Not letting employees turn off camera during online calls may be disability discrimination
A recent employment tribunal judgment has found that failing to allow an employee to join a meeting with her camera off amounted to a failure to make a reasonable adjustment. Although the employer in question did subsequently allow the employee to turn her camera off, it did not immediately agree to the employees request to do so. The claimant in Tait v Holiday Extras Limited suffered from anxiety, ADHD and autism. The case makes no general comment on requirements to have cameras on while on calls, however, it highlights the need for employers to treat disabled employees on a case by case basis and to properly consider any reasonable adjustments that are proposed.
Acas launches consultation on new draft Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures
A consultation has been launched by Acas on a new draft Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. The Code of Practice has not been fully revised since 2009. The key proposed changes include:
Requiring employers to initially consider an informal approach to concerns about an employee;
Extending the scope of the Code to apply to workers, although the power to uplift compensation for a failure to comply with the Code applies only to employees;
Requiring employers to have a clear reason for suspending a worker based on either a legal requirement or the need to protect the investigation, organisation, staff and/or the person being investigated;
Directing parties to consider resolving concerns via mediation or a facilitated conversation;
Encouraging employers to provide training and support to managers, workers and representatives to enable them to resolve concerns early and effectively;
Setting out an employer's duty to meet obligations under the Equality Act 2010, including the making of reasonable adjustments.
The consultation closes on 23 September 2026.
Employment Appeal Tribunal upholds finding that anti-Zionist beliefs are protected philosophical beliefs
The much anticipated EAT judgment in University of Bristol v Miller has upheld the employment tribunal finding that the claimant's anti-Zionist beliefs were protected philosophical beliefs. The claimant had made public comments describing Zionism as inherently racist, imperialist and a colonial ideology that ought to be opposed. The claimant was subsequently dismissed for gross misconduct. Other comments criticising named student groups had, however, gone beyond the expression of protected beliefs. The employment tribunal had treated that as blameworthy conduct, justifying a 50% reduction in the unfair dismissal compensation. All grounds of appeal relating to these issues were dismissed. However, an appeal against the tribunal's finding that there was a 30% chance of the claimant being fairly dismissed within two months of comments he made in August 2023 was sent back to the same Tribunal for redetermination. Our coverage of the tribunal judgment is available at Anti-Zionist beliefs qualify as protected philosophical belief.
