Equal Pay Act - Equal value Equal Pay claims. Whether letters sent to local authority employers by unions prior to the coming into force of the statutory grievance procedures met the requirements of regulation 18 of the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004. If not, whether letters written after the coming into force of the procedures met the requirements of regulation 9 or of paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to the 2002 Act. Circumstances in which Employment Tribunal’ ...
|
Unfair Dismissal - Reasonableness of dismissal Construction of a contact as to whether overtime would be paid for. The Employment Tribunal’s error on this (if based on the written contractual terms, and in the absence of any cogent evidence that those terms had been amplified or varied by practice or further agreement) underpinned its findings as to the fairness of dismissal, purportedly for disobedience to a reasonable instruction, since if overtime was not to be paid for the instruction ...
|
Unfair Dismissal - Contributory fault The Claimant was dismissed from her position as a Senior Carer at the Respondent’s Care Home. The dismissal was procedurally and substantially unfair. The Claimant was not made aware of the allegations against her and could not respond to them. There had been no proper investigation or evidence of misconduct. The Employment Tribunal concluded that the dismissal was automatically unfair. It did, however, accept that the r ...
|
Unfair Dismissal This is an appeal against Registrar’s Order and considers the effect of Certificate of Correction to ET judgment. There is also discussion of the interrelationship between Rules 3(7) and 3(10) of EAT Rules.
|
Contract of Employment Local authority employers attempted to implement single status agreement between COSLA and unions as regards contracts of employment of concierges. Prior contracts included provision whereby they were entitled to a one hour paid lunch break in each 12 hour shift. Employer sought to impose changes including making part of lunch break unpaid. Employees objected and earlier Tribunal had found that there had been no variation of the original contract regard ...
|
Unfair Dismissal - Reasonableness of dismissal The Claimant was an estate handyman who was dismissed for redundancy. The Employment Tribunal found the dismissal to be unfair because the respondents failed properly to consider and consult on the question of him working as a part time employee or as a self employed contractor. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, whilst accepting that it was open to the Tribunal to conclude that any reasonable employer would have done so, remitted to a freshly c ...
|
National Minimum Wage The Employment Tribunal held that an employee who worked as a night watchman and could sleep for much of his shift on facilities provided for that purpose was entitled to the national minimum wage for each hour of the shift. In so doing they followed the authorities of British Nursing Association v Inland Revenue [2002] IRLR 480 (CA), and Scottbridge Construction Ltd v Wright [2003] IRLR 21 (Inner House of the Court of Session). The employers contended that these cases w ...
|
Contract of Employment - Implied Term/Variation/Construction of Term Claimant originally seconded by the respondents to a separate entity but her secondment became, at her behest, “open ended” with a view to it carrying on until retirement and she relinquished her post with the respondents. The Tribunal found that the respondents were not thereafter the claimant’s employers and dismissed her claims of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination. On appeal, the Tribunal ...
|
Jurisdictional Points - Extension of time: reasonably practicable Employment Tribunal Judge extended time for an unfair dismissal claim by some eighteen months. The claimant relied on very severe and lengthy depression as an explanation for the failure but produced no medical evidence. The evidence was that she had asked her union official to put in her claim but the union had by oversight failed to do so. The Employment Judge accepted her evidence, notwithstanding the lack of ...
|
Sex Discrimination - Direct The Appellant claimed that she had been the victim of sex discrimination in that two named male comparators were allocated more extra work hours than she. The rotas showed that that was so. The Tribunal rejected the claim in one short paragraph, finding that there was no evidence of preferential treatment. Held that (1) the Tribunal’s reasoning was wholly insufficient and 2) the conclusion that there was no evidence of preferential treatment was pe ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |