Cass. soc., 31 janvier 2024, n°22-18.792 La lettre de licenciement n’a pas à préciser la date des faits invoqués. Un salarié licencié pour faute grave conteste la rupture de son contrat de travail, en se fondant notamment...more
Cass. soc., 31 January 2024, n°22-18.792 - A dismissal letter does not have to specify the date of the alleged acts. An employee dismissed for gross misconduct contested the termination of his employment contract, citing...more
The Belfast Industrial Tribunal in Northern Ireland has recently rejected two claims of unfair dismissal following sectarian (anti-Catholic) chants posted on social media. We look at the implications of clashing views on...more
Many ethics attorneys were intrigued by media reports of a complaint filed in February by Elliott Greenleaf, P.C. against four firm shareholder-attorneys and a paralegal who left the firm’s Wilmington office to join Armstrong...more
WARNING: this article is intended for immature audiences. Hopefully, that light at the end of the tunnel is not the on-coming 5:15 from New Haven. While we’ve been fortunate to have continued working safely and responsibly...more
Turning a blind eye – one-off act not a PCP - In Ishola v Transport for London the Court of Appeal confirmed that it was not a provision, criterion or practice to require an employee to return to work before a proper...more
This newsletter summarises four significant judicial decisions over recent months. 1. The purpose of a probation period is for the employee’s skills to be assessed. Therefore an employee’s absence would extend the...more
Earlier this year, a labour arbitrator rendered a decision in Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Sunnyside Home) v Ontario Nurse’s Association, 2019 CanLII 43 (ON LA), that sends a clear warning to employers in Ontario about...more