Jurisdictional Points Regulation 15 of the 2004 Regulations extends from three to six months the deadline under the Employment Rights Act 1996 s 111. The Claimant relied on negotiations over a compromise agreement to invoke Regulation 15. The Employment Judge wrongly focused on whether she had an internal appeal. Towergate applied, Piscitelli distinguished. In this case where the Claimant was raising money and substantive issues on unfair dismissal, she was entitled to ...
|
Unfair Dismissal - Constructive dismissal The substance of the claim brought by the Claimant, a police officer, was that he had been forced to resign as a result of racially instituted discrimination and had then been constructively dismissed. He had, however, incorrectly completed the boxes in his ET1 as he completed the box for dismissal rather than for discrimination. Police officers are only permitted to claim for unfair dismissal if the dismissal is on discriminatory grounds.&n ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Case Management Permissible case management decision by Employment Tribunal hearing substantive case to add two issues, pleaded in Form ET1, to list of issues formulated at earlier Case Management Discussion, having raised the matter on its own initiative and heard representations from both parties. Whether reasons Meek compliant in relation to finding that the Claimant had passed stage 2 of Igen v Wong test. Whether Employment Tribunal correctly directed themselves as ...
|
This summary has been taken from Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin and has been prepared by Michael Ford of Old Square Chambers who was instructed by Thompsons on behalf of the employees. The House of Lords has decided in favour of the workers in the long-running litigation in Stringer v. HMRC (sometimes referred to as Ainsworth v HMRC), overturning the Court of Appeal. Their Lordships have now unanimously held that a claim for (i) unpaid holiday under regulations 13 and 16 of th ...
|
Contract of Employment - Written particulars The Claimants are maintenance supervisors of craftspersons in the NHS. As a matter of construction, AFC as incorporated into the Claimants’ contracts in the context of a desire to create gender-free pay systems did not entitle them to the Recruitment and Retention Payments made to the craftspersons they supervised, even though all were required to have the same qualifications and the Claimants did do some work “on the tools”. ...
|
Unfair Dismissal - Reinstatement/re-engagement Order for reinstatement made. The Employment Tribunal failed to take into account relevant factors in the exercise of their discretion. Appeal allowed; reinstatement order set aside.
|
Practice and Procedure - Costs Partial costs order by Employment Tribunal. Illogical to award Counsel’s fee but not solicitors’ costs. Appeal allowed.
|
Unfair Dismissal The Employment Tribunal erred when it found the employee was not unfairly dismissed. There was no disciplinary hearing. In the light of London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small [2009] EWCA Civ 220 the Employment Tribunal concentrated wrongly on the conduct of the Claimant and not upon the conduct of the Respondent. In the light of Strouthos v London Underground Limited [2004] IRLR 402 CA a charge of deliberate falsification or lying has to be put squarely. Remitted for ...
|
Equal Pay Act - Work rated equivalent 244 Equal Pay claims by classroom assistants, support for learning assistants and nursery nurses employed by local authority. They sought to compare themselves with male manual workers based elsewhere, at depots and at a swimming pool, and employed as road workers, groundsmen, refuse collectors, refuse drivers and a leisure attendant. There were also male manual workers employed by the local authority at schools (i.e. the same establishments as them), as j ...
|
Practice and Procedure - New evidence on appeal Witness before Tribunal changed his evidence concerning a critical date from that which was in his witness statement. Tribunal made critical finding on that basis. Application on appeal to adduce fresh evidence – Ladd v Marshall principles applied – evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the Tribunal hearing – evidence would probably have had an important bearing on the hearing – ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |