Having A NatteRR: Recent Episodes
Robinson Ralph
Welcome to the Robinson Ralph podcast in which we discuss recent cases from the fascinating world of Employment Law. With an educational and entertaining spin for listeners along the way, this podcast is sure to leave you wanting more. If you wish to contact us then please email us at info@robinsonralph.com
In this episode, Simon and Dave take a look at Adams v People Potential Possibilities, a case that explores allegations of race discrimination and highlights the tribunal's approach to considering the wider context of workplace interactions and the reasonableness of an employee's perception.
As always, Dave talks listeners through the facts of the case before Simon explains the tribunal's judgment and the practical lessons employers can take away. And, because it wouldn't be Having a NatteRR without it, there's also the obligatory banter section – this week featuring plenty of chat about England's football exploits.
David and Simon are back with a new series of Having a NattteRR – the podcast that inexplicably combines terrible banter and employment law.
In this episode, they discuss the Employment Tribunal decision in Littlewood v Nuffield Health, a noteworthy whistleblowing and constructive unfair dismissal case.
David talks listeners through the facts before Simon examines the judgment and the Tribunal's reasoning.
Away from the legal issues, listeners are treated to a fascinating diversion into the historical origins of his son's running shoes.
🎙️ New Episode Alert: Having a Natter
(or as we like to call it… two solicitors, one microphone, and absolutely no promise of staying on topic.)
This week, Simon and David dive into the case of Borisov v American International Group UK Ltd (AIG) where the Claimant’s own conduct led to his claim being struck out.
David takes us through the facts and Simon talks about the judgment.
But because this is Having a Natter, the legal analysis is only half the fun.
The rest of the episode?
- A tour of the gigs they’ve been to recently
- A discussion about whether comedians feel a sudden pressure when Simon and David turn up in the audience
So if you fancy:
✔️ A sharp, practical rundown of an interesting strike-out case
✔️ A peek into the busy social lives of two middle-aged men who think they’re still cool
✔️ And a few laughs along the way
…then this episode is for you.
🎙️ NEW ‘Having a NatteRR’ episode! ⚖️☕
In this episode, Simon and David explore the case of Garner v Thorpe Hall Leisure — an important reminder of the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
David talks us through the facts of the case, while Simon takes on the judgment — both sharing insights, practical takeaways.
And of course, no natteRR is complete without the banter section — expect family updates, weekend plans, and the usual off-topic detours.
🎧 Tune in for legal insight with a generous splash of personality.
In the latest episode of "Having a NatteRR", Simon and David discuss DB v Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd, an unfair dismissal claim in which the Claimant was sacked for inadvertently exposing his private parts during a work Teams call.
David talks us through the facts and Simon goes through the judgment.
Also featuring:
☕ David’s trip to Wrexham
🥐 Simon’s dream about Ryan Reynolds and a Premier Inn breakfast
Whether you're here for the legal insight, the laughs, or the low-key love for Welsh football clubs, this one’s not to be missed.
In the latest episode of 'Having a NatteRR', Simon and David explore the case of Rooke v NHS Blood and Transplant, in which the Claimant was awarded nearly £30,000 after being compared to Darth Vader at work.
🧑⚖️ David lays out the facts.
📜 Simon breaks down the judgment.
🍪 Obviously biscuits are mentioned.
🌍 There’s some chat about the merits of Croydon vs Croyde.
🌌 And of course — plenty of Star Wars references.
Whether you're into employment law, HR issues, or just want to hear two solicitors try to out-nerd each other on all things intergalactic, this one’s for you.
In this week’s Having a Natter, Simon and David tackle the case of Forrester-Hayes v Scania (Great Britain) Ltd, which involved a claim of discrimination arising from disability.
🧠 David walks us through the facts
⚖️ Simon breaks down the judgment
👏 And we all go home happy (or at least slightly better informed)
But it wouldn’t be Having a Natter without a generous helping of actual nattering...
Expect:
📺 80s nostalgia (Birds Eye Steakhouse Grills, anyone?)
🍊 A hark back to when orange juice was considered a starter
🍷 A deep—and entirely inconclusive—debate on whether port really does come from Portugal (we’re still not sure… are you?)
In the latest episode of Robinson Ralph’s ever unpopular podcast "Having a NatteRR", Simon and David take on the serious stuff and the shed stuff.
This week’s legal spotlight: Yousif v The Good Shepherd Trust, a case involving a claim of harassment related to race. As ever, Simon and David break it down and highlight the lessons for employers.
And let us not forget the banter section (aka “Middle-aged Men Do Outdoorsy Things”) which in this episode covers:
🧹 Clearing out sheds
🚜 Mowing lawns
🏯 Erecting pagodas
If you’re looking for employment law insights with a side of dad jokes, questionable DIY chat, and the occasional philosophical musings about garden furniture – this one’s for you.
This week, Simon and David bring you their usual mix of:
✅ High-quality employment law insight
✅ Low-quality banter
The episode kicks off with a riveting update on their personal lives—expect tales of minor inconveniences, questionable life choices, and the kind of detail no one asked for. (Riveting status not guaranteed.)
Then, onto the real reason you’re here: employment law. We take a look at Selkin v Opico Ltd, where the tribunal found that procedural irregularities in the dismissal process fell outside the band of reasonable responses—a key reminder of how getting the process right matters just as much as the decision itself.
🎧 Tune in now to catch the full discussion!
In the latest episode of Having a Natter, Simon and David dive into the case of Hamilton v Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, a claim of constructive unfair dismissal. The Claimant resigned in January 2022, citing “cruel bullying behaviours” and poor management. They discuss the key takeaways for employers and what this case means in practice.
And in a double first, we’ve stepped up our tech game – recording with two new microphones and from two different locations. Isn’t technology brilliant? (Well, most of the time…)
Tune in to hear Simon and David’s thoughts on the case, what it means for employers, and of course, their usual dose of wit and wisdom.
In this episode, Simon and Dave dive into the case of Higgs v Farmor’s School, in which the claimant was dismissed from a secondary school after she shared Facebook posts criticising plans to teach about LGBT+ relationships in primary schools.
They also (once again) explain the difference between acronyms and initialisms—because apparently, some people still don’t know the difference.
And if that wasn’t enough, they somehow manage to crowbar in a few Steps song titles. Tragedy? Maybe. Worth a listen? Absolutely.
Join Simon and Dave in this first episode of the new series as they break down the case of Ashraf v NHS England, which included an allegation that shortly before the claimant was due to go on maternity leave, she was told that she was mad for having more children.
They discuss the judgment, key takeaways for employers, and what this case means in practice.
And because no 'Having a Natter' episode is complete without a few unexpected tangents, they also find time to talk about James Blunt and poultry rebellion.
In the latest episode of our 'Having a NatteRR' podcast, David and I discuss the case of Cooper v (1) Sainsbury’s and (2) Hourihan.
This case considered (amongst other things) a complaint under s.26 and s.15 EqA 2010 about the second Respondent failing to include the Claimant on an ‘International Men’s Day’ post sent to all internal colleagues and published on LinkedIn.
We look at the facts, the judgment, and what employers can learn from this case.
In this episode's banter section, we just list the things we are doing over the next few days, which may or may not be of interest.
We look at the case of Pilawa v Spericle Ltd T/a Properties on The Market, in which an employee who was rendered bedbound by endometriosis, was awarded more than £31k for unfair dismissal.
We also talk about David's camping trip, which included playing a Swedish game called 'kubb' and the time I shouted at some youths.
In the latest episode of the non-award winning 'Having a NatteRR', Simon and David examine the case of Taneja v Phoenix Whirlpools Limited, which included an allegation that the Claimant being called the incorrect name on four occasions was an act of harassment and/or direct race discrimination.
They also discuss whose weekend plans are best, with camping vs sleeping in a house, along with a teaser for the next episode: a fascinating explanation of initialism vs acronym.
In this episode, we discuss the case of Legge v the Environment Agency, in which the Claimant who had argued he had been sacked for not being a feminist, was ordered to pay £20k costs for bringing a vexatious claim.
We also discuss Dave's hurty knee, my hurty shoulder and fights between people over sitting and standing at events.
In this episode, David and I discuss the case of Wright Turner v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, which included a claim of direct disability discrimination.
We also talk about our upcoming trip to Chorley and how I was inconvenienced by the amount of 'looking' I had to do at a recent visit to Harry Potter Studios.
In this episode, Simon and David discuss the case of McLaren V Hiflow Property Services, a pregnancy discrimination case in which the Claimant won and received a £22k reward.
They look at what respondent did wrong in terms of case preparation, talk through the judgment and look at the lessons all employers can learn from this.
It also includes the ever-popular ‘banter bit’ in which Dave discusses the unhygienic state of his son’s flat in Edinburgh, and Simon reveals how to steal chocolate from your children.
In this week’s episode of Having a NatteRR, David and Simon discuss the case of In Richardson v West Midlands Trains Ltd, in which the Claimant won his claim of unfair dismissal after being sacked for played two pranks, involving placing, firstly, a tarantula’s shed exoskeleton, and, subsequently, a snakeskin in a colleague’s pigeonhole.
The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant £22,571.22, representing his loss of earnings until 6 July 2023, plus £704.99 per week from 7 July 2023 until reinstatement.
The boys discuss where the Respondent went wrong.
In addition, the “banter section” hits a new low.
In the second episode of this series of Robinson Ralph’s Having a Natter podcast, David and Simon discuss the case of Ms Lad v Lily Head Dental Practice. The Claimant in this case was removed from a work whatsapp group whilst on maternity leave and brought a claim for maternity leave discrimination. There were other aspects to the case, but that is the aspect they focus on; there are lessons to be learned for employers with employees absent on maternity leave, when it is necessary to put in place measures to ensure those employees are included in events and announcements.
They also discuss the trauma Simon anticipates suffering as a result of David not being able to accompany him for the usual evening curry whilst they are away delivering training., and the business plan for the “bus tour of injustice”.
In this episode, the first of a new series of Robinson Ralph’s Having a NatteRR podcast, Simon and David discuss the case of Muir v AstraZeneca, where the employee was dismissed in December 2020 for misconduct relating to bullying and harassment. The Tribunal criticised the employer for failing to have due regard to Mr Muir’s mental health disability, which had impacted on his behaviour. The tribunal found that Mr Muir’s line manager and other relevant managers were aware of his disability and they could have taken steps to support him, rather than dismiss him.
They also discuss how few or many people probably listen to the podcast; the “banter” section of course being the best reason to listen to the podcast and tell everyone else about it!
This week, Simon and David discuss the case of P v Crest Nicholson Operations Ltd.
It's a truly awful case of sexual harassment and vicarious liability relating to a manager's behaviour both during and after a works organised party.
David and Simon raise the importance of both reminding employees that they are still subject to codes of conduct at work dos and also the requirement to challenge bad behaviour immediately.
This week Simon and David discuss the EAT case of Mr Darrell Miles v Driver and Vehicles Standards Agency.
They focus on the Health and Safety detriment and dismissal aspect of the claim, which arose because of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The question in the case was whether the Claimant reasonably believed there were circumstances that placed him in serious and imminent danger.
The case also had to consider whether the Claimant could have raised concerns with a Health and Safety Representative / Committee, who were not based in the same office location as the Claimant.
A belief that something is harmful to health is not the same as a reasonable belief in serious and imminent danger. Subsequently, the EAT did not find that there was a reasonable belief in serious and imminent danger.
Simon and David convey a key message to employers of taking complaints seriously and dealing with an employee’s concerns.
They also invite you to write in with any jokes they should have used in this episode!
This week Simon and David discuss the case of D Martin v Jet Maintenance Limited.
They discuss the Claimant’s summary dismissal ‘in the heat of the moment’ during an altercation with a co-owner of the business.
The facts of that altercation were disputed. The Claimant acknowledged swearing but denied acting in an aggressive manner.
An internal Hearing was then carried out to hear the allegations into the Claimant’s conduct during the altercation, which was adjourned following the Claimant raising a grievance.
An HR Consultant was engaged to hear the case against the Claimant and made recommendations.
David and Simon comment on the Disciplinary Officer’s approach to those recommendations, which resulted in a finding of unfair dismissal.
Listeners will also find out how many countries begin with an ‘O’ and how long it takes Simon to answer a trivia question!
This week Simon and David discuss the case of Maxwell v HBOS Plc.
The Claimant had a long-term sickness absence and the Tribunal had to consider whether that was sufficient reason for dismissal.
They discuss the Tribunal’s considerations in respect of whether a fair process had been conducted.
The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant was in an entrenched position with a loss of faith in the Respondent and there was no realistic prospect of him returning within any reasonable time frame.
The Claimant’s claim for Unfair Dismissal was subsequently dismissed.
Listeners will also find out about Simon and David’s recent travels.
This week Simon and David discuss the case of Mrs Dumigan v The Mount School Limited.
All staff members were requested by email on a Saturday to attend a meeting on Monday.
This was a day off for the Claimant and she was due to meet her family to discuss the care of her elderly mother suffering with cancer.
Following the Claimant raising that she could not attend the meeting, she was told it was not optional. The Claimant reiterated that she could not attend, and she was told her resignation was accepted. The Claimant confirmed she had not resigned and was essentially told she was dismissed.
Simon and David discuss how employers should deal with ambiguous resignations and the issues this employer faced at the Final Hearing. This included the process that followed this email exchange, failing to follow their internal policies and the predetermined outcome of dismissal.
They reiterate the importance of our advice!
This week Simon and David discuss the case of Mr Bryce v Sentry Consulting Limited.
The Claimant suffered with Asperger’s Syndrome and Dyslexia. As a result of his condition the Claimant’s timekeeping and ability to plan ahead were impacted.
The Respondent decided not to offer more shifts to the Claimant following his lateness and performance on site, namely not monitoring the site, spending time while on shift using social media and not patrolling the site because of an alleged tripping hazard.
Simon and David discuss the Claimant’s successful claims for discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Listeners will also find out their favourite Robin Hood film.
This week Simon and David discuss the case of Ian Drury v Ministry of Defence.
The Claimant succeeded with claims of Unfair and Wrongful Dismissal. The Claimant stated he had suspended himself and there were concerns for the Claimant’s mental ill health. The Claimant was then dismissed for gross misconduct relating to his absence without leave, irrespective of these concerns.
They also discuss the determination that a 25% reduction in compensation should apply under the Polkey principle and the importance of only treating an Occupational Health report as advice, as it cannot replace the responsibility for management to make appropriate internal decisions.
There are also Ian Drury song references for our listeners!
This week Simon and David discuss the case of Mrs V Nimoni v London Borough of Croydon.
They discuss the successful claims for unfair dismissal, failure to make reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from a disability.
The Claimant worked as a Travel Trainer. The Claimant later became unable to work in this role because of her disability.
They discuss the Respondent’s failure to make reasonable adjustments by not adjusting its redeployment policy to allow the Claimant to move into a vacant role at her level, instead making the Claimant apply for the role.
The Claimant’s application was unsuccessful, and she was dismissed at a Capability Hearing on ill-health grounds.
Simon and David comment on an employer’s obligation and duty to treat disabled employees more favourably in certain circumstances.
They will also provide you with some train station trivia.
This week Simon and David discuss the case of Ms T Webb v London Underground Ltd, in which the Claimant alleged unfair dismissal and race discrimination.
The Claimant’s dismissal was because of posts on social media that the Respondent determined were offensive, inflammatory, and racially divisive following the death of George Floyd, in breach of their policies and guidance.
The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent’s determination of the Claimant’s activity on social media. The Tribunal also found that the Claimant was not the subject of racial discrimination.
The claimant was, however, found to be (procedurally) unfairly dismissed. Simon and David discuss the flaws in the Respondent's process, namely that they failed to consider any mitigation, including the Claimant’s 32 years of service and previously unblemished record.
They go on to explain what this is likely to mean in terms of arguments based on contributory fault or a Polkey deduction at the separate Remedy Hearing, as well as the Human Rights arguments advanced and how they failed to succeed.
They also discuss a variety of locations for where they may be recording our podcasts from!
This week Simon and David discuss the case of Earl Shilton Town Council v Ms K Miller.
They discuss the Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment regarding the provision of inadequate toilet facilities for women.
They discuss this in the context of the EAT finding that the Tribunal did not err in law in finding that this subjected the Claimant to direct sex discrimination.
The case involved whether the treatment of women in accessing toilet facilities, notably involving a risk of seeing a man using the urinals, amounted to a detriment because of sex.
Simon and David discuss how the issue amounted to a series of detriments. They further discuss the case giving rise to all women being in a less favourable position than all men, with sex being the reason.
They discuss how this means the motivations of the Respondent did not need to be considered, and that whilst a difference in treatment is not necessarily less favourable treatment, that difference in treatment was clearly less favourable in this case.
They also discuss why you should never ask Simon about his dreams!
This week in the first episode of a brand-new series, Simon and David discuss the case of Mr A Tunnicliff v Baytree Car Sales and others.
They discuss the case and the findings of unfair and wrongful dismissal.
They also discuss the fact that the Respondent’s main witness was away on a cruise at the time of the Hearing, meaning that no live evidence was given on behalf of the Respondent, as well as the Tribunal finding that there had been falsification of evidence.
They consider this in the context of the Tribunal’s comment that the Respondent’s conduct was ‘reprehensible’, the Claimant’s request for an application for costs, and an award being made for the maximum uplift of 25% for a failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice.
They also discuss their recent travels and search for an Indian restaurant.
This week Simon and David talk about the case of X v Y & Z, in which a female executive who was bombarded with peach emojis by her boss and was eventually awarded £420,000 after successfully claiming sex-related harassment and victimisation.
We will discuss the harassment suffered by the claimant, as well as the problems the Respondent caused itself by its approach to the grievance investigation.
David and Simon also tell you why they can’t tell you the name of the case; in short, they don’t want to go to jail.
In this week’s case Simon and David discuss the case of Mr D Duployen v Whyte & Mackay Ltd.
This week’s case reiterates the importance of properly exploring reasonable adjustments and working with an employee collaboratively to reduce the impact of their absences.
They also consider how a blanket approach to absence management and trigger points will rarely be reasonable.
The Tribunal in this case upheld that the absence trigger points were a PCP which placed the employee at a substantial disadvantage, with the employer having no mechanism to account for disability or disability-related absence.
In this week’s podcast Simon and David discuss the case of Mr D Finch v Clegg Gifford & Co Ltd and S Bellamy.
The Claimant brought claims of direct discrimination and harassment on age and disability grounds, discrimination arising from a disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation.
Simon and David discuss the details of the claims, noting that not all claims succeeded.
They also provide their views on dealing with difficult and sensitive topics, including working with the employee to resolve any concerns.
This week’s case also serves as a reminder that some settlement discussions can become admissible in evidence.
This week on the podcast Simon and David discuss the case of Miss M Doran v Pearl Holdings NW Limited.
They discuss the Claimant's intermittent chronic migraines amounting to a disability and the Tribunal's finding of a failure to make reasonable adjustments by her employer.
They discuss this in the context of the Claimant's employer refusing to let the Claimant leave her shift early due to her migraine, saying it was 'tough'.
The Claimant was subsequently forced to sit in a stock room where she lost her balance and was left lying on the floor without medical assistance for 2 hours, despite there being surveillance in this room and so management being aware of this.
They further discuss following the Claimant being fit to return to work her being told by her employer that they could no longer guarantee her hours and she ought to step down due to her health issues, the impact it was having on her and the team and the health and safety concerns they had.
Simon and David further reflect on the importance of management training, including on managing sickness absence and equality and diversity in the workplace.
This week Simon and David discuss the case of Mrs Regnante v Essex Cares Ltd.
We discuss the judgment upholding the Claimant’s Constructive (Unfair) Dismissal claim relating to the Covid-19 pandemic and the Claimant requesting to work from home due to her husband’s clinically extremely vulnerable status.
We discuss the Tribunal’s assessment of the employer’s decision not to allow the Claimant to continue working from home, despite the government guidance in place at the time.
We also consider the contradicting options the Claimant was provided with by her employer, of taking 12 weeks unpaid leave or coming into work and staying in a hotel due to her concerns for her husband. We give our views on this conflicting approach and how it ultimately impacted the Tribunal’s findings that the employer failed to act reasonably and was not justified in their stance.
In a truly damning indictment of the quality of the podcasts, Imogen decided to sit this one out!
This week, Simon, David, and Imogen discuss the case of Miss Allen v Primark Stores Limited.
We discuss the Claimant’s successful appeal to the EAT and the decision that in claims for indirect discrimination, the comparison pool should be matched to the relevant provision, criterion, or practice (PCP).
The case involved the Claimant making a flexible working request and having a requirement imposed on her to guarantee her availability to work the late shift on Thursdays each week.
The Claimant argued that this put her, as a woman, at a substantial disadvantage given her childcare responsibilities, having made the flexible working request on maternity leave in advance of her return to work.
The Claimant subsequently resigned, claiming constructive (unfair) dismissal and indirect sex discrimination.
We discuss the implications of the EAT’s finding, having now been remitted for re-hearing.
This week, Simon, David, and Imogen discuss the case of Catriona Robinson v Mind Monmouthshire Ltd.
The former employee of Mind, mental health charity, succeeded in her claims for automatic unfair dismissal (public interest disclosures), failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation.
We discuss the issues in the case, focussing on the need to address bullying and harassment in the workplace and the need for employers to have clear policies on acceptable workplace behaviour.
We also highlight the need to provide up to date training to equip managers on how to properly deal with issues of this nature.
We also discuss the reputational impacts of the high-profile litigation.
In the latest episode of this series, Simon, David, and Imogen discuss the case of Cassidy v Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd.
The case involved the dismissal of Miss Cassidy for eating a chocolate bar and giving some to a customer, caught on CCTV, with the chocolate bar believed to be the stock of Iceland.
We discuss the issues in the case, focussing on the flaws of the investigation conducted into the suspected theft of stock, representing gross misconduct.
We discuss the importance of clearly outlining the allegations to the employee under investigation and throughout the disciplinary process, enabling them to put forward their position in response to the allegations.
We also discuss the importance of your internal policies, to ensure that the employer’s rules are clearly communicated and understood by staff, noting that the employee in this case raised doubt over whether the items were stock, and that she believed they belonged to a colleague and that they would regularly eat each other’s food.
We also discuss what our favourite desserts are.
In the third episode of this series, Simon, David, and Imogen discuss the rules on taking evidence from abroad via video conference in the Employment Tribunal.
We discuss the case of Agbabiaka, which is about the process for what you need to do if witnesses you intend to call will be out of the country, but are otherwise available and willing to give evidence virtually.
We also discuss the relevance of the case in the context of Covid-19 disrupting travel plans and placing a particular emphasis on the need for evidence to be given virtually.
In the second episode of our new series, Simon, David and Imogen discuss the Employment Tribunal case of Allette v Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home Ltd.
We discuss the case, including how a situation will be assessed when a mandatory vaccination requirement has been adopted by an employer before the appropriate legislation has been introduced to mandate that.
We also discuss the relevance of the case in the context of the recent changes in government policy on the compulsory vaccination mandate in the health and social care sector.
This week, in the first episode of the series, Simon, David and Imogen discuss the Employment Tribunal case of Ms D Fitzpatrick v The Scottish Ministers.
We discuss the issues in the case, including the Claimant's allegations that she was "restrained" by male colleagues in December 2010, as a lesson to "keep her mouth shut" after blowing the whistle about a toxic workplace culture.
The Respondent's case was that they had dismissed Fitzpatrick for gross misconduct, stating she had intentionally lied about the date of the incident and forged emails.
We discuss the Tribunal's finding that the Claimant was fairly dismissed and the evidence presented to the Tribunal by a digital forensic expert, that the image was actually taken in August 2009.
We also provide you with our key takeaway points for dealing with difficult workplace issues.
This week, Simon, David and Imogen discuss the Employment Tribunal case of Miss A Curtis v Milltek Sport Ltd in the final episode of this year’s series.
We discuss the issues in the case, focussing on the Claimant’s public interest disclosure that the Managing Director of the company was fraudulently using a company credit card. This included that he was using funds to upgrade to business class on flights, pay for parts on his vehicle and buy gifts for his partner.
We provide our insight on five key ways to investigate disclosures of this nature and what further claims can arise should you fail to do so.
This week, Simon, David, and Imogen discuss the Employment Tribunal case of Mr L Marana v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust.
We discuss the issues in the case, including the Claimant’s dismissal for gross misconduct due to his 'pattern of inappropriate and unwanted behaviour' towards a young healthcare assistant in his team.
We focus on the Claimant’s claims that the allegations he faced, such as his attempting to kiss the assistant on the lips numerous times, were a ‘cultural norm’.
We each give the others’ view on the Tribunal’s findings that dismissed the Claimant’s claims for race discrimination and found that his actions towards the woman went beyond 'friendly' Filipino customs.
This week, Simon, David and Imogen discuss the Employment Tribunal case of Jasmine Stunell v Leo Bancroft Salon Ltd.
We discuss the issues in the case, focussing on the Claimant’s claims of age discrimination in respect of comments made to her when she was 16 years old, including ‘grow up’ and ‘pull yourself together’.
We each give the others’ view on the Tribunal’s findings that the remarks complained of are not intrinsically linked to age.
David also expresses his anger towards the automated voices for zoom and lifts.
This week David and Imogen discuss the Employment Tribunal case of Mrs R Malone v The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland. We discuss the issues in the case, focussing on the findings of the Tribunal that there was a ‘sexist boys’ club culture’ within the armed response vehicle unit. We go on to discuss further findings that much of the witnesses’ evidence for the Police, which included high ranking officers, was deemed not credible.
The Tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s claim of sex discrimination but upheld her complaint of victimisation.
We also discuss updates amongst the team, including the suspicious loft, and try our best to give each other's viewpoints on the case.
This week Simon, David and Imogen discuss the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of Moore v Phoenix Product Development Limited. We discuss the issues of the case, focusing on the Employee who was dismissed not having been afforded an appeal. The dismissal was found to be reasonable in all the circumstances and ultimately it was found that an appeal was not necessary on the facts.
We discussed the importance of the facts of the case in the EAT arriving at this decision, including that this was a dismissal for some other substantial reason (SOSR). We discuss the potential for this case to have been decided differently, should the actual reason for dismissal have been found to be conduct related on its facts.
We also discuss our team member Imogen moving into a new house... and a rather suspicious loft.
This week Simon, David and Imogen discuss the case of Lacatus v Barclays Execution Services Limited. The case had many issues, but we focus on the Tribunal’s findings that the male line manager of the female Claimant, in referring to women as “birds”, subjected the Claimant to direct sex discrimination. The Tribunal found that “the use of the phrase ‘bird’ was a misplaced use of irony which inadvertently caused offence”, thus demonstrating that it is the effect on the individual that is usually relevant in discrimination or harassment claims, rather than the intention of the perpetrator.
We also explore the differences between Orville the Duck and Uri Geller. As you’d expect.
The podcast returns this week with a brand new series of 'Having a NatteRR'!
This week for the first episode, Simon, David and Imogen discuss the case of Mr David Seccombe v Reed in Partnership Ltd. They discuss the case concerning whether the Claimant had a disability and the fundamental distinction between a Claimant having a disability and the Respondent (Employer) being aware of that disability, including where this has not been disclosed by the Employee at the outset of employment.
Having A NatteRR returns with a brand new episode.
This week, Simon, David and Imogen discuss the case of Flatman v Essex County Council. In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an Employment Tribunal had erred by failing to identify whether a fundamental breach of contract by an employer had occurred before the point of an employee's resignation and reaffirmed that, once committed, a fundamental breach cannot be cured.
Robinson Ralph is back with a brand new episode of 'Having A NatteRR'.This week, David, Jane, and Imogen discuss the case of Aylott v BPP University Limited. In this case, the Employment Tribunal awarded the Claimant, a former employment law lecturer who suffered with depression and anxiety, £168,047.40 after finding that she had been constructively and unfairly dismissed following the Respondent's lack of action and a failure to make reasonable adjustments by neither reducing her workload, nor supporting her.
The second part of Robinson Ralph's special episode of ‘Having A NatteRR’ featuring the wonderful Carolyn Hobdey.
If you or your organisation wish to contact Robinson Ralph for general or specific employment law advice, please get in touch at info@robinsonralph.com.
Robinson Ralph presents a special episode of ‘Having A NatteRR’ featuring the wonderful Carolyn Hobdey.
Simon, David and Carolyn discuss the issue of bullying and grievances within HR and the particular strains and stresses which individuals who work within HR have faced, and are continuing to face in the current climate.
More specifically, they discuss:
- How to navigate bullying accusations;
- What to do when a grievance is levelled against HR; and
- The importance of self-care within HR when it comes to burn out and stress.
With Carolyn’s wide range of experience, particularly in relation to mentoring individuals within HR, it’s an episode you cannot afford to miss. In fact, it's such a good episode that it comes in two parts!
Robinson Ralph return for a special episode of 'Having A NatteRR'.
This week, Simon, David, Jane and Samuel are joined by Catrin Asbrey, Group HR Director to talk about Sellers v Doers in the workplace.
It will be obvious to the listener that Catrin elevates the podcast to a far more respectable level with her insightful contributions about a very interesting topic. It was a pleasure to have Catrin on the podcast and we look forward to hopefully welcoming her back on a future episode.
Robinson Ralph is back with another episode of 'Having A NatteRR'.
Simon, David, Jane and Samuel discuss the case of Hurley v East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust. In this case, the Employment Tribunal upheld the Claimant's claim for constructive unfair dismissal after she resigned following a series of events, which included being the subject of a "practical joke" when her manager tricked her into believing that she had to deliver a 3 hour presentation the following day.
Simon talks about what he got for his birthday this week and we also explore the links that Samuel has with 'The Lord of the Rings'.
Robinson Ralph returns for yet another episode of 'Having A NatteRR'.
Simon, David, Jane and Samuel discuss the case of Austin v A1M Retro Classics Limited. In this case, the Employment Tribunal awarded the Claimant £28,560.00 after finding that he had been unfairly dismissed by the Respondent, which had accused him of breaching its social media policy as a result of a post on Facebook.
Everyone reveals their middle name (apart from Jane who mysteriously doesn’t have one) and there’s a bit of a chat about snow. Truly ground-breaking stuff!
Robinson Ralph is back with a brand new episode of 'Having A NatteRR'.
Simon, David and Samuel are joined by Jane this week in her debut appearance on the podcast to talk about the case of Pamment v Renewi Services UK Limited. In this case, the Employment Tribunal held that the Claimant, who was a recycling worker for the Respondent, was unfairly dismissed despite failing a random drugs test.
Jane talks about who her favourite contributor to the podcast has been until now and there is also a bit of a chat about sweets.
Robinson Ralph is back for a brand new series of 'Having A NatteRR'.
Simon, David and Samuel kick off the new series by discussing the case of Rawal v Royal Mail Group Limited. In this case, the Employment Tribunal awarded the Claimant, who was a postman, £37,720.98 after finding that he had been unfairly dismissed by the Respondent for urinating while on his round.
There’s also a brief and rare appearance from Juliet on the podcast as well as a rambling and uninformed discussion about coconuts, which we think Dave has got confused with bowling balls.
As a special treat for anyone who follows this absolute shambles of a podcast, Simon, David and Samuel present a special episode of 'Having A NatteRR'.
The guys talk about their views on and experiences of workplace Christmas parties. They've actually surprised themselves a little bit in that they think this episode is quite decent and they don't completely regret having recorded it. As always though, you can be the judge of whether they should or not!
Robinson Ralph returns for the final episode in Series 3 of ‘Having A NatteRR'.
Simon, David and Samuel discuss the case of Crompton v Eden Private Staff Limited. In this case, an Employment Tribunal awarded £900 to the 57-year-old Claimant who was the victim of age discrimination and harassment due to being repeatedly asked by her boss if she was having "a senior moment".
Samuel also shares some good news about his new house and David mentions that he went for a walk last weekend.
Enthralling stuff as usual.
Robinson Ralph is back with a brand new episode of ‘Having A NatteRR’.
Simon, David and Samuel discuss the case of Mehdinejad v Royal Mail. In this case, an Employment Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant £14,000 in compensation for disability harassment. The Claimant suffers from ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. A manager for the Respondent approached the Claimant and both insulted and intimidated him by repeatedly referring to him as “dodgy”.
Simon also talks about his former dream of becoming a pilot and how he would transform the designs of fighter jets. A very unique discussion which will live long in the memory.
Robinson Ralph bring you another edition of its unforgettable podcast, ‘Having A NatteRR’.
Simon, David and Samuel discuss the case of Ryan v South West Ambulance Services NHS Trust. In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal were asked to consider the question of whether a talent pool created by an employer and comprising mainly of employees below the age of 55, was indirectly discriminatory against an employee on the grounds of age.
There’s also a bit of a chat about sweets, chocolate and wine. If that isn’t a winning combination then who knows what is?
The Robinson Ralph gang are back with a brand new episode of ‘Having A NatteRR’.
Simon, David and Samuel discuss the case of BC v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland. This case concerned a number of WhatsApp messages between police officers which were found by an investigating detective and which led to misconduct charges being brought against the officers. The officers brought a petition in the Outer House of the Court of Session complaining that using their WhatsApp messages to bring non-criminal misconduct proceedings against them was a breach of their right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Simon provides an interesting anecdote about his experience with lifts and Samuel tells us about his travels around the British Isles.”
What more could you want in a podcast?”
The latest episode of 'Having A NatteRR' is now available.
This week, Simon, David and Samuel discuss the case of Morales v Premier Fruits (Covent Garden) Ltd. In this case, an Employment Tribunal granted interim relief to an employee claiming unfair dismissal who used the assistance of a trade union to bring a grievance about a reduction in wages implemented due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a lack of Personal Protective Equipment.
At the conclusion of the grievance, the Claimant was dismissed, purportedly because he had refused to consent to a pay reduction. The Claimant claimed unfair dismissal for making use of trade union services and on grounds that he had made protected disclosures. He applied for interim relief.
The Judge considered that it was likely that the Claimant would be able to show that he was dismissed because he had sought the assistance of a trade union to bring a grievance (but not the protected disclosure).
Also this week, there is a discussion about Simon and David's recent holidays; a discussion about whether a coconut is actually a nut; and a discussion about who would win a darts match between a crocodile and a great white shark.
It really has to be heard to be believed!
Listen to Simon's latest radio interview on BBC Radio Leeds with Stephanie Hirst where he discusses staff asking to remain working at home if they feel uncomfortable working in the office, employers responsibilities to ensure the safety of staff in this new Covid world and worker’s rights if they are returning from abroad and having to quarantine.
The latest episode of 'Having A NatteRR' is now available.
This week, Simon, David and Sam discuss the case of Hill v Lloyds Bank Plc. In this case, it was decided by the Employment Appeal Tribunal that requiring an employer to give an undertaking not to make a disabled employee work with colleagues who had allegedly bullied her, or to offer a severance payment if this was not possible, was in fact a reasonable adjustment.
Simon tells us about his recent Twitter success and David talks about the beer he's been brewing.
As always, enthralling stuff!
Robinson Ralph returns with yet another episode of 'Having A NatteRR'.
This week, Simon, David and Sam discuss the case of West v Redditch Borough Council. In this case, the Claimant was dismissed after accidentally opening a message on his phone containing footage of a woman making "sexual moans", which was heard by over 100 of his colleagues during a meeting.
The Claimant brought a claim of unfair dismissal and breach of contract and alleged that the noises were from a video of a 'goose honking'.
The Employment Tribunal ruled that 'on the balance of probabilities' the sounds were of a sexual nature and that the Claimant's "dishonest" explanation resulted in the dismissal rather than the video itself.
An interesting case with some useful lessons....for once!
Having A NatteRR returns for a third series which is sure to be filled with the same level of shambolic ramblings as all the other previous episodes!
Such is the reputation of this podcast, apparently even Donald Trump has tried to prevent it from returning while also trying to suspend the US election. The joke is on you though Donald because we're back!
In this episode, Simon, David and Sam discuss the case of Luckham v HSBC Bank PLC & Clegg, where the Claimant was unsuccessful in her claims of sex discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation. The Claimant alleged that she was forced out of the First Respondent after ending an affair with the Second Respondent and that senior managers "shut down" her complaints of harassment.
There is also a discussion about a slightly disturbing night out which Sam had in his youth.
It sure is good to be back!
Listen to Simon's radio interview on LBC with James O'Brien where he discusses the employment law rights of people returning from abroad and being required to self isolate by the government.
In the last episode of this series of Having A NatteRR, Simon, David and Samuel discuss what they genuinely believe is a very interesting case. Whether they succeeded in making it interesting to the listener though is another question!
The case in question is Giwa-Amu v DWP, where the Claimant was awarded £243,635 (including £42,800 for injury to feelings) for race and age discrimination.
One of the Claimant's co-workers told her that it was “racist” to say it always rained in Wales. This co-worker also, amongst other things:
• repeatedly accused the Claimant of stealing ice cream despite others asking for this to stop; • sprayed deodorant near the Claimant, knowing that she hated it; and • span around on a chair while sat next to the Claimant to try to make her feel sick.
The employment tribunal held that these acts were "undertaken in an insulting way deliberately intended to humiliate the Claimant and create a hostile environment for her.”
There is also a quick mention about David's trip into the office and Samuel talks about his issues with sun cream!
Robinson Ralph returns with yet another episode of 'Having A NatteRR'.
This week, Simon, David and Samuel discuss the Court of Appeal's decision in Sattar v Citibank. In this case, it was held that disciplinary action taken part-way through an investigation does not render a dismissal unfair, because a full and fair opportunity was presented to the employee to engage with any new material discovered during the remainder of the investigation.
There are also a number of other discussion points, but the main event is certainly a chat about Sam's very unique problems with the 1998 blockbuster film 'Armageddon'. It's both unmissable and unbelievable!
We're back again with yet another episode of Having A NatteRR, and we've really pushed the boat out on this one!
This week, Simon, David and Samuel discuss the case of Robinson v Mind. In this case, a charity worker won her unfair dismissal claim after being bullied out of her job when she reported colleagues for mocking a disabled woman and insulting the mentally ill.
There is a chat about Sam's upcoming house viewing, as well as what would happen if the next James Bond film was set in a Premier Inn.
To top it all off, the boys then narrow down which comedians and celebrities they want to tweet about appearing on the next episode! You never know....it might work!
Simon, David and Samuel are back with another episode of Having A NatteRR.
We've done quite a few of these now and given the feedback we've had, we think a more appropriate title might now be 'The Podcast That Just Won't Die'!
The case under review in this episode is the Employment Tribunal's decision in Weatherby v Amcrol Limited. This case involved a man who was sexually harassed by a female colleague, which the Respondent was found to be vicariously liable for. Because the Claimant had complained of harassment, the Respondent withdrew a potential alternative vacancy which the Claimant had expressed an interest in during a redundancy process. His dismissal therefore was found to amount to victimisation.
There is also a chat about a potential new television show which we all think could be a massive hit. You'll have to listen though to find out what it is (and then later discover that you've absolutely wasted your time....as usual!).
In this episode, Simon, David and Samuel (but mostly David) talk about the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision in Williams v Alderman Davies Church in Wales Primary School. In the original Employment Tribunal (ET) decision, the Claimant had been unsuccessful in his claim for constructive unfair dismissal. The ET had decided there was a final act which was entirely innocuous and that the Claimant had not resigned in response to a fundamental breach of contract.
There is also a discussion about middle names and which Star Wars characters Simon, David and Samuel would be. Gripping stuff!
In this special edition of Having A NatteRR, Simon, David and Samuel are joined by comedian and impressionist Danny Posthill.
Danny was a finalist on Britain’s Got Talent in 2015 and his incredibly accurate and hilarious impressions have been entertaining crowds up and down the country and around the world.
With a repertoire that includes Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and loveable Geordie duo Ant and Dec, it’s fair to say that Danny brought some much needed class to what is usually an absolute shambles of a podcast.
We hope you enjoy listening to it just as much as we enjoyed making it!
Having A NatteRR continues to light up your lockdown with yet another 'memorable' episode.
This week, Simon, David and Sam discuss the case of Power v Secure Code Warrior Limited. In this case, the Claimant brought claims of sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation against her former employer which were all dismissed at a preliminary hearing. One question for the Employment Tribunal was whether the use of the phrase 'has balls', which was used in reference to the Claimant, amounted to an act of direct sex discrimination and sex-related harassment.
The lockdown may have been extended but Having A NatteRR carries on bringing joy (or horror and sheer despair) to your ears!
This week, Simon, David and Sam discuss the case of Allen v Paradigm Precision Burnley Limited & Carl Wheeler. In this case, an employment tribunal ruled that the Claimant had suffered harassment relating to sexual orientation, direct sexual orientation discrimination, victimisation, detrimental treatment for seeking to take additional adoption leave, and constructive unfair dismissal. A total of £174,645 was ordered to be paid to the Claimant by the first Respondent.
In a special edition of Having A NatteRR, Robinson Ralph were honoured to talk with Ann Francke OBE who is the Chief Executive of the Chartered Management Institute. Ann provided great insight into how managers and leaders should help their employees through the COVID-19 crisis and gave a few hints and tips as to what to think about.
We would also strongly recommend that you check out the Chartered Management Institute's webpage on leadership during the COVID-19 crisis. Click here to view the webpage.
You'll be pleased to know that Robinson Ralph has found something to talk about which is not related to COVID-19. This week, Simon, David and Samuel discuss the Supreme Court's recent decision in WM Morrison Supermarkets plc (Appellant) v Various Claimants (Respondents).
In this case, Morrisons won its appeal on vicarious liability as the Supreme Court ruled that the online disclosure of payroll data was not an act that an employee ('S') was authorised to do. They also ruled that a temporal or causal connection alone does not satisfy the test and that it was highly material whether S was acting on his employer’s business or for purely personal reasons.
In response the developing situation in the world of employment law regarding COVID-19, Robinson Ralph held a webinar which addressed questions on the Coronavirus Jobs Retention Scheme which allows employers to designate some employees as Furloughed Workers.
Questions included:
- What does 'Furloughed Worker' mean?
- What does it mean for your organisation?
- What do you need to do?
We hope you find this podcast version of our webinar useful.
Despite being in three separate locations this week, the Robinson Ralph team discuss the case of Neave v N & C Pubs Ltd (in liquidation). This case involved a kitchen porter who was dismissed after starting his annual leave a day earlier than he was authorised to. The Employment Tribunal found the decision to dismiss was “procedurally inept” and that the porter had been unfairly dismissed.
Taking a break from tradition, the Robinson Ralph boys had a "helpful" discussion about Coronavirus and came up with some suggestions that employers may wish to consider incorporating within the workplace.
Up for discussion this week is the case of Uddin v London Borough of Ealing. In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that an employee had been unfairly dismissed due to the failure of an investigating officer to tell a dismissing manager that the victim of an alleged sexual assault by the dismissed employee had withdrawn her complaint to the police.
The brand new episode of Series 2 of Having A NatteRR features a discussion about the recent Preliminary Hearing in the case of Khan v Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which has ultimately led the CPS to consider making an application to restrict a prolific complainant from bringing further proceedings without permission.
Under the microscope this week is the recent case of Rae v Wellhead Electrical Supplies Limited. The former managing director of a company resigned in anger by telling another director “I won’t be back”. He was then prevented from retracting his resignation by the company’s board of directors.
Whilst agreeing that the resignation “amounted to an apparently unambiguous resignation”, the judge found that the company should have thought more given the circumstances before terminating the managing director’s employment. The managing director’s claim of unfair dismissal was upheld.
There are quite a few take away points from this one so it’s well worth a listen!
This week, Robinson Ralph discuss the case of Munro v Sampson Coward LLP. This case involved a legal secretary who claimed to have suffered age discrimination after being asked by colleagues about her 50th birthday and receiving a birthday card from those same colleagues. The claim was struck out due to an 'unusual and extreme’ sensitivity to the legal secretary's age. We thought it would make for an interesting discussion so we sure hope that you all agree.
In the second episode of Series 2 of Having A NatteRR, we discuss the case of Sunshine Hotel v Goddard in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that there will not always be a requirement that an employer hold an investigation meeting before holding a disciplinary meeting in order for a dismissal to be fair.
Guess who's back with a brand new podcast! That's right, it's the return of 'Having A NatteRR' as Simon, Dave and Sam bring you the first instalment of Series 2 of our mind-numbing ramblings.
As it's all anybody in the world of Employment Law wants to talk about at the moment, this episode discusses the very recent ruling in Casamitjana v League Against Cruel Sports and the recognition of "ethical veganism" as a philosophical belief protected under the Equality Act.
The boys also have a bit of a chat about the recently published judgment in Forstater v CDG Europe and Others in which an Employment Tribunal ruled that any assertion that a transgender person with a GRC would remain or continue to be their birth sex would not be a philosophical belief.
Simon is joined by special guest and expert on harassment Animah Kosai to discuss the issue of sexual harassment within the workplace.
*Apologies for any audio difficulties that you may experience.
How to handle and conduct grievance investigations and hearings are covered in this webinar by Simon. There are a number of useful insights and a few hints and tips along the way.
*Apologies for any audio difficulties that you may experience.
In this webinar, Simon discusses the important and sensitive issues concerning Harassment and Bullying within the workplace.
*Apologies for any audio difficulties that you may experience.
Simon discusses particular sticking points when it comes to employers effectively dealing with and managing sickness absences.
*Apologies for any audio difficulties that you may experience.
Simon and Dave are joined by their special guest in the form of Human Resources Director Carolyn Hobdey to discuss the important issue of Menopause in the Workplace.
*Apologies for any audio difficulties that you may experience.
Simon and Dave chat about and provide a useful insight into the topic of Redundancy.
*Apologies for any audio difficulties that you may experience.
Join us for the final episode in this first series of the Robinson Ralph podcasts in which the boys talk about the potential perils of Christmas parties.
In the penultimate episode of the series, the Robinson Ralph boys discuss the case of Aplin v The Governing Body of Tywyn Primary School in which an award of £696,255.65 was made by an employment tribunal. Plenty to explore and discuss.
The boys have a special guest this week as Carloyn Hobdey joins in the conversation to discuss the recent case of Forbes v LHR Airport and to share some of her experiences whilst bringing some much-needed class to the whole sorry shambles.
In this episode, the boys have what could be described as their most serious conversation yet about the case of Brooks v Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. Well, it's safe to say that at least 30 seconds are serious before normal service is resumed.
This week, the Robinson Ralph boys have a go at discussing the case of Dronsfield v University of Reading in addition to the usual shenanigans that have come to be expected from episodes of Having A NatteRR.
Here is the fourth edition of the Robinson Ralph podcast. This week, the boys discuss the recent decision in Case v Tai Tarian in addition to sharing some of their impressions...whether they are any good or not though is still a question to be decided!
The third edition of the Robinson Ralph podcast where we discuss the case of Mackereth v Department of Work and Pensions.
Here is the second edition of the Robinson Ralph podcast where we discuss the case of Hoch v Thor Atkinson Steel Fabrications where an employee was subjected to racial and homophobic abuse by his employer that left him “terrified.”
Listen to the debut edition of the Robinson Ralph podcast in which we discuss the recent case of Conisbee v Crossley Farms Limited.