Call for a free 15 minute consultation 0330 221 0684

Blog Arrow Employment Law

Top Ten Employment Law Cases of 2024: Shaping the Future of UK Workplace Rights

KLG KLG
Clock
Calendar January 16, 2025

As we reflect on the significant legal developments in UK employment law this year, it’s clear that 2024 has been a landmark year for workplace rights and employer obligations. At Kalra Legal Group, we’ve closely monitored these cases and their implications for employers and employees. Let’s delve into the ten most impactful employment law cases of 2024 and explore how they’re reshaping the legal landscape.

1. Tesco Stores Ltd v USDAW – ‘Fire and Rehire’

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case dealt a significant blow to the controversial ‘fire and rehire’ practice. Tesco’s attempt to remove contractual entitlements to retained pay was thwarted when the court upheld an injunction preventing this action.

Key Impact: This decision reinforces the principle that employers cannot unilaterally change contractual terms without mutual consent. It establishes a strong precedent protecting employees from dismissal aimed at removing contractual entitlements, likely influencing future cases and employer practices.

2. Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer – The Right to Strike

In a groundbreaking decision, the Supreme Court declared that current legislation fails to adequately protect workers from detriment for participating in industrial action. The court found this incompatible with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Key Impact: This historic advance in protecting the right to strike may lead to significant legislative changes, providing better safeguards for workers engaging in industrial action. Employers should prepare for potential shifts in how trade union activities are handled in the workplace.

3. Rentokil Initial UK Ltd v Miller – Disability Adjustments

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled that Rentokil failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled employee by not offering a trial period in a different role when he could no longer continue in his original position due to his disability.

Key Impact: This case broadens the interpretation of what constitutes a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010. It emphasises the importance of employers considering all possible reasonable adjustments for disabled employees, including trial periods in alternative roles.

4. British Bung Manufacturing Company Ltd v Finn – Sex-Related Harassment

The EAT upheld a finding that an offensive comment about a man’s baldness by a colleague amounted to sex-related harassment. This ruling expands the understanding of workplace harassment, particularly regarding comments about physical attributes associated with gender.

Key Impact: This decision may lead to stricter enforcement of anti-harassment policies in workplaces and influence future interpretations of what constitutes sexual harassment.

5. First Greater Western Ltd v Moussa – Whistleblowing

The EAT held that the employer had victimised an employee by subjecting him to disciplinary proceedings for making protected disclosures six years previously.

Key Impact: This ruling establishes that employers can be liable for victimisation related to whistleblowing, even if the decision-maker was not aware of the protected disclosures. It emphasises the need for robust whistleblowing policies and practices.

6. Baldwin v Cleves School – Vicarious Liability

In this case, the EAT decided that when an employer was held vicariously liable for the discriminatory acts of two employees, those individuals were also personally liable for the discrimination.

Key Impact: This ruling reinforces the principle of vicarious liability and highlights the potential for individual liability in discrimination claims. It may encourage organisations to adopt better practices in handling employee health issues and promote more inclusive workplace cultures.

7. Gallagher v McKinnon’s Auto and Tyres Ltd – Pre-Termination Negotiations

The EAT ruled that an employer who told an employee during a ‘pre-termination negotiation’ that a formal redundancy process would commence if he didn’t accept an enhanced redundancy package had not behaved ‘improperly’ or placed undue pressure on the employee.

Key Impact: This case clarifies the legal standing of ‘protected conversations’ in employment disputes. It sets a precedent for how employers should conduct pre-termination negotiations, emphasising the need for clarity and fairness to avoid claims of undue pressure or impropriety.

8. London United Busways Ltd v De Marchi and Anor – TUPE

The EAT upheld the Employment Tribunal’s decision that an employee was dismissed by the transferor after repeatedly objecting to a transfer under TUPE regulations.

Key Impact: This ruling establishes that objecting to a TUPE transfer does not equal resignation and can be treated as a dismissal in law. It clarifies employee rights under TUPE, particularly the right to object to a transfer and the implications of such objections on employment status.

9. Mrs R Wright-Turner v London Borough Council of Hammersmith and Fulham and Ms K Dero – Disability Discrimination

In this landmark case, the Employment Tribunal awarded over £4.5 million in a disability discrimination case, including substantial damages for loss of earnings, pension, injury to feelings, and an uplift for non-compliance with the ACAS Code of Practice.

Key Impact: This record-breaking compensation highlights the serious legal consequences for employers who fail to address mental health issues and disability discrimination appropriately. It emphasises the need for employers to implement robust mental health support systems and adhere strictly to anti-discrimination laws.

10. Wilson v Financial Conduct Authority – Remote Working

While not a court ruling, this Employment Tribunal decision was significant as it was one of the first to address remote working requests post-pandemic. The tribunal considered the Financial Conduct Authority’s refusal of a senior manager’s request to work remotely full-time.

Key Impact: This case underscores the importance of having clear policies and procedures for handling flexible working requests, particularly in the context of increased requests for remote work following the COVID-19 pandemic. It highlights the necessity for employers to provide valid reasons when rejecting flexible working requests and to adhere strictly to statutory time limits.

Final Thoughts

In conclusion, these ten cases have significantly shaped UK employment law in 2024, addressing issues ranging from contractual rights and industrial action protections to workplace harassment and remote working. As employment law practitioners at Kalra Legal Group, we remain committed to staying informed about these developments to provide the best advice to our clients and navigate the ever-evolving landscape of workplace rights and obligations.

GET IN TOUCH

Do you need help? Request a consultation now.

KLG are always here to help. To arrange a free 15 minute introductory consultation call, where we can identify your needs and show you how we can support your business or you as an individual. Please complete our form.