Equal Pay Act The claimants alleged that their employer had been in breach of their rights under the Equal Pay Act 1970. They had been transferred pursuant to a TUPE transfer and claimed their equal pay rights some five years later. Their claims relied upon establishing equal pay with comparators who had been employed by the transferor but had not been transferred to the transferee. The employers argued that the claims were out of time and should have been brought within six mo ...
|
Sex Discrimination - Direct The Employment Tribunal dismissed a claim for direct sex discrimination brought by a woman in the Royal Navy Reserve who complained that she had been rejected for the post of Captain and Medical Director by reason of her sex. The claimant appealed, contending that the Tribunal ought to have drawn inferences from the primary facts which shifted the burden of proof in accordance with the well known criteria of Igen v Wong [2005] ICR 931; and that the circumstanc ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Time for appealing The law and practice on out of time appeals described in Muschett EAT were accepted to be correct. The application in Consignia v Sealy CA of the two-day postal rule in CPR6.7 to the Employment Tribunal’s “not reasonably practicable” jurisdiction does not be extend to the 42-day time limit for a Notice of Appeal in the EAT. CPR6.7 is an irrebuttable deeming provision. Different considerations apply to first instance and ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Time for appealing The law and practice on out of time appeals described in Muschett EAT were accepted to be correct. The application in Consignia v Sealy CA of the two-day postal rule in CPR6.7 to the Employment Tribunal’s “not reasonably practicable” jurisdiction does not extend to the 42-day time limit for a Notice of Appeal in the EAT. CPR6.7 is an irrebuttable deeming provision. Different considerations apply to first instance and app ...
|
Unfair Dismissal - Reasonableness of dismissal The majority judgment of the Employment Tribunal that the Respondent dismissed the Claimant unfairly in breach of the EADR 2004, Steps 1 and 2(ii)(b), and if necessary, Employment Rights Act 1996 s98(4), was set aside. It was made without explanation as to why it rejected the unchallenged evidence of the Claimant and his TU rep that he knew he was at risk of dismissal and agreed he had adequate time to prepare, in the 48 hours between the su ...
|
Unlawful Deduction from Wages The employee was suspended without pay when dismissed for refusing to work on Mondays when he was contractually obliged to do so. Held that the Employment Tribunal had, on the hypothesis that there was a contractual right to suspend without pay, correctly held that the statutory disciplinary and dismissal procedure applied, at least as to Step 1, and had not been complied with; and that on the terms of the relevant document, in the circumstances the employer ...
|
Contract of Employment - Damages for breach of contract The proper approach to the assessment of damages for breach of a contract of employment in a case of wrongful dismissal is that explained in Shove v Downs Surgical plc [1984] IRLR 17.
|
Age Discrimination The claimant was excluded by the terms of a voluntary redundancy scheme because he had reached the age of 60. There were tapering provisions in place between the ages of 57-60. When the scheme was originally introduced it was compulsory to retire at 60, but later the retirement age was changed to 65. The scheme was not amended in the light of that. The claimant submitted that the scheme directly discriminated against him on grounds of age discrimination. The ET rejected ...
|
Victimisation Discrimination - Protected disclosure Dismissal for making a protected disclosure Employment Tribunal decision upheld. Suffering a detriment for the same reason. Employment Tribunal decision inadequate and committed to a different decision for determination.
|
Unfair Dismissal - Reasonableness of dismissal Conduct dismissal concerning the Burchell test. Reasonableness of grounds for belief in misconduct. Misapplication of (neutral) burden of proof under s98(4) ERA.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |