In McCann v Snozone Ltd ET/3402068/2015, Snozone Ltd appointed an employment agency to recruit suitable candidates for two maintenance engineer vacancies. Mr McCann applied and attended two interviews with Snozone. He received a call from the agency confirming that Snozone wished to offer him the job with a salary between £28,000 and £30,000. Mr McCann verbally accepted the offer.
He received a second call stating that Snozone were pleased that he had accepted their offer. He was told that a written contract would be with him by the end of the week. Mr McCann later contacted the agency as he hadn’t received any documents.
In XC Trains Ltd v CD & Anor, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned an Employment Tribunal’s decision that a requirement that all train drivers work 50% of the rosters and Saturdays amounts to indirect sex discrimination. The EAT agreed that the requirement disadvantaged CD and women generally, but the Employment Tribunal had not applied the correct test when considering whether XC Trains could justify its actions.
CD was a female train driver employed by XC Trains Ltd. XC Trains imposed a requirement that all train drivers work 35-hours over 6 days each week. The exact hours work varied and train drivers were notified of their rostered hours. CD argued that the Provision Criterion or Practice (‘PCP’) of requiring train drivers to work at least 50% of the rosters, including Saturdays indirectly discriminated against women.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held in the case of G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd v Powell UKEAT/0243/15 that an employer was required to maintain an employee’s rate of pay indefinitely by way of a reasonable adjustment where his role was adjusted on account of his disability to a less senior and less physical role.