Assunta Del Priore

Employment

Assunta Del Priore is experienced in advising and representing in matters of discrimination, whistleblowing, unfair dismissal, redundancies, working time and the national minimum wage, amongst others. She has been instructed on behalf of businesses, local authorities, qualifications bodies, trade unions and individual claimants in a wide range of employment disputes.

Assunta is particularly skilled at client care, and in supporting both employer and employee clients who are facing the tribunal process.  She is regularly praised for her empathic manner and sensible approach, and for her expertise in representing vulnerable clients.  She is recognised for her persuasive advocacy and for the high quality of her work. She is knowledgeable about disability discrimination and takes a keen interest in issues of mental health in the employment law context. She is ranked tier 1 in the Legal 500.

Assunta joined Chambers in late 2010.  Previously, she practised as a barrister from Chambers in London and Manchester. Immediately before joining Chambers, she was a Senior Law Lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University.

Recent Cases

– Tomos v The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, Liverpool Employment Tribunal – Assunta acted for the successful respondent in this matter. The claimant relied on the protected characteristics of sex and of British nationality/British origin. His complaints centred on the respondent’s arrangements for recognition of actuarial qualifications from overseas. His claims of direct and indirect discrimination and victimisation were dismissed.

– Mrs J Frudd & Another v The Partington Group Ltd, Manchester Employment Tribunal.  On appeal in this matter (Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake), Simler P had set out the principles to be applied in determining whether time spent on call was to be regarded as ‘time work’, applying Regulation 30 NMWR. On remittal, the Tribunal found that part of the Claimants’ time spent on call was ‘time work’ but that part of it was not.

– Mason-Day v The Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police. The Claimant, who was disabled by reason of a mood disorder and osteoarthritis of the knees, was found to have been harassed by the writer of an e-mail, notwithstanding that the contents of that e-mail were not intended for C’s eyes.

– Paula Riley v CleanEvent Ltd.  The Claimant was found not to be disabled by reason of an alleged mood disorder.  The Tribunal did not accept her evidence of her symptoms.

– Langdon v The Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset. The Claimant, who was disabled by reason of dyslexia, was found to have suffered disability discrimination in a promotion exercise, specifically the interview stage of the exercise.

– CD v Chief Constable of H. The Claimant, who was dyslexic, succeeded in his claims of failures to make reasonable adjustments to the conditions in which he took a professional exam. Remedy included compensation for loss of a chance of promotion.

– CT v M. The Tribunal rejected the Claimant’s claims that she had been treated less favourably because she was a part-time worker.

– Ronald Lungu v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police. The Claimant was successful in his claims of harassment and direct discrimination, including a failure to promote him because of his race.

– BH v SSSC Ltd. The Claimant, who suffered from anxiety and depression, was successful in his claims of disability discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent’s submissions that a Polkey deduction was appropriate.

– O’C & Others v 1. Borough Council of C and Another. A case which concerned entitlement to rest breaks and daily/weekly rest periods under the Working Time Regulations 1998. It was of potential national significance in that it concerned whether or not the rest break pattern of residential care workers in supported living accommodation for vulnerable adults was compliant with the Working Time Regulations 1998.

Notable Cases

– Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake [2017] I.C.R. 1186.  The meaning of ‘time work’ in Regulation 30 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015.

– Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police v Bailey UKEAT/0166/15. Race discrimination and victimisation.

– Jackson Lloyd Ltd and Mears Group plc v Smith and Others UKEAT/0127/13. TUPE transfer from subsidiary to parent in the context of a share sale. ‘Authority’ of employee representatives in Regulation 13(1) (b)(i) of TUPE.

– Ashby v JJB Sports plc UKEAT/0114/12. Scope of duty to consult in redundancy cases.

– National Grid Electricity Transmission plc v Wood, UKEAT/0432/07. Implied contracts of employment – agency workers.

Notable Cases

• Mr and Mrs Frudd v Partington Group Limited, UKEAT/0240/2018/OO. Considers the status of workers on-call outside the sleep-in period for national minimum wage purposes.
• Focus Care Agency Limited v Roberts [2017] I.C.R. 1186.  The meaning of ‘time work’ in Regulation 30 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015.
• Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police v Bailey UKEAT/0166/15. Race discrimination and victimisation.
• Jackson Lloyd Ltd and Mears Group plc v Smith and Others UKEAT/0127/13. TUPE transfer from subsidiary to parent in the context of a share sale. ‘Authority’ of employee representatives in Regulation 13(1) (b)(i) of TUPE.
• Ashby v JJB Sports plc UKEAT/0114/12. Scope of duty to consult in redundancy cases.
• National Grid Electricity Transmission plc v Wood, UKEAT/0432/07. Implied contracts of employment – agency workers.

Appointments

Deputy District Judge (2019)

Associations

Employment Lawyers Association

Education

MA (Hons), University of Edinburgh

M.Litt., University of St Andrews

Postgraduate Diploma in Law, City University

Awards

Benefactors’ Scholar (Middle Temple)

Prescribed Information

Assunta is a practising barrister who is regulated by the Bar Standards Board. Details of information held by the BSB about Assunta can be found here.

Assunta’s clerks will happily provide no obligation quotations for all legal services that she provides. Their contact details can be found here. It is most common for Assunta to undertake Court and Tribunal work for either a fixed fee or brief fee plus additional refresher days. For advisory work, paperwork and conferences it is most commonly charged at an hourly rate, although fixed fees may be available. Assunta will typically return paperwork within 21 says however professional commitments, complexity and volume of documentation can affect these approximate timescales.

Assunta also undertakes Direct Access work. This work is undertaken on a contractual basis agreed between the client and Assunta’s clerks. This is on fixed fee basis for a specific events such as a conference, advisory work, a hearing with additional hearing days (refreshers) or the drafting of specific documents. All work agreed to be undertaken by Assunta with the fixed fee cost will be clearly outlined in the direct access contract signed by the client and will be payable in full prior to the commencement of the work.