Employment Right Act 1996 case law

Question 1

Employment Right Act 1996

Answer 1

Employee has the right not to be subject to detriment (s44) or dismissal (s100) on the grounds that as a designated H&S employee they were doing or proposed to do their job or were performing their role as a Safety C’ttee member.

Question 2

Employment Right Act 1996 (s100) Protection for Employees

Answer 2

Masiak v City Restaurants Ltd
Chef dismissed for refusing to cook chicken which he considered unfit for consumption.
On appeal, case upheld as s100 of the ERA could refer to ‘other persons’ other than other employees, in this case the paying customers

Question 3

Employment Right Act 1996 (s100) Protection for Employees

Answer 3

Barton v Wandsworth Council (1995)
Ambulance driver disciplined for complaining about lack of trained escorts when transporting patients with disabilities.
Tribunal ruled in his favour – the actions taken against him were a detriment when he voiced genuine concerns for his own safety and that of the patients.

Question 4

Employment Right Act 1996 (s100) Protection for Employees

Answer 4

Costain Building & Civil Eng v Smith
Smith was an ‘Independent Consultant’ employed through an Agency.
Dismissed after writing critical Safety Reports.
On appeal, dismissal upheld as s100 was for employees protection but Smith was employed by the Agency, not Costain