The case of Berg v Blackburn Rovers Football Club and Athletic PLC concerns the appointment of Henning Berg as Manager of Blackburn Rovers on the 1st November 2012, and his departure after 57 days, which resulted in a claim for a very substantial payment under the contract. Mr Berg was appointed following negotiations with Derek Shaw, Blackburn’s Managing Director, for a fixed term until 30th June 2015. One of the terms included in the contract was the Club’s right to terminate the agreement at any time with immediate effect conditional upon it paying Mr Berg a sum by way of liquidated damages equivalent to the balance of the unexpired fixed period. His annual salary was £900,000. When his contract was terminated by Mr Shaw after only 57 days, Mr Berg claimed £2.25m in damages.
Articles by ‘Gemma Ospedale’
The CGEU has issued a decision on a number of cases brought by HK Danmarkacting on behalf of Ring v Dansk Almenngttigt Boligselskab; Werge v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Pro Display A/S concerning disability and its definition, which may have an impact on how the issue of disability is decided under the Equality Act in the UK.
Zero hours contracts have been in the news recently
Topical in the news at the moment is the revelation that John Lewis are paying their staff compensation for not being paid the full entitlement for holiday pay.
The government has announced the annual increase in the national minimum wage as follows:-
A recent High Court decision on preventing former employees from competing will provide encouragement to employers who are concerned about protecting confidential information when employees leave. In Whitmar Publications v Gamage, three employees who had worked for the claimant, a publisher, for three years resigned to set up their own company in competition with Whitmar. The company, upon discovering the existence of this new company and having every reason to believe that they had started to do this before their resignation, applied for injunctive relief from the High Court to prevent them using the confidential information which they had obtained from the company whilst employed by it. This was an urgent application and consequently the court could only make a preliminary assessment on the weight of evidence available to it but it concluded nonetheless that there was a “strong case” that the employees had been taking more than just preparatory steps prior to their resignation, but had in fact taken active steps with a view to competing with their employer on leaving.
Employers may have noticed the juggernaut of cases through the national and European courts giving ever more rights to employees for payment of holiday pay where they are off sick. Well, finally there has been a small brake on this activity, which will be of some respite for employers.
In Ahmed v Bedford Borough Council, the EAT held that a discrimination claim could not be struck out for a wilful failure on the part of the Claimant to comply with Tribunal orders unless consideration had been given to whether the failure rendered a fair trial of the issues impossible.
In Country Weddings v Crossman the EAT held that a Tribunal does not have the power to apportion liability between co-Respondents where orders for compensation are made towards Respondents jointly, or jointly and severally. The EAT held that all the Tribunal can do is to make an order for joint, or joint and several, liability as the case may be. If the parties have an issue as to which should bear the greater brunt of liability, this is a matter than has to be determined in the County or High Court under the provisions of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978.
This is a case which will have some resonance with many employers. Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds, concerned a case of a black employee who lodged 10 internal grievances alleging race discrimination over a period of 4 years. He separately brought 7 Employment Tribunal claims against the employer, almost all of which were found to be empty allegations with no evidential basis or grounds for his suspicions. Eventually, out of the employer’s frustration, he was sacked. What happened?
In Contract Bottling Limited v Cave the EAT has held that an employee may be dismissed for redundancy where the employee’s own job remains but there is a diminished need for different kinds of employees in the business.
In a case which will encourage employers which have problematic employees, the EAT in City and County of Swansea v Gayle has held that an employer has not breached the employee’s Article 8 rights by using evidence from covert surveillance to dismiss him.