DMH Stallard Employment eBulletin

In this issue:

•	ACAS publishes Guidance on Social Networking in the Workplace
•	Prigge and others v Deutsche Lufthansa AG C 447/09 (CJEU)
•	Garside and Laycock Limited v Booth [2011] UKEAT/0003/11
•	Jackson v Liverpool City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1068
•	Marcroft v Heartland (Midlands) Limited [2011] EWCA Civ 438
•	Perry v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust UKEAT 0473/10

Welcome to the latest edition of the DMH Stallard Employment eBulletin.

This month we highlight the new guidance on social networking in the workplace, recently published by ACAS.

It is estimated that the misuse of the internet and social networking by workers costs Britain’s economy billions of pounds each year and studies have indicated that, on average, workers spend seven hours online per week. This is, therefore, an issue that employers must take seriously.

We also profile a number of interesting cases that have implications for employers.

If you have any questions arising from the articles in this eBulletin then please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Blair Adams
Partner

Meet the rest of the Employment Group

To register for further newsletters and DMH Stallard updates please click here

ACAS publishes Guidance on Social Networking in the Workplace

The guidance considers the impact of sites such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube and provides tips for employers on how best to tackle these new issues.

Prigge and others v Deutsche Lufthansa AG C 447/09 (CJEU)

European Court of Justice holds that air traffic safety does not constitute a legitimate aim that can be relied upon by an employer to justify a compulsory retirement age.

Garside and Laycock Limited v Booth [2011] UKEAT/0003/11

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) confirms that a Tribunal focussed too closely on the reasonableness of the employee’s refusal to accept a reduction in pay, when considering whether the resulting SOSR dismissal was unfair.

Jackson v Liverpool City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1068

Court of Appeal confirms that employer was not negligent in providing a reference which referred to allegations that had not been investigated.

Marcroft v Heartland (Midlands) Limited [2011] EWCA Civ 438

Court of Appeal confirms that TUPE operated to transfer the contract of an employee who was serving out his notice period at the date of transfer.

Perry v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust UKEAT 0473/10

EAT holds that dismissal was unfair, as the appeal panel’s decision to uphold the dismissal on a “wholly different basis” was outside of range of reasonable responses open to employer.