|
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
| |||||||
|
07/01/2010 The EAT in O'Neill v Buckinghamshire County Council has stipulated that for an employer to be obligated to conduct a risk assessment when a worker becomes pregnant, a number of conditions must apply:
This case can be interpreted as lending support to the proposition adopted by previous EAT's ( Hardman v. Mallon [2002] IRLR 516 and Madarassy v Nomura [2007] IRLR 246 ) that discrimination will be established under circumstances whereby an obligation to carry out a risk assessment existed yet the employer failed to carry this out. Employers therefore need to provide comprehensive and relevant information on any identified risks to the health and safety of pregnant workers.
Detriment to the worker is not necessary to prove discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy. Workers should therefore be aware of the obligations of employers with respect to their safety when pregnant.
|
||||
|
The transcript of this case follows:- ONeill v. Buckinghamshire County Council [2010] UKEAT 0020_09_0501 (usually found at the Bailli or Employment Appeals websites) | ||
|
Some recent employment cases:- 2010 Different dress codes do not necessarily amount to sex discrimination - Dansie v. The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis [2009] UKEAT 2009 An employment tribunal may decide if a compromise decision is unenforcable - Industrious Ltd v Horizon Recruitment Ltd & Anor [2009] UKEAT Registrar claiming right to refuse to officiate at civil weddings loses religious discrimination case - Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357 A philosophical belief based on science is protected by the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 - Grainger Plc v Nicholson [2009] UKEAT/0219/09/ZT Christian counsellor who would not help same sex couples was not discriminated against - McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd [2009] UKEAT 0106_09_3011 Under TUPE the obligation to inform always applies, even when no measures are contemplated relating to the transfer - Cable Realisations Ltd v GMB Northern [2009] UKEAT The Court of Appeal rules on Harassment and 'Oppressive and Unacceptable' behaviour Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1288 For s4A(3) of the DDA to apply the employer must have known (or ought to have known) that the employee was disabled and that the disability would affect him in the manner described in section 4A(1) - DWP v Alam [2009] UKEAT 0242_09_0911 A discrimination case may not proceed on the mere possibility that evidence might emerge during cross examination - ABN Amro Management Services v Hogben [2009] UKEAT 0266_09_0111 In cases of discriminatory dismissal tribunals may reduce compensation if the worker would in any event have been dismissed - Chagger v Abbey National Plc & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 1202 It is possible to claim unfair dismissal abroad even if the workplace is registered outside the UK - Diggins v Condor Marine Crewing Services Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1133 Autoklenz 'Subcontractors' were employees - the contractual substitution clause was just 'window dressing' - Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 1046 Contract was ultra vires but employee still able to pursue unfair dimsissal claim under ERA 96 - Shrewsbury & Telford Hospital NHS Trust v Lairikyengbam [2009] UKEAT 0499_08_2108 |
||
| Do you have a problem at work? Are you being discriminated against harassed or victimised at work or have you been unfairly dismissed or wrongfully dismissed? If you are suffering from bullying victimisation or discrimination at work you need to contact WorkRep early on. Whatever your employment problem is, even if you have failed in your tribunal case and there is now a costs application against you we will try to help. click for further information about problems at work |
||
|
Disclaimer: articles and information published by WorkRep.co.uk are for general information purposes only. Please read the site info before using this website © 2009 Workrep | ||