Race Discrimination. A coach driver who claimed discrimination on racial grounds after being sacked following his election as a British National Party councillor was not discrimination against on grounds of race, due to the employer’s concerns about the impact on other – predominantly Asian – staff and customers. The Court of Appeal has reversed the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision that he was discriminated against on the grounds that the claim had been a misuse of the Race Relations Act 1 ...
|
Race or religion? A coach driver who claimed discrimination on racial grounds after being sacked following his election as a British National Party councillor was not unlawfully dismissed, the Court of Appeal has ruled in Redfearn v Serco. Serco had argued that while Mr Redfearn’s association with the far-right party had not affected his ability to do his job, there were concerns about the impact on other – predominantly Asian – staff and customers. Mr Redfearn’s claim was upheld by the E ...
|
Tribunal found 20% contributory fault and that the employee was not entitled to future pension loss. Were the conclusions justified? Did the Tribunal provide clear reasons to justify the conclusion that had indeed concluded that there would be no further pension loss?
|
Practice and Procedure. Employment Tribunal Chairman rejecting claim form on basis that ClaimantÆs address not given (but ClaimantÆs solicitorsÆ name and address were given). Application for review refused by Chairman. These appeals, against both decisions, raise the questions (1) whether the procedural rules are absolute and/or (2) whether their rigour may be tempered on a review.
|
Claim Forms. An employee's failure to include her address on her tribunal claim form was not necessarily a fatal omission. Among 'required information' under rules 1 and 2 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 is the claimant's address, which Ms Hamling did not provide instead giving her solicitors' details elsewhere on the form. The EAT interpreted the rules to mean first that the claimant's address had to be relevant to the substance of her claim ( ...
|
Practice and Procedure: No case to answer In Boulding v Land Securities, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has set aside an employment tribunal decision to dismiss a whistleblowing claim on a submission of no case to answer and remitted the case to the same tribunal to hear the rest of the evidence. The EAT ruled that even though the burden of proof in whistleblowing claims – as in all discrimination cases – lies with the claimant, much of the relevant evidence may emerge from the respondent’ ...
|
Unfair Dismissal: Upper qualifying age. The House of Lords has held that the upper qualifying age for claiming unfair dismissal is not contrary to EU Article 141 (equal pay). Two men aged over 65 argued that the upper qualifying age had an adverse impact on a higher proportion of men than women, because more men wanted to work past 65, and so was indirectly discriminatory. Their claim was rejected on the basis that the wrong statistics had been used. This means that the hundreds of claims broug ...
|
No valid Originating Application or claim form having been received by an Employment Tribunal containing the Claimant's case for equal pension treatment, there is no jurisdiction in the EAT to hear an appeal under section 21 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 in the absence of some judgment decision order or proceedings of an Employment Tribunal. Nor has there been any refusal by the Tribunal to hear the claim since it has not been presented.
|
Application of ET Rule 33 review procedure. Mandatory requirement for written application for review not fulfilled. Review refused. Appeal allowed - case remitted to consider (1) whether time for review application should be extended and (2) if so, whether default judgment should be set aside.
|
Unlawful Deduction from Wages Out of Time
The alleged ôdeductionö from wages was in fact an alleged underpayment some time after the termination of the contract of employment. In finding that time for claiming in respect of such deduction ran from the date of termination, the Tribunal fell into error. Time would normally begin to run from such date where there had been a complete non-payment, but where the claim was for an underpayment, time runs from the date when the underpayment was made for it was to be treated as the sum form which ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 |