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.
|
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 ...
|
Unfair Dismissal: Reasonableness of dismissal
The Employment Tribunal found certain procedural defects in handling a redundancy exercise. The questions before the EAT were: Did they constitute a breach of the relevant statutory dismissal procedure so as to render the dismissal automatically unfair under section 98A(1) ERA? Alternatively, did they render the dismissal unfair under s 98(4) ERA? If potentially they did, could the employer rely upon section 98A(2) ERA and allege that the dismissal would have occurred in any event even if proper ...
|
Unfair Dismissal - Procedural fairness/automatical
The reversal of Polkey (1987) IRLR 503 effected by Employment Rights Act 1996 s98A(2) applies to dismissals occurring on or after 1 October 2004. It applies to a failure to follow a procedure or policy covering dismissal, whether in writing or existing by custom and practice and whether contractual or non-contractual. It does not apply to failure to follow statutory procedures described in s98A(1) and (3). Nor to failure to follow the guidance in the ACAS code or general non-specific failure to ...
|
Unfair Dismissal: Procedural fairness/automaticall
This case concerns the assessment of compensation for unfair dismissal when a relevant procedure has not been followed.The reversal of Polkey (1987) IRLR 503 effected by Employment Rights Act 1996 s98A(2) applies to dismissals occurring on or after 1 October 2004. It applies to a failure to follow a procedure or policy covering dismissal, whether in writing or existing by custom and practice and whether contractual or non-contractual. It does not apply to failure to follow statutory procedures d ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 |