Contract of Employment - Implied Term/Variation/Construction of Term: The claimant was employed as a doctor, working part-time. She then worked in a full-time training capacity which was paid at a lower rate than her previous post. She contended that her terms and conditions specified that she would be paid the full time equivalent of the post which she had just left. The respondent claimed that as she would not have been able to work full-time in the first post even if she had w ...
|
Disability Discrimination - Post Employment: The claimant resigned from the Police Force, her resignation only being accepted after several attempts by the respondent to persuade her to stay. Soon after her resignation was accepted, the claimant was diagnosed with depression by her GP. She then indicated she wanted to withdraw her resignation and be reinstated, since she had made a hasty decision in a distressed state of mind brought on by depression. Her request was considered and re ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons: The Respondent appealed the decision of the ET on the basis that they had set out the arguments and evidence advanced on behalf of the Claimant but failed to set out the arguments and material evidence advanced on behalf of the Respondent. The EAT found, based on the evidence, the ET did not set out a proper evidential basis for the conclusions reached. The Appeal was allowed and the claim was remitted to a ...
|
Unfair Dismissal - Reasonableness of dismissal: The Claimant appealed against a decision in the ET that the she had been dismissed fairly in circumstances where she was dismissed on capability grounds but where the panel were unaware that a four-week capability assessment had not been carried out as required. The Appeal was dismissed. The EAT concluded that the material finding by ET at paragraph 79 of their Reasons – that the procedural irregularity was necessary as it wa ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Amendment: The claimant became pregnant and made a subsequent request to move to other duties as she feared that her current job involved handling materials that might harm her unborn child. She resigned because she felt that the request was not handled properly by her manager. She did not know his surname but in her ET1 she reserved the right to join him once his full name was disclosed. When his name was given in the ET3, she applied promptly to join h ...
|
Religion or Belief Discrimination: The claimant was dismissed by the Police Authority following information from neighbouring forces and his work in the psychic field, which was not compatible with employment in the police force. The Tribunal found his dismissal to be fair, commenting that, although the concerns expressed by the respondent were related to the claimant's beliefs, it was not because he held those beliefs but because of the unacceptable way in which he expressed those be ...
|
Unfair Dismissal: The Claimant area sales manager was remunerated on a different basis from the other four area managers. His commission was based on total sales whereas theirs was based on annual increase in sales. On reviewing remuneration the Respondent considered that he should be paid on the same basis as his colleagues and that his remuneration did not reflect the substantial financial investment made by the Respondent in the business. The EAT found that the ...
|
Contract of Employment - Written particulars: The Claimants were all government lawyers employed in the government legal service. The appeal by the MoD and cross appeal by the Claimants raised issues relating to their contractual entitlement to two distinct allowances (i.e. London Weighting and the Recruitment and Retention Allowance (RRA)) during their period of work at the MoD, on transfer to the MoD either on loan from their “home” department (Ms Carr and Mr Ferguson) o ...
|
Victimisation Discrimination - Protected disclosure: The EAT found that S.47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that “A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that the worker has made a protected disclosure.” In cases where a Claimant has proved that he or she has made a protected disclosure under s.43A and s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996 and that he or she has subsequ ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Withdrawal: The EAT was asked to establish whether it was open to the Employment Tribunals to dismiss Claimant’s claims on withdrawal under ET rule 28. On the facts, the EAT found that this was not the case. The EAT, therefore, allowed the Appeal against withdrawal judgment, together with consequential costs order.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |