Unfair Dismissal - Reasonableness of dismissal An Employment Tribunal had correctly held that the failure of an employer to provide adequate details of the complaints against an employee vitiated the disciplinary proceedings so that the dismissal was automatically unfair by virtue of Section 98A Employment Rights Act 1996. The Employment Tribunal had however, inadmissibly substituted its own views of the evidence for those of the Employer when finding that the Employer could not properly have ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Striking-out/dismissal Review of strike-out decision. Employment Tribunal misunderstanding of agreed fact on material to exercise of discretion. EAT allowed appeal and exercised s35(1) Employment Tribunals Act 1996 powers. Application of CPR 3.9(1) factors, so far as material. Strike-out set aside. Remitted to Employment Tribunal for substantive determination.
|
Race Discrimination - Direct Claim for discrimination on grounds of nationality and ethnic origin by Claimant against his erstwhile employers, the Respondent. It succeeded before the Employment Tribunal. The alleged discrimination related to the failure of the Respondent to appoint the Claimant to a post he applied for. The Respondent appealed. Appeal allowed and remitted because the Employment Tribunal erred when it:- 1. Drew inference of racial discrimination from th ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Time for appealing The Respondent who did not lodge a response in time was the subject of a default Judgment. He did not appear on his application for a Review. He did not appeal the substantive order against him. His appeal against a further review was four days out of time and on his acceptance that there was no excuse, there was no reason to extend time or to review the compensation and costs orders against him. Appeal dismissed with costs.
|
Contract of Employment - Implied Term/Variation/Construction of Term The addition of new comparators to equal pay claims constitutes the addition of new causes of action. The Employment Tribunal erred in law in holding that in these cases the change from Whitley Council agreements to Agenda for Change terms and conditions of employment was a termination of contracts of employment and their replacement with new contracts.
|
Practice and Procedure - Costs Where at the heart of a claim is an explicit lie alleging racial abuse, the Employment Tribunal was in error failing to find that the Claimant acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting the claim and should have made an order for costs against her.
|
Unfair Dismissal - Constructive dismissal The Employment Tribunal did not approach the question of constructive unfair dismissal in a last straw case by reference to the steps in Omilaju. To take an analytic approach and ask of each event whether the Claimant had proved a breach or fundamental breach of contract was an error. Appeal allowed. Remitted to a fresh Employment Tribunal. ACAS recommended.
|
Unfair Dismissal - Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal The employee was told at a meeting that he or his post would be made redundant at a meeting; but he was not then made redundant; further meetings followed before he was given notice of dismissal. The Employment Tribunal found (1) that the dismissal was automatically unfair because that meeting did not comply with the Step 2 requirements and there had not been a Step 1 complaint letter (2) that the dismissal ...
|
Jurisdictional Points - Extension of time: just and equitable This is an appeal regarding a claim for age discrimination that was presented five weeks out of time. The Claimant did not give evidence as to the reason for delay but relied on medical reports and other documentary material. Held that the Judge was entitled to find that it was just and equitable to extend time notwithstanding certain deficiencies in the material before him. Observations on the nature of the evidence which should b ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Costs Decision by an Employment Judge to award the costs thrown away by an adjournment held to be unreasonable for various reasons. Observations on the Rule 3 procedure made as Respondent unsuccessfully challenged the jurisdiction of the EAT to hear the appeal.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |