Employment Lawyer In Your Pocket

In this season, we take a look at the stories making the headlines and ask, “Is this case for real? How did the employer get away with that? And what is the law behind the headlines?” In this episode, Simon and Jack discuss the headline, “What?????? University Lecturer wins £15k for using too many question marks in texts – but Judge rules excessive punctuation IS unnecessary aggressive”. They consider the employment tribunal case of Sobnack v Loughborough University where, although the tribunal found Dr Sobnack’s dismissal to have been unfair, it reduced the award on the basis of his blameworthy conduct. Simon also sings all the Leicester City Football Club songs he knows. (It’s fortunately just the one. Sung twice)

Season 6.4: The Law Behind The Headlines | Half A Man In this season, we take a look at the stories making the headlines and ask, “Is this case for real? How did the employer get away with that? And what is the law behind the headlines?” In this episode, Simon and Jack discuss the case of Staines v North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service. This case made the headlines since it involved a Yorkshire fireman who referred to his gay colleague as “Arthur” or “half a man”, was dismissed, lost his unfair dismissal claim but still won over £12k in compensation against his ex-employer. Simon and Jack sprinkle some Yorkshire phrases into this podcast (I blame Google) and, if you listen carefully, you can “enjoy” the historic “banter” JB had with Si’s mother-in-law.

In this season, we take a look at the stories making the headlines and ask, “Is this case for real? How did the employer get away with that? And what is the law behind the headlines?” In this episode, Simon, Jack and Ruth discuss a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal case against Victoria Whelan with the headline, “Junior solicitor suspended over email sent in “moment of blind panic”. They discuss the employment points, data protection issues and data breach implications for employers. Listen to the end to see if they finally get a better headline….…

In this season, we take a look at the stories making the headlines and ask, “Is this case for real? How did the employer get away with that? And what is the law behind the headlines?” In this episode, Simon and Jack discuss the Daily Mail headline, “Officer sacked for calling black colleague ‘King of the Jungle’ wins £16,000 payout as Judge rules his remark wasn’t racist.” They discuss the reasons why the Employment Judge found that there had been an unfair dismissal. And they also get a bit excitable with their cockney (Blairgowrie) rhyming slang…

Season 6, Episode 1: In this season, we take a look at the stories making the headlines and ask, “Is this case for real? How did the employer get away with that? And what is the law behind the headlines?” In this episode, Simon and Jack discuss the landmark case of Kubilius v Kent Food Limited which is the first reported case that determined the wearing of face masks on site. The driver was sacked by his employer for refusing to wear a mask whilst within in the cab of his lorry on a client’s site. An Employment Judge determined the fairness of his dismissal. And if you listen to the end, you’ll hear what Jack thinks the headline should be have been…

In this podcast, Simon, Jack and Duncan recap the previous season and give their respective views as to whether the employer was correct in its actions against Bruce.

During Bruce’s appeal hearing, he alleges that the chemicals used to make up the pills were not properly labelled, in breach of health and safety legislation. Bruce states that it was only a matter of time before somebody else made his mistake. Does Bruce’s statement make him a “whistle blower”?  If so, does Bruce have a claim for detriment against his employer?  What should the appeal officer (J.A.R.V.I.S.) do to avoid a claim by Bruce? 

So Bruce has been dismissed. However, he has appealed the decision to dismiss him. His letter states that he has rheumatoid arthritis and this causes him to have sore fists. Does Bruce’s condition amount to a disability? If so, what investigation, does his employer need to carry out at the appeal stage about his “disability”? Is Bruce’s dismissal discriminatory even if the decision to dismiss him was reached before the employer knew about his disability? And how exactly do you pronounce the claimant’s name in the case of “Baldeh” versus Churches Housing Association of Dudley and District Limited? Donna has all the answers…

Following his dismissal, Bruce is annoyed with SHIELD and phones HR. During the call he is upset and complaining about the way he has been treated and mentions he wants to see information that supports the allegations made. He finishes the call by vowing to “make SHIELD sorry” for messing with him (with flecks of green appearing in his eyes)! The next day, an email is received from Betty Ross on behalf of Mr Banner requesting copies of his personnel files relating to the disciplinary offence.

Simon and Jack discuss Bruce’s circumstances. Bruce has requested an adjournment of the disciplinary hearing. Ms Potts, the employer’s HR Manager, allows Bruce’s request and tells Bruce that the meeting will instead take place the following week. The day before the adjourned hearing, Bruce submits a fit note, stating that he has sore fists and is unable to attend the meeting. The meeting takes place in his absence and Bruce is dismissed.

Simon, Jack and Duncan discuss Bruce’s situation. Bruce is employed as a scientist. His employer receives an anonymous complaint. Tony, the Managing Director, chooses to investigate the complaint and then instructs his HR Manager to dismiss Bruce.

Simon, Donna and Jack discuss Bruce. Bruce is employed as a scientist. He makes a serious error in his job and his employers are considering whether or not that error amounts to gross misconduct. Ultimately Bruce’s employers choose to do nothing with him on the basis of his early admission, his reflection and his remorse. However the following week, an anonymous complaint is received by his employers. The complaint is alleged to have been received from Bruce’s colleagues. The complaint alleges that Bruce has knowingly made errors in the past. The complaints ends by stating, “Speak to Rick. He will back up what we say”. What should the Managing Director, Tony do?

In this episode, Simon and Jack discuss Bruce. Bruce is a scientist. He has been employed for 19 years. Clean disciplinary record. His job involves dispensing drugs for his employer. One day, Bruce makes an error and mistakenly mixes up the drug dosages. Fortunately, Bruce’s employer picks up this mistake and the pills are not sent out. However, Bruce’s employer is angry that this mistake has been made. So the legal question is, can the employer discipline – and even dismiss – Bruce for this?

Happy New Year for 2019! In the final episode of season four *sobs uncontrollably*, Simon and Jack review last year’s highlights and discuss what to look out for in 2019, including the Ali and Hextall appeals and The Taylor Review. Although this has clearly been recorded last year, see if you can spot the team’s fibs about their respective Christmas and Hogmanay celebrations! And we look forward to seeing if Simon and Jack stick to their New Year’s resolutions. For what it is worth, we give them a week….

Simon, Jack and Donna unwrap in "The One With All The Christmas Films". The employment lawyers cover acts of harassment, potential defences to discrimination and their favourite "Christmas" movies. Not sure if James Bond counts as one but we're willing to score it 007 because we're feeling extra "Santa-mental"... Simon gives us his Three Takeaway Tips and "The World Is Not Enough" without another impersonation from Jack. Your "presents" are required after the credits for Donna's joke... Hold on for "deer" life!

Does travelling to work or being on call count as working time? Listen to ELiYP Season 4 Ep 6 to find out!

Simon and Jack are secured by Ruth in "The One With The Potential Data Breach". The employment lawyers cover what constitutes a data breach, examples of employee breaches and what you can do to prevent one. Simon gives out his password *slaps face* As does Jack *slaps another face* And there are some dodgy pronunciations - DATa or data, PRIVacy or privacy. Finally, Ruth gives her Three Takeaway Tips... well three and a half (just to be on the safe side obviously).

 Simon and Jack are joined by Diva Donna in "The One With the glitterball and fake tan". The employment lawyers discuss bullying at work. They cover examples of harassment, the legislation and Donna Cha Cha Challenges Simon on protected characteristics. Jack makes a few jives and Donna 'taps' out her Three Takeaway Tips. 

Season 4, episode 3:  Simon and Jack get lit in "The One With the drunken Christmas party". The employment lawyers discuss the case of Bellman against Northampton Recruitment Ltd. They cover vicarious liability, the court of appeal outcome and Jack 'sleighs' his impersonations. Simon's Three Takeaway Tips are Snow joke. Ps. Don't forget to listen after the jingle!

Jack and Simon take the plunge and ask Blair to join them in "The One With The Pimlico Plumbers".  The employment lawyers discuss the difference between being able to classify a worker as self-employed or an employee. They 'unblock' contracts, entitlements and the case of Mr Smith and the plumbing & heating engineers.