1. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire v Jelic (DDA reasonable adjustments)
2. Roldan v Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust (extent of disciplinary investigations)
3. Leeds City Council v Woodhouse (Contract labour)
4. Secretary of State for Justice v Mansfield (effect of ongoing police investigations)

===============================================
1. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire v Jelic [2010] UKEAT

Disability Discrimination Act; reasonable adjustments

The EAT handed down this decision in April 2010 which is authority for the proposition that swapping the role of a disabled employee with that of another employee is capable of being a reasonable adjustment under the DDA.

The Claimant had chronic anxiety syndrome. Medical evidence stated clearly that whilst he could perform his roles as a police officer that he could not be perform the role of a traffic police officer due to his symptoms and interaction with the public.
The Employment Tribunal found that in the particular circumstances of the case that it would have been reasonable to:
(1) Swap the jobs being undertaken by the Claimant and another police officer or;
(2) Medically retire the Claimant on a police pension and re-engage him in a civilian support role

The Chief Constable appealed the Tribunal’s decision as it did not consider that either of the above was capable of being a reasonable adjustment.

The EAT agreed that a job swap would be a reasonable adjustment but they did not entirely agree with the Tribunal’s decision on medical retirement.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2010/0491_09_2904.html

===============================================
2. Roldan v Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust (Court of Appeal) [2010]

Unfair dismissal; extent of investigations

The Court of Appeal in this recent judgement has made it clear that Tribunals are entitled to scrutinise the fairness of a dismissal more carefully where the outcome may blight an employee’s career or destroy their opportunity to work in the UK.

This case concerned a Filipino nurse recruited from Singapore who had worked in the Trust for over 4 years. The allegation at the disciplinary hearing was that she had made a V sign at a patient and threw discarded wipes at him, along with other inappropriate behaviour. The Court of Appeal held that she had “acted foolishly in response to aggressive conduct from a hostile patient”.

The evidence was from one other nurse and the disciplinary panel believed the other nurse. The Tribunal found that the dismissal had been unfair as the evidence had not been properly tested. The Court of Appeal agreed and stated that as the impact of her dismissal was that she would be unable to work in the UK, the evidence should have been examined and tested more carefully.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/522.html

===============================================
3. Leeds City Council v Woodhouse and others (Court of Appeal)

Contract labour

Leeds City Council (LC) contracted with West North West Homes Leeds Ltd (WN) to provide housing services. WN contracted with LC for a department of LC to provide housing services back to WN so that WN could discharge its duty to LC.

WN employed the Claimant. WN supplied the Claimant to LC. LC employed Mr Chapman.

The Claimant issued a claim of race discrimination against WN, LC and the employee of LC, Mr Chapman.

LC argued without success that the Claimant had no jurisdiction to bring a claim as he was not a contract worker.

The Court of Appeal held that:

(a) It is not necessary for a budding “contract worker” to establish a Respondent has control or influence over the work that he did.
(b) There was no need to show the primary purpose of obligation between the two contracting parties was the supply of labour. WN could not perform its obligations without employing labourers to carry out the work. As such, the supply of workers was pursuant to an obligation under that contract.
(c) Since WN was a wholly owned subsidiary with one client (LC) everything done by WN’s servants was being done not only for WN but LC as well.

Interestingly it seems from this case that the application of section 7 should be considered within the main hearing rather than as a preliminary point/pre-hearing review.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/410.html

===============================================
4. Secretary of State for Justice v Mansfield EAT

Disciplinary procedures; effect of ongoing police investigations)

The EAT held in this unfair dismissal case that where an employee is facing disciplinary proceedings and at the same time being investigated by the police, the decision maker has a wide discretion whether to continue or postpone the disciplinary hearing.

In this case the decision to postpone could not be criticised as an unjustifiable delay.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2010/0539_09_2403.html