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 ...
|
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 ...
|
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 ...
|
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 ( ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 |