Jurisdictional Points: The Claimant signed a contract of employment with T.HQ. She thought it was owned by, and the trading name of, D. She had not heard of S Ltd now in liquidation which was the owner of T.HQ and of which D was a director. On the Employment Judge’s finding of unpaid wages, the order was made against T.HQ and D jointly and severally. On appeal HELD the order was wrongly made against D. The name of the Respondent was corrected to S Ltd under E ...
|
Constructive Dismissal: The Employment Tribunal did not err in finding the conduct of the Respondent breached the implied term of trust and the Claimant resigned for that reason. The employment status of the Claimant was not an issue at the Employment Tribunal and could not be raised now. The Respondent, a solicitor, conducted himself unreasonably in failing to take steps in preparation for the hearing, in not attending and threatening costs against the Claimant. If the Claimant, a soli ...
|
Unfair Dismissal: THe EAT found that the Tribunal was correct in finding that the employers failed to consult properly on the size of the pool, but were in error in finding that the pool had to be two. Unfair dismissal point upheld.
|
Unfair Dismissal: Employment Tribunal found Claimant guilty of serious misconduct for which dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses; but that it did not amount to gross misconduct therefore the dismissal was unfair. Applying s98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996, finding of unfair dismissal was reversed on appeal. However, in light of Employment Tribunal’s finding that conduct was not gross misconduct (entitling employer to summarily dismiss Claimant) his claim for noti ...
|
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.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |