



Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Suggested answers and guidance for students who took the January 2017 employment law exam. It covers topics such as sexual harassment, vicarious liability, wrongful dismissal, and unpaid time off for ante-natal appointments. Students are expected to write their answers in the style of a business letter.
Typology: Exams
1 / 7
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Note to Candidates and Tutors:
The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors with guidance as to the key points students should have included in their answers to the January 2017 examinations. The suggested answers set out a response that a very good (merit/distinction) candidate would have provided. The suggested answers do not for all questions set out all the points which students may have included in their responses to the questions. Students will have received credit, where applicable, for other points not addressed by the suggested answers.
Students and tutors should review the suggested answers in conjunction with the question papers and the Chief Examiners’ reports which provide feedback on student performance in the examination.
Question 1(a)
Sexual harassment, s.26(2) EA 2010
This is unwanted conduct of a sexual nature which has the purpose or the effect of, violating a person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.
Raj asking Simone out is likely to be verbal conduct of a sexual nature, but it never had the purpose of being anything other than positive. Even if Simone was humiliated by this, s.26(4) and its requirement (in determining whether conduct had such an effect) to take not only the perception of the complainant, the circumstances and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect will mean it wasn’t sexual harassment.
However, Raj’s retort (when she declined his advances) was both verbal conduct of a sexual nature and clearly had the purpose of being violating her dignity and being hostile. This would amount to sexual harassment.
Question 1(b)
Vicarious liability, s.109 EA 2010
Consume 24 is liable for acts of its employees committed in the “course of employment” - Jones v Tower Boot Co [1997] - unless it took all reasonably practicable steps to stop/avoid the discrimination, s.109(4) EA 2010.
The incident occurred at a Christmas party. It was not a chance meeting and was closely connected to work in its partial funding and organising, Chief Constable of the Lincolnshire Police v Stubbs [1999]. The vast majority of attendees were employees, so there cannot be any argument that the party wasn’t in the course of employment, Sidhu v Aerospace Composite Technology Ltd [2000].
Consume 24 could try and argue that it had a reasonable steps defence - that it took all reasonable steps to prevent Raj from doing what he did.
However, to be successful, Consume 24 must take preventative action. Having a written equal opportunities policy will not succeed unless it is actively implemented. The facts strongly suggest this was not the case since staff did not know whom to complain to, nor could they easily locate the document (lack of staff training?) and Bill Franklin’s initial response suggests responsibilities within the company were not clear (flawed policy and/or lack of management training?)
Question 1(c)
The tribunal may (a) make a declaration as to Simone’s rights (that she has been sexually harassed), (b) order that the Respondent(s) pay her compensation and (c) make an appropriate recommendation (typically ensure a proper harassment policy is effectively implemented).
As regards compensation, for discrimination claims there is no cap. The tribunal may also apportion it between Respondents.
Simone would receive pecuniary loss arising directly from the act of harassment: sick leave (7 hours x £9.60 gross for 1 day =£67.20) and the cost of a replacement blouse (£40).
Injury to feelings would also be relevant. As it was an isolated incident, Simone would be awarded between £500-£6,600 (probably the lower part), Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2003] and Da’Bell v NSPCC [2009].
Besides any successful award that would be payable by Consume 24, there is also the added legal costs of defending the claim, lost work hours taking statements from staff and for staff to attend the tribunal. There is also the potential damage to reputation from both a customer and recruitment perspective to take into account.
Simone would also be able to recover any fees incurred by having to lodge the claim in the employment tribunal.
Question 2(a)
Candidates were expected to provide their answer within the style of a conventional business letter i.e. date, reference, correct recipient & address, appropriate salutation, main heading & appropriate opening sentence.
Your legal position
This should have covered possible claims of (constructive) Wrongful Dismissal, (automatic) UFD and Sex Discrimination
Question 3(a)
Reg 3(1)(a) provides that a relevant transfer includes a business transfer, namely:
“A transfer of an undertaking, business (or a part of one) situated immediately before the transfer in the UK to another person where there is a transfer of an economic entity which retains its identity”
According to the EAT in Cheesman v R Brewer Contracts [2001], the entity in question must be sufficiently structured & autonomous but need not own significant assets. On the facts, TC is to be sold as a going concern, would appear to be autonomous within the Apollo structure and so would clearly be deemed an economic entity.
The next question is whether it retained its identity post-transfer?
According to the CJEU in Spijkers v Gebroeders Benedik Abattoir CV [1986], there are seven factors which employment tribunals must take into account. None can be examined independently of each other. Applying the facts to these:
When taken as a whole, it is clear that the economic entity which was TC has transferred over and retained its identity. There has been a relevant transfer according to TUPE.
Question 3(b)
The issuing of a final written warning to the Claimant on 6 December 2016 was the result of his arriving late to work. The Claimant had received oral warning on 23 July 2016 and a written warning on 13 November 2016 for the same reason.
Question 3(c)
As Nic is in a long term relationship with her girlfriend, she is entitled to take unpaid time off work to accompany her for up to 2 of her ante-natal appointments. Right applies whether the child is conceived naturally or through donor insemination.
Employees accompanying the expectant mother to her ante-natal appointments are entitled to unpaid leave for 1 or 2 appointments.
Apollo is not entitled to ask for any evidence of the ante-natal appointments, such as an appointment card, as this is the property of the expectant mother attending the appointment.
However, Apollo is entitled to ask Nic for a declaration stating the date and time of the appointment, that Nic qualifies for the unpaid time off through her relationship with the expectant mother. The declaration should also state that the time off is for the purpose of attending an ante-natal appointment with the expectant mother that has been made on the advice of a registered medical practitioner, nurse or midwife.
There may also be possible deductions, including:
As there was an unreasonable failure on the part of Healglow to follow the ACAS Code of Practice, it is possible that the employment tribunal would increase Alka’s award by up to 25%.
Question 4(c)
The original time limit is 3rd April (3 months less 1 day from the EDT). The conciliation period starts on 6th January (the day after Alka completes the form online). The end of the conciliation period is 13th January (when the certificate is emailed). The 8 days of conciliation is added to the original time limit making a new time limit of 11th April.
The general rule is that final hearings should be in public (ET Rules 56 & 59), but there are special rules allowing an employment tribunal, because, for example, it is necessary in the interests of justice or for reasons of confidentiality to order that:
Similarly, an employment tribunal has power to make an order with a view to preventing or restricting the public disclosure of any aspect of employment tribunal proceedings so far as it considers it necessary (ET rule 50(1)):
With the above in mind, since the request is only for part of the final hearing to be private, it is likely that an employment tribunal will deem this proportionate and grant the application.
Question 4(d)
The Results Determination Panel identified significant issues with Question 4(d). This Question was removed and the candidates’ marks were adjusted accordingly to ensure that candidates attempting this Question were not disadvantaged.