Unfair Dismissal: The respondent had two employment policies which related to alcohol consumption during working hours. The Disciplinary Policy referred to the possibility of summary dismissal if the employee is found to be ‘under the influence of alcohol’ during working hours, which amounted to gross misconduct. The Alcohol and Drug Policy stated that ‘consumption of alcohol or being under the influence of alcohol while performing company business or in the workplac ...
|
Constructive dismissal: The claimant raised a grievance concerning the Director of Marketing and Communications at the university, listing intimidating and threatening behaviour, and conduct which undermined her role, amongst her complaints. She included the fact that the Director had just been convicted of an offence of breach of the peace, which supported her view that he could display aggressive behaviour. The decision to appoint the Director had been taken by the Appointing Commit ...
|
Practice and Procedure: The claimant complained of sex discrimination against her employer and amongst her complaints were allegations against 3 named individuals. The respondent raised the argument in their ET3 that the claims were out of time and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. At a PHR, the Judge decided that the issue of time limits should be decided at a full hearing, but she also made a case management direction, ruling that the claimant could not claim d ...
|
Notice and pay in lieu: The claimant had been employed by the respondent since 1978 before his employment was terminated on 31 May 2009 following sickness absence that started on 24 January 2007. Meetings had taken place in early 2009 to discuss possible ill health retirement and was followed by subsequent correspondence. The company therefore sought ill-health retirement from the trustees of the pension scheme, which was accepted commencing on 31 May 2009. In subseque ...
|
Apprenticeship: The claimant was taken on by the respondent under a scheme which was called ‘Accepting Learners on Workbased Training’. At first the claimant was not paid, but later he was paid at a rate of £2.50 per hour partly at the request of the claimant’s family and partly because the organisation which set up the workbased training said that its policy was no longer to support ‘learners’ who were not employed and wanted him therefore to be put ...
|
Contract of Employment - Implied Term/Variation/Construction of Term: The claimant signed a new handbook, which he didn’t read, which included a clause that no payment would be made to employees during periods when they were laid off. The respondent contended that the claimant also received a new statement of terms and conditions, including this clause, although there was no evidence of a signed copy. The claimant was laid off and did not receive pay for this period, then r ...
|
Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke: The claimant, a security guard, was dismissed summarily for gross misconduct following an incident in which he hit a member of the public who was threatening other security officers. The claimant claimed that he had acted in self defence but the outcome of the investigation concluded that he had deliberately taken the individual out of sight of the CCTV to have a fight with him. On appeal, a second investigating officer upheld the dism ...
|
Redundancy: The claimant worked during term time only, her contract stating that her average working week was 20 hours per week, for 40 weeks per year. She was precluded from taking holiday during term time and had to take it at the year end or out of term. Her statutory 5 weeks paid holiday were therefore extra to the 40 weeks she was actually paid for being at work. She was regarded as unemployed for the rest of the year. Her redundancy pay was based on her weekly pay being calculat ...
|
Wrongful dismissal: Argument that employer failed to tell Second Claimant, who together with the First Claimant shared work duties for the Respondent employer by private arrangement between the Claimants, that it was accepting his repudiatory conduct (not turning up for work, ever again, though asked to do so) and has therefore never terminated his contract, and that an unfair dismissal claim first made some 15 months later by him and some 9 months later by her was thus within time, w ...
|
The claimant had claimed unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages. The claimant conceded that he had no right to a claim for unfair dismissal because he had less than 12 months service, but the case went through 2 Case Management Discussions anyway and was only struck out at the last minute. Notwithstanding the strike out the case was considered at a hearing on the basis that the 12 month limit was not applicable insofar as the claimant’s claim could or should be read as of dism ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |