In Brief: Important Updates from March 2019Posted in : Supplementary Articles ROI on 1 April 2019
A number of useful articles and interesting case law reviews were added to the Legal Island Employment Law Hub throughout the month of March. Here is a quick recap of some of the recent developments within the employment law sphere:
Harmonising Terms and Conditions – how do I handle it?
In this month’s ‘How Do I Handle It?’ article, written by Michelle Ryan, Associate Solicitor in Ronan Daly Jermyn, reviews the legal position in relation to variation of employees’ hours of work in order to create a working pattern that better suits business needs.
The Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2018
Your key questions on The Employment Act 2018 are answered by Bríd Nic Suibhne, A&L Goodbody, in our ‘First Tuesday’ section.
WRC Inspection Targets for 2019 – what can we expect?
Caroline McEnery, The HR Suite Online, discusses the Workplace Relations Commission’s ‘Work Programme for 2019’ and outlines what you can expect from an inspection.
Case Law Reviews
We reviewed a number of interesting cases this month. Click on the case titles below to read the full review article.
In this recent claim for Race Discrimination the Adjudication Officer concluded that the Complainant had not discharged the initial probative burden in respect of the allegation of discrimination by reason of his race. The Complainant did not provide any specific information in relation to the claim that he was subjected to victimisation and that the alleged claim lacked direct or indeed indirect factual basis. No prima facie case existed and accordingly the claim was dismissed.
The Complainant submitted that he had been denied payment of an annual bonus in the amount of approximately €5,200 because he had been suffering from work-related stress. The Adjudication Officer partially upheld the complaint in relation to the calculation of the bonus payment but dismissed the Disability part of the claim on the basis that the Complainant could not establish that the work-related stress amounted to a disability in accordance with Section 2(1)(e) of the Act or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts.
On return from annual leave the Complainant discovered a hidden camera in the office she worked in and discovered it was recording. Following a period of sick leave and the Complainant’s subsequent resignation, a complaint was filed with the Data Protection Commission. The DPC submitted that the employer did not act reasonably in engaging in covert surveillance. In dealing with the Constructive Dismissal the Adjudication Officer dismissed the respondent's argument contending the camera was installed as a mechanism for her safety given she would be in the office on her own and found that their actions amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.
The Plaintiff in this claim under the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, who was an employee of the Defendant, suffered an injury when she stepped into a lift. She claimed that the employer failed to provide her with a safe place and/or system of work. The Court found that the employee’s own actions had inadvertently led to the accident and was satisfied that the employer had discharged its obligations to exercise reasonable care in all of the circumstances.This article is correct at 01/04/2019
The information in this article is provided as part of Legal-Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article.