Equal Pay Act - Material factor defence and justification These appeals relate to the Genuine Material Factor defence in Equal Pay claims and whether objective justification required from employer. ET distinguished permissibly between 2 groups of (predominantly female) workers, finding that in relation to one group the defence was made out and in relation to the other it was not. Both findings permissible and upheld. No error of law. Surtees [2008] IRLR 776 (CA) and earlier c ...
|
Equal Pay Act The claimants brought various equal pay claims naming refuse collectors as comparators. The claimants were in predominantly female jobs and the comparators in an almost exclusively male job. The council advanced three genuine material factor (GMF) defences. They lost on two and succeeded on the third. They succeeded on the basis that they were justified in limiting a pay protection scheme to those who actually suffered a reduction in income when a new job ...
|
Equal Pay Act - Material factor defence and justification These appeals relate to the Genuine Material Factor defence in Equal Pay claims and whether objective justification required from employer. ET distinguished permissibly between 2 groups of (predominantly female) workers, finding that in relation to one group the defence was made out and in relation to the other it was not. Both findings permissible and upheld. No error of law. Surtees [2008] IRLR 776 (CA) and earlier c ...
|
Redundancy - Definition This is an appeal regarding protective awards made in a collective redundancy situation.
|
Transfer of Undertakings - Acquired rights directive As a matter of construction of TUPE Reg 5(1), a contractual term entitling employees to pay “in accordance with collective agreements negotiated from time to time by [the NJC]” is protected on a TUPE transfer to the private sector so as to give a right to pay increases negotiated post-transfer. See Whent v Cartledge. This construction is unaffected by the subsequent construction of the Business Transfers Directive by the ECJ in We ...
|
Jurisdictional Points - Worker, employee or neither Whether an accountant was a partner or employee in circumstances where a former partnership traded through limited companies under the terms of a Shareholders Agreement, itself said not to constitute a partnership. On the particular facts the Employment Tribunal were entitled to find that he was a partner and not an employee. Thus his Age Discrimination claim could proceed (see reg. 17 Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006) but not ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Appearance/Response This is an appeal regarding a Default Judgment where no response was entered by Respondent company (in administration) within 28 day period. Judgment entered on liability finding part of the Claimant’s claim not well-founded. Appeal allowed. Default judgment procedure designed to allow judgment to be entered in favour of Claimant, in an appropriate case; not in favour of Respondent who is in default. That part of default jud ...
|
Transfer of Undertakings This is an appeal regarding whether there was a relevant transfer by way of the Service Provision Change provisions of TUPE 2006 (reg 3(1)(b) and (3)). The Employment Tribunal entitled to find that service provided by putative transferor too fragmented to give rise to transfer.
|
Practice and Procedure - Postponement or stay Employment Tribunal refused to postpone remedy hearing until after appeals by both parties heard at full hearing by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Material factor not brought to Employment Judge by party opposing postponement application. Applying Wednesbury principles Judge was thereby led into error. Exercising powers of Employment Tribunal under s35(1) Employment Tribunals Act 1996 appeal allowed and postponement granted.
|
Practice and Procedure - Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke This is an appeal regarding a dismissal for misconduct which the ET found to be a fair dismissal. The appeal questioned whether this decision was perverse and whether the ET’s reasons were Meek-compliant. The appeal also questioned whether the ET was entitled to find that employer had reasonable grounds for his belief in misconduct alleged. EAT held that ET findings were not perverse and the appeal was dismissed.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |