Employment Risk Case Studies for UK Employers

Mrs Farmer informed the employer that she was pregnant and later had pregnancy-related sickness. The Tribunal found that her pregnancy and related absence were central to the decision to dismiss her.

Automatic unfair dismissal and pregnancy discrimination succeeded. The later remedy judgment ordered total compensation of £73,511.02, including £18,000 for injury to feelings and a 15% Acas uplift.

Pregnancy-related absence and performance concerns need careful separation. Timing, written reasoning and evidence behind decisions can become decisive.

Employment disputes are often decided on the facts, records and process available in the individual case - not simply on what the employer intended.

The claimant brought wrongful dismissal, unfair dismissal and maternity discrimination complaints. A key feature was the manner in which she learned she had been dismissed while on maternity leave.

All three complaints succeeded. The Tribunal ordered total compensation of £14,537.53, including £10,666.67 for injury to feelings and interest.

The method, timing and communication of a dismissal matter. Maternity leave does not suspend the need for a fair, carefully documented process.

Employment disputes are often decided on the facts, records and process available in the individual case - not simply on what the employer intended.

The Tribunal considered unfair dismissal alongside a complaint that the employer had failed to provide written terms and conditions. A disputed contract later produced in the proceedings was not accepted as reliable.

Unfair dismissal was upheld with an award of £12,730. The failure to provide written terms was also upheld, attracting a further £752.

Basic employment documentation is not administrative decoration. Accurate contracts, records and a defensible dismissal process can become crucial evidence.

Employment disputes are often decided on the facts, records and process available in the individual case - not simply on what the employer intended.

The claimant complained that the employer had failed to comply with the statutory requirements applying to her flexible-working application.

The complaint was well founded and the employer was ordered to pay six weeks’ pay - £1,832.22.

Flexible-working requests need to be treated as a formal management process, not left in an inbox or handled casually because the team is small.

Employment disputes are often decided on the facts, records and process available in the individual case - not simply on what the employer intended.

A live-in carer lost her placement during the pandemic. The employer, which told the Tribunal it employed 50 staff, made her redundant. The original Tribunal found the process unfair because a temporary alternative had not been properly considered and the appeal did not genuinely revisit the decision.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal found no legal error in the unfair-dismissal decision. A later reconsidered remedy ordered £9,377.74.

A genuine redundancy process means considering reasonable alternatives and ensuring any appeal is capable of changing the original decision.

Employment disputes are often decided on the facts, records and process available in the individual case - not simply on what the employer intended.

The claimant had worked as an external installation designer. The employer accepted in its response that unpaid wages of £1,941.71 were owed, while also raising a time-limit point.

The Tribunal found the claim was in time after the Acas early-conciliation extension and ordered the employer to pay £1,941.71 within 14 days.

Leaving pay, hours, deductions and final payroll should be reconciled before employment ends. Small sums can still become formal tribunal judgments.

Employment disputes are often decided on the facts, records and process available in the individual case - not simply on what the employer intended.

During the first Covid lockdown, a laser operator stayed away from work because of infection concerns. The workplace was a large warehouse-type space where typically only five employees worked, and the Tribunal found social distancing was generally possible.

The claim of automatic unfair dismissal under the health-and-safety provision failed. The EAT upheld that result, and the Court of Appeal later dismissed the employee’s appeal.

Good evidence can protect an employer too. Risk assessments, practical safety measures, records of concerns raised and the actual workplace facts may all matter if a decision is challenged.

Employment disputes are often decided on the facts, records and process available in the individual case - not simply on what the employer intended.