Working asleep. A hotel manager was entitled to be paid for work even when asleep, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled in Anderson v Jarvis Hotels, finding that the time when he was required to be present at the hotel, although not actually doing anything, counted as working time. Mr Anderson had claimed for unpaid wages in respect of a nine-month period when he was expected to sleep at the hotel overnight in case of an emergency. The hotel claimed this 'on call' time should not be r ...
|
Disparate treatment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal has in Enterprise Liverpool plc v Bauress reversed a tribunal’s decision that the dismissal of two joiners caught moonlighting was unfair. After hearing that another employee had previously not been dismissed for the same offence, the tribunal declared the joiners’ dismissals unfair, reducing their compensation by 75% for their contributory conduct. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found two differences in circumstances: the earlier em ...
|
Age Discrimination: Someone who does all their work outside the United Kingdom can in some circumstances have an employment relationship allowing an unfair dismissal claim to be made through the UK courts, the House of Lords has ruled in Serco v Lawson. Serco – a UK company – employed Mr Lawson to work as a security operator at the RAF base on Ascension Island (which has no indigenous population). Although all the services were performed overseas, the House of Lords found that the close UK co ...
|
Sleepy tribunals. The principle that a tribunal decision can be set aside if an employment tribunal member appears to be asleep has been revisited in Fordyce v Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative Association where it happened not once, but twice. The Employment Appeal Tribunal heard that the first time a wing member apparently dozed off, the claimant agreed to continue. However, when it happened again, Counsel did not complain but instead appealed the decision. The decision was set aside and a ...
|
Sex Discrimination – Direct
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent, who was a solicitor in a small practice. A close and intimate relationship developed between them. He dismissed the Claimant when he saw her with another man on account of jealousy and the discovery that she had another relationship. The dismissal was unfair. The Tribunal also found that the Respondent had discriminated against the Claimant on grounds of sex in dismissing her in respect that dismissal would not have occurred but for the fact that the ...
|
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).
|
| 1 2 |