The Employment Tribunal should have explained to what extent it regarded the Claimant as responsible for the costs as opposed to his legal advisor and it would have been helpful for the Employment Tribunal in coming to its conclusion to have worked out what proportion of the costs that were being claimed, reflected the costs attributable to unreasonable behaviour and what reflected the overall costs.
|
Constructive dismissal û whether ET reasons adequately dealt with issues raised at appeal allowed and case remitted to fresh ET for rehearing.
|
Practice and Procedure: Three months defined The Employment Appeal Tribunal has in Rainbow International v Taylor held that the extension of time under Regulation 15(1) of the Employment Act (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 means three months and not three months less one day. The claimant had resigned claiming constructive dismissal and served a combined resignation and grievance letter on his employer on 20 June 2005 and lodged his tribunal claim on 20 December. Both the employment ...
|
Taxing decision. Demibourne Ltd v HM Customs and Revenue establishes that an employer can be charged full tax and National Insurance under the PAYE regulations in situations where an employee has been wrongly treated as self-employed — without crediting the tax and NI already paid by the worker. Both parties believed the worker was self-employed and he had for many years submitted invoices and been paid gross as well as completing his own accounts and paying his own taxes. However, he was ...
|
Unfair Dismissal - Procedural Fairness/automatical
The dismissal for redundancy was, in general terms, clearly procedurally unfair but the Tribunal found that section 98A(1) did not apply while section 98A(2) did and on the basis of section 98A(2) the employers would probably have dismissed anyway, with the effect that the dismissal was, as a result, not unfair. Held that section 98A(1) & (2) applied or did not apply together, that the transitional provisions in Regulation 18 of the Dispute Regulations applied to section 98A(1) û because that su ...
|
Very unusual case. The Employer was almost totally disabled the employee was his carer. The employer believed that their essentially close and intimate relationship had broken down and he did not wish the carer to continue she was dismissed. The tribunal found that some other substantial reason had not been made out and that the dismissal was procedurally unfair. Held that the Tribunal had applied the wrong test to the ascertainment of the reason for the dismissal and had f
|
TUPE transfers The House of Lords has in Celtec v Astley held that where there is a TUPE transfer - it must take place on a specific date rather than over an extended period - employees and employers are not entitled to agree or arrange for the transfer to occur on any date other than the true, legal date of transfer The ruling, which follows last year’s European Court of Justice ruling on the issue, arose from a complex case concerning the transfer of a large number of civil servants ...
|
Practice and Procedure: Breach of contract jurisdiction The Court of Appeal has in Fraser v Hlmad Ltd held that the excess over £25,000 in a tribunal breach of contract claim cannot be recovered in the civil courts, ending 12 years of uncertainty over the issue. When lodging his employment tribunal claim for breach of contract, Mr Fraser had expressly reserved the right to pursue the excess over the £25,000 limit in the High Court. His tribunal claim succeeded, leaving him with a £55,000 s ...
|
Sex Discrimination. A male nurse was discriminated against when required to be accompanied by a female chaperone while administering an ECG to a woman patient, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has found in Moyhing v Barts & London NHS Trust. In common with many NHS Trusts, Mr Moyhing’s employer introduced the policy because administering an ECG involves touching the patient’s breasts, which could potentially lead to allegations of assault. The Trust does not have a similar requirement when a fe ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 |