible, but instead ordered the Claimant to release the recordings to the school so that they could ascertain whether they were genuine. The school appealed. The EAT dismissed the appeal, but pointed out that the decision was confined to the circumstances of this case. Employer vicariously liable for personal injury relating to mental health injuries Green v DB Group Services Limited EWHC 1898 (QB) The High Court held that a relapse of a major depressive mental illness constituted a personal injury caused by the bullying and harassment by fellow employees. The employer was in breach of its duty of care to the employee in failing to take any adequate steps to protect her from such behaviour, and was held to be vicariously liable in negligence for the acts of bullying which resulted in psychiatric injury. In this case, the Claimant had been employed for four years by DB Group Services Limited. DB knew of the Claimant’s history of depression and prescribed anti-depressant medication, which indicated she was more vulnerable than others. Despite this, they failed to take any action against fellow employees who had subjected her to constant bullying and harassment. The Claimant was awarded in excess of £800,000 in compensation. This note has been prepared for general guidance only and should not be used as a substitute to obtaining legal advice. It is recommended that professional advice is sought in relation to specific cases, and practical commercial telephone advice is always available from the MLM Employment team. MLM Solicitors ©2006 |