Victimisation Discrimination: The claimant was a taxi driver whose agreement with the respondent was terminated after he refused, quite legitimately according to the Tribunal, to complete a detailed security questionnaire. He claimed that he was an employee of the respondent and therefore could bring a claim before the Employment Tribunal. The ET concluded that he was not an employee by referring to the decision in Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) v Minister of Pensions [1986] 1 ER 4 ...
|
Age Discrimination: The claimants were technicians in the NHS who were re-graded into a new salary band which involved a significant pay rise. However because of the impact on pensions for older employees, those close to retirement went straight on to the new pay spine whereas younger employees went through transitional points, were accordingly paid less than their older counterparts and so initiated these proceedings. In the ET, following submissions by counsel on the question of wha ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Appearance/Response: The claimant was claiming disability discrimination and lodged his ET1, naming both the company he worked for and the HR manager as the respondents. An ET3 response was received by the ET. The form itself referred only to the company as the respondent but the attached grounds included a heading showing that both the company and the HR manager as first and second respondents respectively. The claimant claimed that a response had not been lo ...
|
Contract of Employment - Disciplinary and grievance procedure: The claimant asked the ET for an adjournment of the hearing on the grounds that he was not fit to conduct the proceedings properly and was unable to obtain legal representation. The ET refused his application firstly on the basis that the claimant had not produced any medical evidence to support his contention that he was unfit to conduct the proceedings. They added that they were ‘mindful of the history of this part ...
|
Victimisation Discrimination – Interim relief: The claimant was employed in Gloucester Magistrates Court from September 2006 and there were concerns about performance. After being given an "improvement required" grade (subsequently re-graded) relations with his supervisor deteriorated, he was given an informal written warning and, in response, issued a grievance. Dispute resolution was unsuccessful and after further criticism the claimant issued an 85 paragraph grievance allegin ...
|
Race Discrimination – Vicarious liability: The claimant was a project worker with the respondent. He had started working with them even though he had not been subject to a CRB check as required. An agency worker started work with the respondent soon after and who had a difficult working relationship the claimant. The claimant raised a grievance relating to the agency worker's behaviour and the day after, an altercation resulted in the claimant being told to go home by his manager whi ...
|
Jurisdictional Points - Claim in time and effective date of termination: The claimant was dismissed and he lodged an appeal which took several weeks to conclude. During this time the claimant spoke to a solicitor under their free consultation procedure and was erroneously advised that he should wait until the conclusion of the internal appeal before issuing proceedings at the Employment Tribunal. The claimant was aware of the 3 month limitation period and asked the respondent several ...
|
Material factor defence and justification: The claimants were nine female Inspection and Information Officers working with the Commission's Housing Inspectorate. Colleagues, mostly male, on different pay scales and more senior job titles had been transferred from the Housing Corporation in 2004 and were the subject of pay protection. In October 2007 these posts were amalgamated, and a selection exercise took place for 11 posts to be filled from 15 current workers. Two of these posts w ...
|
Jurisdictional Points - Worker, employee or neither: The Claimant was a licensed private hire driver, who was engaged by the Respondent between 1 September 2008 and 14 October 2008. He was told that he would receive mileage rates for the work that he did and that he had to provide his car upon the basis that he paid the insurance as well as the running costs including petrol, maintenance bills and other expenses. The Claimant was paid by submitting an invoice based on the record ...
|
Striking-out/dismissal: The claimant made a claim for unfair dismissal but the claim was forwarded to the wrong department of the respondent. The respondent thus knew nothing of the claim and did not file a response. A default judgment was made upholding the claimant’s claim and a copy was sent to the respondent at the same address as before. The respondent applied first for the default judgment to be reviewed and revoked on the basis of rule 34(3)(b) of the Employment Tribunal ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |