Disability Discrimination The Employment Judge was entitled to find on the material before him at a Pre-Hearing Review that some grievances were not extant. The Employment Judge was entitled to determine the continuing act point at a Pre-Hearing Review. The comments of Elias J in Canary Wharf Management Ltd v Edebi [2006] IRLR 416 are not dicta but part of the ratio of the case. In any event they should be followed by the EAT.
|
Unfair Dismissal - Reasonableness of dismissal The Claimant was employed as a mentor and leader for girls who had barriers to learning in an inner city school. From her school computer she accessed pornography and distributed it to colleagues. She was summarily dismissed. Art 10 ECHR (freedom of expression) was engaged but the School justified the dismissal as proportionate and as pursuing its legitimate aim in protecting children. The Claimant did not have insight into her actions and the Sch ...
|
Jurisdictional Points - Working outside the jurisdiction Respondent’s appeal against ET judgment that there was jurisdiction to determine Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim. Post the Lawson v Serco analysis, and considering Hunt v United Airlines this appeal raised the question of an employee absent from work at the time of dismissal because he was suspended or on garden leave. ET judge was held to have misdirected herself on the test to be applied. Appeal allowed ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity This is an appeal discussing whether the Employment Tribunal decided the case in favour of the Claimant on a basis not advanced by Claimant? The EAT held that it did not and the appeal was dismissed.
|
Practice and Procedure - Chairman alone An Employment Judge decided, contrary to the usual practice and the expectations of the parties, to sit alone on a forthcoming PHR to determine the ‘material factor’ defence in two major equal pay multiples. On appeal, the EAT held that the reasons for his decision were flawed, and that the usual practice of hearing such an issue with lay members was sound; and that the right decision at the time that it was taken would have been to direct ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Disclosure An appeal brought by the Claimant (a Muslim) against the ET’s refusal of his application to adjourn the hearing of his claims part-heard on the third day of the hearing. This was his third application to adjourn the hearing and the first application to raise, as a ground for adjournment, the requirements of Ramadan, their effects upon him, and the need to adjourn in order to accommodate them. Application to call as fresh evidence expert opi ...
|
Victimisation Discrimination - Protected disclosure Firefighter, who was also trade union health and safety representative, claimed that, having made a protected disclosure, he had suffered a detriment (section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996) and been refused permission as a health and safety representative to take time off for the performance of health and safety functions. Claim dismissed. Perversity appeal not upheld.
|
Unfair Dismissal - Constructive dismissal This is an appeal regarding the application of TUPE. The appeal related to the question of whether claimants who resigned asserting unfair constructive dismissal could direct their claims against a company to which the business of their employers transferred some 10 months later in circumstances where no transfer was in contemplation at the time of resignation. The EAT held that such a claim did not fall within the scope of the TUPE regulat ...
|
Jurisdictional Points - Worker, employee or neither The Employment Judge was wrong to decide a contractual document was bogus so opening the way for a finding in the Claimant’s favour that he had an implied contract of employment. That ground was expressly eschewed by his counsel and the “employer” had no opportunity to address the point. The judgment was set aside as the intention of the parties was that there was no employment relationship.
|
Jurisdictional Points - Worker, employee or neither This is an appeal which determined that the Employment Tribunal did not err in holding that the Claimant’s contract of employment was not tainted by illegality. Hall v Wollston Hall Leisure Ltd [2004] 4 AER 787 applied. Blue Chip Trading Ltd v Helbawi UKEAT/0397/08/LA and Vakante v Governing Body of Addey and Stanhope School [2005] ICR 231 considered.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |