ET findings that a decision to suspend a teaching assistant for refusing an instruction not to wear her veil when in class with pupils assisting a male teacher: was not direct discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief; and, though it was indirectly discriminatory on that ground, was lawful, being proportionate in support of a legitimate aim, upheld by the EAT.
|
In determining that the Claimant’s claim was in time by reason of her having been in a stable employment relationship with no fundamental changes, the Employment Tribunal Chairman correctly applied Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Health Care NHS Trust and Others [1998] IRLR 197 (HL) [2000] IRLR 506 (ECJ) and [2004] IRLR 96 (EAT), Thatcher v Middlesex University (EAT/0134/05) and Secretary of State v Rance and Others (UKEAT/0060/06).
|
The Employment Tribunal Chairman did not err when determining for the purposes of assessing one year's continuous employment the start and end dates of the employment relationship.
|
Appeal is allowed to the extent of remitting the case back to the same Tribunal to determine solely the issue of whether or not had a fair procedure been conducted, the dismissal would in any event have occurred, or not, as the case may be and in any event to make the probability assessment in percentage terms that we laid down in the California Cookie case.
|
Triangular relationship – whether implied contract of employment between worker and end-user – strict application of Aramis principle – ET finding of implied contract reversed
|
Agency Workers not Employees: The EAT has held in two cases that agency workers were not employees of the end user. In Heatherwood & Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Trust v Kulubowila & Ors, it was held that where the affairs of the parties are consistent with an express triangular agreement it us unnecessary to infer a contract of service between the end-user and the agency worker. Further in Astbury v Gist, the EAT demonstrated that the statutory framework does allow for an agency worker to be emplo ...
|
Triangular relationship – whether employment agency acted as agent for end-user in entering into a contract of service between worker and end-user. Held that it did not.
|
Whether employed immediately before transfer – inadequate reading by ET – whether administration ‘stage-managed’. Case remitted for rehearing by fresh ET.
|
Whether employed immediately before transfer – inadequate reading by ET – whether administration ‘stage-managed’. Case remitted for rehearing by fresh ET.
|
Frustration of contract by illness. Employee had recovered at time ET found frustration occurred. Decision reversed
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |