By Daniel Gorry on 24/05/2006 00:00
Tribunal found 20% contributory fault and that the employee was not entitled to future pension loss. Were the conclusions justified? Did the Tribunal provide clear reasons to justify the conclusion that had indeed concluded that there would be no further pension loss?
|
By Daniel Gorry on 19/05/2006 00:00
Practice and Procedure. Employment Tribunal Chairman rejecting claim form on basis that ClaimantÆs address not given (but ClaimantÆs solicitorsÆ name and address were given). Application for review refused by Chairman. These appeals, against both decisions, raise the questions (1) whether the procedural rules are absolute and/or (2) whether their rigour may be tempered on a review.
|
By Euan Dow on 01/05/2006 23:00
No valid Originating Application or claim form having been received by an Employment Tribunal containing the Claimant's case for equal pension treatment, there is no jurisdiction in the EAT to hear an appeal under section 21 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 in the absence of some judgment decision order or proceedings of an Employment Tribunal. Nor has there been any refusal by the Tribunal to hear the claim since it has not been presented.
|
By Euan Dow on 27/04/2006 00:00
Application of ET Rule 33 review procedure. Mandatory requirement for written application for review not fulfilled. Review refused. Appeal allowed - case remitted to consider (1) whether time for review application should be extended and (2) if so, whether default judgment should be set aside.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 21/04/2006 00:00
Unlawful Deduction from Wages Out of Time
The alleged ôdeductionö from wages was in fact an alleged underpayment some time after the termination of the contract of employment. In finding that time for claiming in respect of such deduction ran from the date of termination, the Tribunal fell into error. Time would normally begin to run from such date where there had been a complete non-payment, but where the claim was for an underpayment, time runs from the date when the underpayment was made for it was to be treated as the sum form which ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 12/04/2006 00:00
Unfair Dismissal: Reasonableness of dismissal
The Employment Tribunal found certain procedural defects in handling a redundancy exercise. The questions before the EAT were: Did they constitute a breach of the relevant statutory dismissal procedure so as to render the dismissal automatically unfair under section 98A(1) ERA? Alternatively, did they render the dismissal unfair under s 98(4) ERA? If potentially they did, could the employer rely upon section 98A(2) ERA and allege that the dismissal would have occurred in any event even if proper ...
|
By Euan Dow on 11/04/2006 23:00
Unfair Dismissal - Procedural fairness/automatical
The reversal of Polkey (1987) IRLR 503 effected by Employment Rights Act 1996 s98A(2) applies to dismissals occurring on or after 1 October 2004. It applies to a failure to follow a procedure or policy covering dismissal, whether in writing or existing by custom and practice and whether contractual or non-contractual. It does not apply to failure to follow statutory procedures described in s98A(1) and (3). Nor to failure to follow the guidance in the ACAS code or general non-specific failure to ...
|
By Euan Dow on 11/04/2006 23:00
Unfair Dismissal: Procedural fairness/automaticall
This case concerns the assessment of compensation for unfair dismissal when a relevant procedure has not been followed.The reversal of Polkey (1987) IRLR 503 effected by Employment Rights Act 1996 s98A(2) applies to dismissals occurring on or after 1 October 2004. It applies to a failure to follow a procedure or policy covering dismissal, whether in writing or existing by custom and practice and whether contractual or non-contractual. It does not apply to failure to follow statutory procedures d ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 07/04/2006 00:00
Disability Discrimination: disability
The claimant, a postman, had osteoarthritic changes in his right hip and chronic mechanical back pain. His employment was terminated on grounds of ill health. He claimed he had been unfairly dismissed on disability grounds. The issue of whether or not he was disabled was determined at a pre hearing review. The tribunal found that whilst the claimant had a physical impairment, it was not such as had a substantial effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities. The Employment Appe ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 06/04/2006 00:00
Practice and Procedure - Bias, misconduct and proc
The claimant was dismissed. In her application to the Employment Tribunal, she alleged both that she had been made redundant and was entitled to a redundancy payment and that she had been unfairly dismissed and/or selected for redundancy. She also claimed unpaid wages. The respondent’s response included a statement that the claimant had been dismissed for gross industrial misconduct some of which was criminal. The Employment Tribunal refused an application for a second adjournment to allow furth ...
|
| 1 2 3 |