Transfer of Undertakings: Transfer
Was there a transfer of an undertaking when company A acquired the shares in company B and then ran it so as to facilitate the interrelationship of the two companies to their mutual benefit? The Employment Tribunal held that there was there was more than a simple share sale. The new controllers had effectively brought the two operations under one umbrella. Accordingly, the employer had changed notwithstanding that there had been no formal transfer of the business. The EAT upheld the appeal and t ...
|
Discrimination û burden of proof û whether ETÆs reasoning adequate û decision upheld on one issue, case remitted to ET on the other.
|
On 29 The Appellant John Fernandez is a barrister. On 4th January 1999 he began employment with the Respondent, the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioners (OPCA). In February 2001 a fellow employee, Mrs Thomas, complained to OPCA management that Mr Fernandez had been harassing her
|
Practice and Procedure Bias: Misconduct and proced
The Employee lodged three sex discrimination complaints. With respect to the last two complaints, a grievance had been lodged with the Employer and it had been determined but 28 days had not elapsed between lodging the grievance and presenting the claim to the tribunal. The Employment Tribunal by agreement with the parties heard all the claims before ruling that they had no jurisdiction to hear the last two because of the effect of Section 32 of the Employment Act 2002 it was recognised however ...
|
Working Time Regulations Holiday pay, calculation
Calculation of holiday pay in circumstances where the employees were entitled to a fixed and variable bonus. Did the pay vary with the work done? The Employment Tribunal held that it did and that both pursuant to contract and under the Working Time Regulations 1998 the holiday pay should be determined by averaging the pay over the twelve weeks preceding the holiday. EAT agreed, holding that where pay is related to output, and output is in turn significantly connected with the level of performanc ...
|
Practice and Procedure:Striking-out/dismissal
Employment Tribunal struck out unfair dismissal claims stating they were bound to fail. The employers had made two applications, one for a deposit to be ordered pursuant to rule 20 of the Employment Tribunal rules, and the second for a strike-out pursuant to rule 18(7)(b) on the grounds that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success. At the first hearing only the rule 20 application was formally before the Tribunal because no notice had by then been given in relation to the rule 18 matter ...
|
Equal Pay Act – Part time workers European law
Article 141Part-time pensions case. The Appellant was an employee who did not join a voluntary scheme for some eight years after having become eligible to do so. She initially claimed that this was because she had taken out a private pension, but that was rejected on the evidence. The Appellant alleged that the Tribunal had failed to ask the fundamental question whether she would have joined earlier had she been eligible, and contended that there was evidence that she would have done so, notwith ...
|
Practice and Procedure: Striking-out/dismissal
Chairman’s decision to strike out claims which had not been actively pursued and when there had been failure to comply with Tribunal orders. The appeal concerned the extent to which a Chairman, in considering the proportionate response and the overriding objective, should himself consider whether a fair trial would still be possible between the parties by adjourning the imminent hearing and giving appropriate directions, where no application to adjourn is made by the defaulting party. Appeal all ...
|
Informal hearing leading to concession by unrepresented Respondent which may have resulted from erroneous representation by Chairman. Failure to appreciate effect of s.212 ERA.
|
Practice and Procedure Bias, misconduct and proced
Appeal, on basis that Chairman ought to have recused himself from pre-hearing review of a second action, because of outstanding complaints against him of apparent bias/alleged misconduct in respect of an earlier hearing between the same parties in the first action, which was being appealed. Neither the existence nor the nature of those complaints made it necessary or appropriate for the Chairman to recuse himself, and there was no merit in the two other points raised by way of challenge to the C ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 |