Should the Top Gun Academy have been concerned about the student/instructor relationship and have created an internal Relationships Policy? And who was to blame for Goose’s death? (Warning listeners – there is some singing in this episode).

Ahmed v Metroline - https://bit.ly/3dRKzdb

Harassed into making reasonable adjustments - https://bit.ly/3LRcA10

FC amounts to a philosophical belief in terms of the Equality Act. They also discuss the five part “Grainger” test as to what qualifies as a “belief”. And lastly, they have cause to mention the American, award-winning actor/comedian, John C Reilly. (They *may* have confused their J Reillys)

Employment lawyers Jack, Blair and Stephen discuss how “We Can Work It Out” when taking a new recruit through a probationary period and induction process.  Blair gives some valuable tips on how “To Hold the Hand” of new starts; Jack offers advice on sorting out who within the organisation should “Carry That Weight” of overseeing the process; and Stephen discusses how slow starters should be given the chance at “Getting Better” where they need some “Help”. We also offer our views on how to tell a new start to “get back to where they once belonged” when it subsequently comes to light they have told lies in their job application. While this is the final episode of our “Newbie Road” season, the team decide to do a bonus Christmas special episode to look out for next week before we say “Goodbye” for the year.

In this episode: Employment Lawyers Stephen, Blair and Jack discuss the all important employment contract and job offer letter.   In addition to lots of useful tips about the documentation to be issued before a new employee starts work and whether a job offer can be withdrawn, we also learn which member of the team has already started Christmas shopping.  Jack reminisces about the circumstances of him joining Blackadders. Stephen remains tight lipped about his own contract negotiations. 

In this episode: Stephen, Jack and Blair discuss the important checks that need to be carried out before formally employing any successful applicant. They talk about Right to Work Checks, previous cases and provide their favourite referees of all time. You won’t believe Stephen’s choice of referee (or Blair’s impression of this referee) …

In this first episode, Employment Lawyers Simon Allison and Jack Boyle welcome a new colleague to engage in a discussion about the initial stages of a recruitment process, focusing on the application stage. They give some guidance on how to avoid discrimination and also some top tips around processing personal data. And in this episode, we discover who Jack doesn’t think could successfully apply for the job of Office Ninja (with apologies to Si’s Dad)…

Season 6: 'The Law Behind the Headlines' series of podcasts. We take a look at the stories making the headlines and ask, “Is this case for real? How did the employer get away with that? And what is the law behind the headlines?”

In the final (bonus) episode: Simon and Jack discuss the case O’Brien v Bloom Perfumery where Mr O’Brien’s employer offers him furlough or dismissal on notice. He picks furlough but his employer dismisses him with notice. Then, less than a fortnight later, dismisses him on the basis of gross misconduct. Was this dismissal fair? Is the team’s suggested headline better than the actual headline? Does the marketing team need to spend their remaining budget on a dialect coach for Si & JB? (the answer to each question is a resounding “no”)

Employment Lawyer In Your Pocket podcast will return in the Autumn.

In the finale of Season 6: Simon and Jack discuss the headline “Scots Costa Worker wins £14k payout after being sacked for grabbing jacket during fire alarm”. The Employment Lawyers brew over the facts of the case of Dudenko V Costa Limited, consider points in the tribunal hearing and provide their 3 Takeaway Tips for employers. But were their coffee puns the perfect blend? 

We hope you enjoyed Season 6!

In this episode, Michelin-starred chef is dismissed for letting his two young boys play football in his restaurant during a private party for friends and family. Simon and Jack discuss the case of Williams v The Westbury Hotel Limited. Mr William’s sons kick a ball around the restaurant in a make-shift football pitch, wrestle with each other and drink tabasco sauce from the bottle. But was the dismissal fair? Listen to this podcast to find out. We also hear a few food-related puns, some Tony Soprano impressions and a (really old) knock knock joke. 

In this episode: Simon and Jack discuss the headline “Care worker sacked over Facebook post, saying there were no decent, honest Muslims”. Linda Henderson wins her unfair dismissal claim against Ashgill Care Home. However the Employment Judge reduces her compensation to zero partly based on her contributory conduct. We also get to hear Jack’s infamous crisp joke although there isn’t enough time to discuss his piercing….(fortunately)

In this episode: Lidl caretaker is dismissed for showing colleagues his swastika tattoo. He lodges race discrimination and unfair dismissal claims and wins compensation. Simon and Jack discuss the case of Horvarth v Lidl GB Limited along with the tests for harassment and unfair dismissal applied by the Employment Judge. They argue over the correct pronunciation of the word “Lidl” and listeners avoid hearing Jack’s terrible crisp joke. (Listeners will regrettably hear Simon sing/speak a rock song, which he believes is relevant to this case)

In this episode: Simon, Jack and Ruth discuss the headline, “Gym trainer with fear of sweat wins disability claim after refusing to pick up dirty towels”. Ms Burton lodges various claims of discrimination against Nuffield Health, including a claim for harassment. The team talk about the acts of harassment which Ms Burton suffered, the issue of disability and the tribunals findings. They also avoid telling Jack the identity of H (Line of Duty) and come up with their own (snappier) headlines. 

In this episode, Simon and Jack discuss the headline, “What?????? University Lecturer wins £15k for using too many question marks in texts – but Judge rules excessive punctuation IS unnecessary aggressive”. They consider the employment tribunal case of Sobnack v Loughborough University where, although the tribunal found Dr Sobnack’s dismissal to have been unfair, it reduced the award on the basis of his blameworthy conduct. Simon also sings all the Leicester City Football Club songs he knows. (It’s fortunately just the one. Sung twice)

In this season, we take a look at the stories making the headlines and ask, “Is this case for real? How did the employer get away with that? And what is the law behind the headlines?”

In this episode, Simon and Jack discuss the case of Staines v North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service. This case made the headlines since it involved a Yorkshire fireman who referred to his gay colleague as “Arthur” or “half a man”, was dismissed, lost his unfair dismissal claim but still won over £12k in compensation against his ex-employer. Simon and Jack sprinkle some Yorkshire phrases into this podcast (I blame Google) and, if you listen carefully, you can “enjoy” the historic “banter” JB had with Si’s mother-in-law.

In this episode, Simon, Jack and Ruth discuss a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal case against Victoria Whelan with the headline, “Junior solicitor suspended over email sent in “moment of blind panic”. They discuss the employment points, data protection issues and data breach implications for employers. Listen to the end to see if they finally get a better headline….…

In this episode, Simon and Jack discuss the Daily Mail headline, “Officer sacked for calling black colleague ‘King of the Jungle’ wins £16,000 payout as Judge rules his remark wasn’t racist.” They discuss the reasons why the Employment Judge found that there had been an unfair dismissal. And they also get a bit excitable with their cockney (Blairgowrie) rhyming slang…

In this episode, Simon and Jack discuss the landmark case of Kubilius v Kent Food Limited which is the first reported case that determined the wearing of face masks on site. The driver was sacked by his employer for refusing to wear a mask whilst within in the cab of his lorry on a client’s site. An Employment Judge determined the fairness of his dismissal. And if you listen to the end, you’ll hear what Jack thinks the headline should be have been…