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 ...
|
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 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.
|
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).
|
This is an appeal at the instance of the employer against a decision of the Employment Tribunal declaring that the cessation of a payment known as the essential car users allowance amounted to an unauthorised deduction of wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
|
Redundancy – Fairness
The tribunal did not direct their minds to at least two factors, which should have been taken into account. The first is the likelihood of selection for dismissal because of redundancy, even if Mr Standivan had been in the right pool; and secondly, the quantification of the applicant’s entitlement to continuing full pay while sick-certificated, which he had not exhausted at the time of the dismissal. It seems to us, therefore, that this matter should go back to the tribunal for them to consider ...
|
| 1 |