Statutory grievance letters. The claimant in Shergold v Fieldway Medical Centre wrote to her employer setting out her reasons for resignation, but she did not ask for the document to be treated as a formal grievance. The employment tribunal held that it did not amount to a formal grievance letter, but the Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed, stating that: - there is no formality required in a statutory grievance letter - all the employee must do is set out the complaint in writing; - the ...
|
Appeal Against Refusal to Extend Employment:
Appeal to Court of Session under section 37(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. Racial discrimination contrary to Race Relations Act 1976. The only complaint which is now in issue is whether the respondent had discriminated against the appellant within the meaning of section 1(1)(a) of the Act ("direct discrimination"). The employment tribunal by a but the put more precisely it is whether the employment tribunal having found that the respondent had treated the appellant less favourably than ...
|
Employment Discrimination
Appellant was unsuccessful in application for post with respondents and presented an application to the employment tribunal claiming that in a number of ways he had in respect of his application for the post of Unit Manager been unlawfully discriminated against by the respondent contrary to section 4(2)(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976. The employment tribunal sustained the claim and made a calculation of compensation payable to the appellant. The respondent appealed to the Employment Appeal Tr ...
|
The EAT repeated that it does not matter whether or not the employee intended to raise a grievance within the body of the letter, adding that the employee does not need to comply with a contractual grievance procedure for the letter to amount to a valid statutory grievance.
|
The European Court of Justice has given guidance on how courts should approach age discrimination before national legislation is in place. This case provides just a taster of how complicated age discrimination laws are going to be. A 56-year-old argued that German law implementing the Fixed Term Workers Directive contravened the Equal Treatment Framework Directive by allowing employers exemption from the objective justification rule when awarding fixed-term contracts to those aged over 52. ...
|
The House of Lords has overturned long-standing laws and ruled that ministers of religion are employees for the purposes of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Ms Percy, an ordained Church of Scotland minister, had claimed discrimination under the Act but the employment tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Session all followed existing law and held that she was not an employee. Upholding her appeal, the House of Lords held: - because somebody is an office-holder does not precl ...
|
The claimant claimed constructive dismissal after her employer unreasonably refused a written request to vary her working pattern. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the employment tribunal’s decision that her request amounted to a formal grievance letter, stating that it was irrelevant that the purported grievance letter dealt mainly with other issues.
|
The 31st of August 2002 was the last day of the three month period within which the application for unfair dismissal had to be lodged. The appellants originating application was sent by fax to the Edinburgh office of the Employment Tribunals and received
|
The case considers whether an employer where an employee was advancing a defence to his own admitted gross misconduct and provided no substantial reason to support it was required to ask further questions to obtain a reason. In this case the consideration is given as to whether dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.
|
In this appeal (1) Ashford School and (2) The Church Schools Company (the Appellants) appeal against the decision of the Employment Tribunal held at London (South) on 28 and 29 March 2000, and promulgated on 11 April 200. The Respondents to the appeal (the Applicants before the Tribunal) are (1) Mrs S.C. Nixon (2) Ms Toni Jones and (3) Mr Eric Samson (the Respondents).
|
| 1 2 |