Practice and Procedure - Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity: The claimant was employed as a carer for the respondent’s disabled son. Initially the claimant was employed by the Local Authority but this changed with the respondent, reluctantly, becoming the employer. There were problems with attendance and her attention to a number of duties, eventually culminating in an act of what could properly be constituted as gross misconduct when she left the son unattended. The respon ...
|
Transfer of Undertakings: Whether relevant transfer from company in administration to new company and whether Claimant directors/employees transferred to the new company or whether they were dismissed (unfairly) by the administrators. The EAT found that the Employment Tribunal’s finding that the Claimants’ employment was not transferred a permissible conclusion on the facts presented.
|
Unfair Dismissal – Compensation: The claimant, a legal executive employed by a firm of solicitors, was dismissed on the grounds of making a protected disclosure. She worked for the respondent for just 13 days before her dismissal and, but for the dismissal, she would have become a solicitor at the end of her probationary period. The Tribunal upheld claims for per-employment detriment on the ground of having made a protected disclosure, for dismissal following the initial detriment, a ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke: The claimant was trying to ensure that he was regarded as an employee of the respondent. The respondent was facing a petition for the winding up of the company which, if granted, would guarantee preferential treatment for employees. Because the date for the winding up order was imminent, the claimant wanted the Employment Appeal Tribunal to hear his appeal against a previous decision that he was not an employee before this dat ...
|
Unfair Dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissal: The claimant was dismissed for making remarks about a colleague within earshot of a client which the client subsequently complained about and which the respondent regarded as discriminatory. The respondent, who had a zero tolerance stance on any discriminatory behaviour, dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct. The ET held that the dismissal was unfair, concluding that it was: “… not the decision to dismiss that was unr ...
|
Unfair Dismissal - Reasonableness of dismissal: The claimant had worked as a supervisor for a firm that provided cleaning for property and letting agents but not individuals. The respondent's MD had also invested in a separate business that provided cleaning services to individuals and asked employees to distribute leaflets for that business. The respondent was informed by two employees that the claimant was also working for individuals and paying his fellow employees to carry out the work ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Case Management: The claimant attended a meeting with the respondent, against whom she was claiming race and age discrimination, and, with the assistance of her solicitor and a mediator, reached a compromise agreement, meaning that no further claims would be brought before the Employment Tribunal. Unfortunately, the next day, she claimed that the compromise agreement was null and void, and pursued her claims in the Tribunal. The respondent applied to the Tribunal f ...
|
Unlawful Deduction from Wages: The claimants claimed that the refusal by the HR department to pay them sums which were due under the CPD Scheme amounted to unlawful deduction of wages. In each case the reason for the non-payment was the individual claimant’s attendance record. The HR department understood that the attendance criterion precluded CPD payments to employees with absence records exceeding the target figure unless they could be formally disregarded in accordance with the S ...
|
Jurisdictional Points - Claim in time and effective date of termination: The claimant had made decisions to compromise her very old claim, from which she subsequently wished to resile. The first respondent was the successor to the Commission for Racial Equality which was disbanded 4 years ago. The Tribunal Judge found that the claims were out of time and that there was no ground for time to be extended under either of the jurisdictions respectively for claims based on whether it was not re ...
|
Unlawful Deduction from Wages: The Claimants are 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) or permanently (Ms Shepherd ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |