Practice and Procedure: The EAT held that the Human Rights Act does not apply to this particular case, it not being proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public authority. The EAT also held that the Employment Tribunal system has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter. The appeal was allowed and the cross-appeal to the extent referred to on behalf of the second respondent was also allowed. The result of that was the decision of the Employment Tribunal was qua ...
|
Equal Pay: The question in this appeal and cross-appeal was whether women bringing equal pay claims, in multiple public sector litigation, were to be prevented from pursuing their claims because of an alleged failure to comply with Step 1 of the statutory grievance procedure (SGP). The Employment Judge held at a PHR that one category of Claimants (Type A) was so prevented. Each of them had sent to her employers a grievance document which was held not to comply with the SGP because, ...
|
Practice and Procedure: The Tribunal announced its decision orally but before either a written Judgment or written Reasons was produced, had second thoughts on one aspect and purported to “review” its decision on that aspect. The power of review "eo nomine" was not available because written notice was not given as required by rule 36. The EAT held that the Tribunal was entitled to exercise power of “recall” recognised in Hanks v Ace High Productions Ltd. [1978 ...
|
Unfair Dismissal: An employee was dismissed for doing remunerative work in his own business, without his employer’s consent, in a period when he was off sick and in respect of which he was receiving sick pay. The Tribunal held to have been entitled to conclude that dismissal for that reason was, in the particular circumstances of the case, fair. The EAT dismissed the appeal.
|
Sex Discrimination: H, a partner in a firm of solicitors, PWW, by whose predecessor C had previously been employed gave an unfavourable reference to a firm, S, with whom she was seeking employment. The job offer withdrawn in consequence. Both H and S held to have been influenced by previous protected act on the part of C and thus all three held to have discriminated against C by way of victimisation. The Tribunal held that S’s act in withdrawing the offer “broke the chain of causati ...
|
Unfair Dismissal: The case concerned compensation and failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate loss. The EAT dismissed the Claimant's appeal upholding the Tribunal's finding that employee failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate her loss.
|
Sex Discrimination: The EAT found that where an employee’s psychiatric ill-health has been caused by a combination of factors, some of which amount to unlawful discrimination for which the employer is liable, but others which were not the legal responsibility of the employer, it is open to an Employment Tribunal to discount the employee’s compensation by such percentage as reflects its apportionment of that responsibility.
|
Unfair Dismissal: The case concerned selection criteria for redundancy and whether those criteria were fair and applied fairly. The EAT concluded that the decision to dismiss the Claimant's claim of unfair dismissal must be set aside and remitted the case for rehearing by a differently constituted tribunal.
|
Disability Discrimination: The EAT held that the Tribunal, in finding a failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, failed to follow the guidance set out in Environment Agency v Rowan [2008] ICR 218.
|
Indirect Sex Discrimination: The EAT held that the Employment Tribunal failed to make sufficient findings of fact on (1) the issue of the Claimant suffering individual detriment as a result of the application of a discriminatory PCP and (2) on the issue of proportionality to justify their conclusion that there was actionable indirect discrimination.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |