Russell Bailey - Employment
The majority of Russell’s practice involves employment law and employment related issues including:
All types of claims brought in the employment tribunal; unfair dismissal, TUPE issues, discrimination claims.
Claims for wrongful termination.
Injunctive relief arising from the enforcement of restrictive covenants.
Claims for damages, accounts of profits and equitable relief arising from breaches of covenants and of confidentiality.
Claims by and against directors for breach of fiduciary obligations.
Shareholder disputes including minority shareholder remedies.
Disputes arising under the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003.
Disputes about matters ancillary to the employment relationship such as pensions and references.
Employee stress claims:
Claims by and against commercial agents under the 1993 Regulations.
Russell has been involved in advising and representing employers and employees for many years and, as appears from the list of reported cases below, he has a close involvement with the London transport industry. He has business experience independent of the Bar and is adept at combining business acumen with legal expertise.
Post Grad Dip International Mediation (Lond)
Accredited Mediator (SPC Regents College)
Employment Law Bar Association
London Common Law and Commercial Bar Association
Personal Injury Bar Association
Oxford Mediation Group
International Mediation Institute
Licensed for public access work
'Russell Bailey’s broad practice includes stress at work and discrimination claims'
Russell Bailey is a ”first tier barrister” who has a “great ability to tease out the real issues in a complex legal dispute”
Legal 500 2011
“A robust and persuasive advocate”
Legal 500 2010
Cetinsoy & others v London United Busways Ltd UKEAT/0042/14/LA: the employment tribunal was entitled to find that a change of workplace location of 3-4 miles did not constitute a repudiatory breach or a substantial change in working conditions to the employees’ material detriment (distinguishing Abellio London Ltd v Musse  IRLR 360 on the facts)
London Central Bus Company v Manning UKEAT/0103/13DM: a procedural shortcoming at the appeal stage does not make an otherwise fair dismissal unfair unless it deprives the employee from showing that the reason the employer relied upon to justify the dismissal was not a sufficient reason.
Spring v First Capital East Ltd  All ER (D) 03 (Dec): whether evidence can be heard on an application for a deposit and the extent to which the test for ordering a deposit differed from that for striking out (there being a suggestion in Sharma v New College Nottingham (EAT) that the tests were similar if not the same).
Arriva London South Ltd v Nicolau UKEAT/0280/10/DA & UKEAT/0293/11/RN  ICR 510 22 (Jan): the relationship between the opt out from the maximum 48 hour working week, an employer’s duties under the WTRs and unlawful detriment.
Rowles v B&Q PLC UK EAT/0433/10/JOJ: EAT upheld tribunal’s decision that retailer entitled to treat misuse of store discount card by employee as an act of gross misconduct.
Centrewest Buses Ltd v Alas UKEAT/0502/07/JOJ  All ER (D) 103 (Jun): the range of reasonable responses test applied to the investigation and the tribunal had wrongly substituted its own erroneous view.
Ali v Sovereign Buses (London) Ltd UKEAT/0274/06  All ER (D) 51 (Jan): whether the Article 6 right to a fair trial applies to the disciplinary / dismissal process.
Euro London v Claessens  2 Lloyd’s Rep 436; penalty clauses in the context of an employment agency’s pricing structure [Court of Appeal]
Centrewest London Buses Ltd v Ambali & Balogun UKEAT/0067/05/DM: wrongful substitution by the tribunal of their own view – failure to apply the range of reasonable responses test to procedural matters.
Farquharson v Centewest London Buses Ltd UKEAT/0364/05; a point not taken in the tribunal could not be entertained on an appeal.
Chouaffi v London United Busways Ltd UKEAT/0921/04: the need for an employee to give evidence in person when seeking an extension of time to commence proceedings. [upheld by Court of Appeal (2006) EWCA Civ 689]
Ibekwe v London General Transport Services Ltd  IRLR 697: the limit of an employer’s obligation to notify employees of options exercisable upon the alteration of pension arrangements.[Court of Appeal]