In Alvarez v The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, the employer conceded that Alvarez (‘A’) had been unfairly dismissed. ‘A’ did not seek compensation. Instead, she asked for reinstatement under Ss. 114 to 116 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, i.e. reinstate the employee in all respects as if he or she had not been dismissed, where the ET considers it practicable. The ET rejected the employer’s arguments that reinstatement was not practicable. ‘A’’s old role as a legal secretary continued to exist and reinstatement would not lead to overstaffing or redundancies. Furthermore, contrary to the employer’s argument that bringing and then withdrawing discrimination claims destroyed the relationship of trust and confidence, it appeared to the ET that the damage done was limited. The ET therefore ordered reinstatement as a legal secretary, with a lump sum payment to reflect the 2.7 years wages she would have received, and the full restoration of her pension rights.

This update provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links to access full details. If no link is provided, contact us for more information.  Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.