Peter Earle's WorkPlace Conflicts Blog

In a landmark decision on August 12, 2024, the Employment Rights Tribunal (ERT) ruled against Alexa Hoffmann, a transgender activist who claimed unfair dismissal and gender discrimination by Court Caribbean Law Practice. Hoffmann's case was dismissed because, among other things, they were never presented to the ERT.   For the first time, the Employment Rights Tribunal (ERT) addressed an allegation of unfair termination based on gender identity. The case involved Alexa Hoffmann, a transgender activist, and her former employer, Court Caribbean Law Practice. Hoffmann claimed she was unfairly dismissed after changing her name to reflect her gender identity. The employer, however, maintained throughout the case, that there was no law or legal obligation for him to refer to Hoffmann as female, despite her name change from Mr. to Ms. The dispute began when Hoffmann, who claimed she was hired as a legal assistant in August 2015—a point contested by her employer—legally changed her nam...

Introduction Understanding the complexities of unfair dismissal claims is crucial in employment. The case of Stephen Mullen offers an insightful look into the application of legal principles, such as those outlined in section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act, 1996. This article explores the details of Mullen's case, highlighting the allegations, investigations, findings, and judicial decisions, while referencing specific legislation. Section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 states that: "The determination of the question whether the dismissal is fair or unfair (having regard to the reason shown by the employer) — (a) depends on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee, and (b) shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case." In other words, Sect...

  Background Claimant: Ms. K Hargreaves   Respondents : Ian Ambrose & Others   Hearing Location: Manchester (via cloud video platform)   Presiding Judge : Employment Judge Sharkett   Representation: Claimant: Representing herself Respondent (Mr. K Swindlehurst, R5): Represented by Mr. K Swindlehurst himself Date of Hearing : 30th August 2023 Preliminary Hearing Judgment The tribunal made the following determinations: 1. It is just and equitable to extend the time for the claimant to bring her claim against Mr. K Swindlehurst (R5). 2. The application by Mr. K Swindlehurst (R5) to have the claim against him struck out on the grounds that it has no reasonable prospects of success is refused. 3. The claimant’s claims of age and sex discrimination against all respondents are dismissed upon her withdrawal. 4. All remaining claims will proceed in accordance with the case management orders already in force. Reasons for the Judgment ...

  A recent employment tribunal in the UK has ruled that repeatedly misnaming an employee can be considered racial harassment. This case involves Viveak Taneja, a British Indian bathroom salesman, who was awarded £9,329.23 for injury to feelings due to race harassment by his sales director, Dana Davies. Case Overview Viveak Taneja was employed as an area sales manager for Phoenix Whirlpools in London starting in June 2021. In March 2022, Dana Davies was hired as the sales director. The two scheduled time together on March 21 and 22, 2022, for Davies to assess Taneja's capabilities and identify any necessary support. Taneja was to pick up Davies from King’s Cross at 8:45 am on March 21. However, Taneja arrived late due to having to do the school run, arriving around 9:05 am. This initial meeting set a negative tone for their interaction, with Davies becoming irritated by Taneja's lateness. During the car journey, Davies misnamed Taneja twice, calling him "Vikesh." Tanej...

  My research informs me that in Hong Kong, the termination of employment has long been governed by principles that emphasize the employer's right to end the employment relationship by providing notice or payment in lieu thereof, without the obligation to provide a reason. This legal framework, deeply rooted in statutes like Hong Kong's Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57), sharply contrasts with jurisdictions such as Barbados and the United Kingdom, where robust statutory protections against unfair dismissal are codified in laws like the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Employment Rights Act 2012-09, respectively. Historically, Hong Kong's approach to employment termination has emphasized flexibility for employers, enabling efficient workforce management. In contrast to the UK and Barbados, where stringent criteria govern fair dismissal, Hong Kong law imposes minimal constraints on an employer's termination decisions, requiring adherence only to contractual and statutory o...

  Overview The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) recently ruled on an appeal brought forward by the Barbados Defence Force (BDF) regarding the termination of Lieutenant David Anthony Harewood. The CCJ dismissed the appeal, affirming that the BDF was indeed in error when it terminated Lieutenant Harewood. Background on Charges: Lieutenant Harewood, a former commissioned officer in the Barbados Defence Force (BDF), was convicted by the Court Martial on June 4, 2019, for charges stemming from events in January 2018. These charges included failure to report a threat to Ordinary Seaman Marlon Scott's life and conducting unauthorized information-gathering operations, both considered violations of military conduct as per section 75 of the Defence Act Chapter 159. However, the Court of Appeal overturned this conviction on June 27, 2023, citing insufficient evidence presented by the prosecution to prove the existence of these offenses.  Interpretation of Section 75 of the Defence Act Th...

In today's issue of The Nation newspaper (5/27/2024), the editorial rightly directs attention to the urgent matters unfolding within the Barbados Revenue Authority (BRA), emphasizing the critical need for prompt resolution. The ongoing unrest and discontent among BRA staff signal deeper systemic issues that demand immediate attention. It's disconcerting to observe BRA's inadequate response to the legitimate grievances raised by the Unity Workers' Union (UWU). This reluctance to address concerns not only undermines employee morale but also tarnishes BRA's reputation and effectiveness as the primary revenue collection agency for the government. Furthermore, recent revelations suggesting favoritism in promotions and salary increases are deeply troubling. Such actions not only sow discord among employees but also contravene principles of fairness and meritocracy. The lack of opportunities for career advancement within BRA is demoralizing and ultimately counterprod...