This article does not cite any sources . (September 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
|High Table Ltd v Horst|
|Court||Court of Appeal of England and Wales|
|Citation(s)|| EWCA Civ 2000,  ICR 409|
High Table Ltd v Horst  EWCA Civ 2000 is a UK labour law case, concerning redundancy in English Law in the Court of Appeal (England and Wales), the highest court within the Senior Courts of England and Wales, and second only to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
The Court of Appeal is the highest court within the Senior Courts of England and Wales, and second in the legal system of England and Wales only to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The COA was created in 1875, and today comprises 39 Lord Justices of Appeal and Lady Justices of Appeal.
The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases, and for criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population.
Mrs Christine Horst and two other employees claimed unfair dismissal after being told they were redundant, and failing applications for other positions with High Table Ltd. High Table Ltd. argued they were redundant because their workplace, which was factually always from 10am to 4pm at City firm Hill Samuel, no longer needed their ‘silver service’ waitressing after the supply contract was renegotiated the previous year. She argued that because the staff handbook contained a flexibility clause that said she could be transferred ‘within reasonable daily travelling distance’ where possible so she could not be counted as redundant.
The Tribunal held that she was redundant, and the employers had not acted unfairly. She appealed, arguing that there had been no reduction in the requirement for employees, because the mobility clause entailed her working anywhere in the City. Therefore her employer had made no redundancies available.
Peter Gibson LJ held that she was redundant because for the purpose of redundancy her place of work was Hill Samuel, not the City as a whole. He quoted Bass Leisure Ltd v Thomasfor the proposition that under ERA 1996 section 139 the place of work ‘is to be established by factual enquiry, taking into account the employee’s fixed or changing place or places of work and any contractual terms which go to evidence or define the place of employment and its extent, but not those (if any) which make provision for the employee to be transferred to another.’
|“||If an employee has worked in only one location under his contract of employment for the purposes of the employer’s business it defies common sense to widen the extent of the place where he was so employed merely because of the existence of a mobility clause… it cannot be right to let the contract be the sole determinant, regardless of where the employee actually worked for the employer.||”|
United Kingdom labour law regulates the relations between workers, employers and trade unions. People at work in the UK benefit from a minimum charter of employment rights, which are found in various Acts, Regulations, common law and equity. This includes the right to a minimum wage of £7.83 for over 25-year-olds under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Working Time Regulations 1998 give the right to 28 days paid holidays, breaks from work, and attempts to limit excessively long working hours. The Employment Rights Act 1996 gives the right to leave for child care, and the right to request flexible working patterns. The Pensions Act 2008 gives the right to be automatically enrolled in a basic occupational pension, whose funds must be protected according to the Pensions Act 1995.
In employment law, constructive dismissal, also called constructive discharge or constructive termination, occurs when an employee resigns as a result of the employer creating a hostile work environment. Since the resignation was not truly voluntary, it is, in effect, a termination. For example, when an employer places extraordinary and unreasonable work demands on an employee to obtain their resignation, this can constitute a constructive dismissal.
Unfair dismissal in the United Kingdom is the part of UK labour law that requires fair, just and reasonable treatment by employers in cases where a person's job could be terminated. The Employment Rights Act 1996 regulates this by saying that employees are entitled to a fair reason before being dismissed, based on their capability to do the job, their conduct, whether their position is economically redundant, on grounds of a statute, or some other substantial reason. It is automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee, regardless of length of service, for becoming pregnant, or for having previously asserted certain specified employment rights. Otherwise, an employee must have worked for two years. This means an employer only terminates an employee's job lawfully if the employer follows a fair procedure, acts reasonably and has a fair reason. Contrary to the gov.uk website, it is not automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee for a discriminatory reason protected by the Equality Act 2010 ; there is no statutory provision for this and it just amounts to ordinary discrimination.
The Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006 known colloquially as TUPE and pronounced tu-pee, are the United Kingdom's implementation of the European Union Transfer of Undertakings Directive. It is an important part of UK labour law, protecting employees whose business is being transferred to another business. The 2006 regulations replace the old 1981 regulations which implemented the original Directive.. The law has been amended in 2014 and various provisions within the 2006 Regulations have altered.
Employment tribunals are tribunal public bodies in England and Wales and Scotland which have statutory jurisdiction to hear many kinds of disputes between employers and employees. The most common disputes are concerned with unfair dismissal, redundancy payments and employment discrimination. The tribunals are part of the UK tribunals system, administered by the Tribunals Service and regulated and supervised by the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council.
A letter of recommendation or recommendation letter, also known as a letter of reference, reference letter or simply reference, is a document in which the writer assesses the qualities, characteristics, and capabilities of the person being recommended in terms of that individual's ability to perform a particular task or function. Letters of recommendation are typically related to employment, admission to institutions of higher education, or scholarship eligibility. Recommendation letters are usually specifically requested to be written about someone, and are therefore addressed to a particular requester, although they may also be issued to the person being recommended without specifying an addressee.
The Employment Rights Act 1996 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament passed by the Conservative government to codify existing law on individual rights in UK labour law.
The New Zealand Employment Relations Act 2000 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand. It was substantially amended by the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2001 and by the ERAA 2004.
Employee exit management or offboarding describes the consciously designed separation process when an employee leaves the company, for which they have previously worked within the scope of a work or service contract. It deals with the formal processes revolving around an employee’s exit from an organization either through voluntary resignation, layoffs or termination.
Nethermere Ltd v Gardiner And Another  ICR 612 is a UK labour law case in the Court of Appeal in the field of home work and vulnerable workers. Many labour and employment rights, such as unfair dismissal, in Britain depend on one's status as an "employee" rather than being "self-employed", or some other "worker". This case stands for the proposition that where "mutuality of obligation" between employers and casual or temporary workers exists to offer work and accept it, the court will find that the applicant has a "contract of employment" and is therefore an employee.
Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College (2004) C-256/01 is a European Union law case concerning the right of men and women to equal pay for work of equal value under Article 141 of the Treaty of the European Community.
Taylor v Connex South Eastern Ltd (5.7.2000) Appeal No: EAT/1243/99, is a UK labour law case, concerning the TUPE Regulations.
Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd  ICR 156 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.
In labour law, unfair dismissal is an act of employment termination made without good reason or contrary to the country's specific legislation.
Manu v Steelink Contracting Services Ltd WEC2/98, often referred to as "Steelink", was an important employment case in New Zealand, where an employer tried to dismiss a worker through the back door on the basis that the employee was merely a casual employee, meaning that the employer did not have to go through the dismissal process to dismiss an employee.
Nelson v BBC  ICR 110 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal and the role of contributory fault.
Safeway Stores plc v Burrell  ICR 523 is a UK labour law case, concerning redundancy.
Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson  ICR 323 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal.
Young v. United Parcel Service, 575 U.S. ___ (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case that the Court evaluated the requirements for bringing a disparate treatment claim under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that to bring such a claim, a pregnant employee must show that their employer refused to provide accommodations and that the employer later provided accommodations to other employees with similar restrictions. The Court then remanded the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to determine whether the employer engaged in discrimination under this new test.
Hall v Woolston Hall Leisure Ltd  EWCA Civ 170 is a UK labour law case, concerning the illegality in the contract of employment.