Unfair Dismissal - Reasonableness of dismissal Dismissal for gross misconduct – argument based on disparate treatment of alleged comparators failed on the facts.
|
Victimisation Discrimination - Whistleblowing The issue raised on this appeal was whether the whistle blowing provisions contained in section 43A to section 43M of the Employment Rights Act by the Public Information Disclosure Act 1998 afford protection for disclosure that does not reveal any “wrongdoing” or “failure” by the employer or person for whom the employer is responsible? The EAT held that such protection is given to the employee.
|
Jurisdictional Points - Claim in time and effective date of termination Where a decision to dismiss is communicated by a letter sent to the employee at home, and the employee has neither gone away deliberately to avoid receiving the letter nor avoided opening and reading it, the effective date of termination is when the letter is read by the employee, not when it arrives in the post.
|
Unfair Dismissal - Mitigation of loss The Tribunal incorrectly applied a percentage reduction to losses by reason of failure to mitigate. The Tribunal should have fixed a date when they believed the Claimant would have found employment and calculated losses accordingly.
|
Unfair Dismissal - Automatically unfair reasons The Tribunal were correct in reducing compensation by 100% in an automatic unfair dismissal where the breaches of procedure would have made no difference to the decision to dismiss for redundancy.
|
Unfair Dismissal - Dismissal/ambiguous resignation The Claimant claimed unfair direct dismissal and constructive dismissal and unlawful deductions. The ET at a PHR dismissed (with costs) his unfair dismissal claims on the grounds that the Claimant had not been dismissed and were, in any event, out of time. He had been dismissed for misconduct, on appeal, demotion was substituted for dismissal; but the Respondents could only demote if the Claimant agreed. He was directed to wor ...
|
Age Discrimination It was conceded that the claimant had been automatically unfairly dismissed for failure to comply with the statutory dismissal procedures. The Tribunal also found that he had been subject to age discrimination. The employers raised various grounds of appeal. The EAT held that those directed towards the Tribunal’s assessment of remedy disclosed no error of law, save that no allowance had been given for pay in lieu made by the employer and credit had ...
|
Jurisdictional Points - 2002 Act and pre-action requirements The EAT upheld an appeal by the employee against a decision of the Employment Tribunal which held that it had no jurisdiction to hear certain claims alleging discrimination by reason of having made protected disclosures because the employee had failed to comply with the statutory grievance procedures. The EAT held that where a grievance is raised referring to the decision to initiate disciplinary procedures, it will relate also to dis ...
|
Equal Pay Act - Case management In multiple equal pay claims the ET found that documents relating to a 2004 job evaluation exercise were privileged and need not be disclosed by the employers. The appeal, insofar as it attacked that conclusion, failed; see the first judgment. This second judgment deals with the attack on the Employment Tribunal’s further conclusion that that privilege had not been waived. Held 1) the Employment Tribunal were entitled to conclude that there had be ...
|
Age Discrimination The Tribunal found that the claimant had been discriminated on grounds of age. The employers introduced a requirement that to be graded at the top grade, and to receive the higher salary linked to that grade, an employee had to have a law degree. The claimant submitted that this was age discrimination. The Tribunal agreed on the grounds that given his age - he was 61 - he was not able to obtain a degree before he retired, unlike younger workers who would be ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |