- Lexis®PSL Employment weekly highlights—17 November 2016
- In this issue:
- Headlines (News updates & analysis)
- Invalid previous warnings: fairness of dismissal turns on what employer actually relied on
- Splitting of job functions and their relocation amounted to ETO reasons entailing changes in the workforce
- When should out of time claims be allowed?
- ECJ finds that EU law does not preclude a rule setting a maximum age of 35 years for candidates for Basque country police role
- Relevant updates from other practice areas
- Dates for your diary
This week’s edition of Employment highlights includes: (1) an EAT case clarifying the approach employment tribunals should adopt when assessing the fairness of a dismissal following a finding that a previous final written warning given to the claimant was ‘manifestly inappropriate’, (2) an EAT judgment in a TUPE case where the splitting of job functions and the relocation of the place of performance of those functions to various places was found to amount to ETO reasons entailing changes in the workforce, (3) an EAT case looking at out of time claims and the impact of a failure by solicitors to advise in relation to the help with fees scheme, analysed by Timothy Adkin of 42 Bedford Row Chambers, (4) an ECJ judgment that a maximum age of 35 years for candidates for an operational role with the Basque country police is permissible under EU law, (5) relevant updates from other practice areas, (6) updates to our case and legislation trackers, and (7) dates for your diary.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial