By Daniel Gorry on 26/09/2006 00:00
Unfair Dismissal - Constructive dismissal
The Respondent employer represented to its recognised trade union representatives that if it were to close its immigration service at Waterloo International Terminal it would consult pursuant to a procedure incorporated in its employee handbook. But instead, following legal advice, it relied on a contractual Mobility Clause. This was a fundamental breach of the ClaimantsÆ contracts, which they accepted as repudiation, and resigned promptly having taken time to allow the Respondent to remedy its ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 14/09/2006 00:00
Whether a policy expressed not to be part of the contract had acquired contractual status.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 05/09/2006 00:00
Equal Pay Act - Out of time
A hearing which was to be about whether the Claimant was to be warned as to costs and pay a deposit turned into a hearing as to a strike out. Apart from this procedural issue the EAT agreed with the Appellant that to strike out a case when there were a number of crucial issues of fact – which could only be resolved by an oral hearing – was inappropriate. The Appeal was allowed. The EAT did not consider it right to decide whether the Appellant should pay a deposit and he warned about costs but co ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 22/08/2006 00:00
Costs orders for £10,000 and £1000 did not exceed the statutory maximum order Reg 14.Order for £10000 made after striking-out order. That order was set aside by EAT and therefore costs order should also be set aside as it resulted from the striking-out order. Fresh Tribunal to consider appellan's conduct at conclusion of the case. Tribunal correct to impose ú1000 to reflect the AppellantÆs disgraceful conduct at the Tribunal hearing which necessitated a further costs hearing.
|
By Euan Dow on 21/08/2006 23:00
Unlawful Deduction from Wages
As the Employment Tribunal had found that the Respondent had the right to take the Claimant off stand-by duties on health and safety grounds, the consequent reduction in pay was not an unauthorised deduction. He was then paid what was properly payable under Employment Rights Act 1996 s 13(3). The Employment Tribunal also relied on authorities without giving the Claimant the opportunity to make submissions, and the authorities did not support the Employment Tribunals reasoning. Albion Hotel appli ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 17/08/2006 00:00
The claimant comes from Aberdeen. He was employed by Ben Line Steamers and his employment was transferred, ultimately, to the respondents, a company registered in Singapore. The respondents were a subsidiary of a Swedish company. From a date in 1998 until it determined that the claimant's place of employment was not within Great Britain as that was not where he carried out his work. On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal, after having considered the decision of the House of Lords in Lawson v ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 16/08/2006 00:00
The appellant local authority had carried out a be
they had looked only at the disadvantages to the employees. Further they had, in reaching their conclusion that the dismissals were unfair, substituted their own view for that of the reasonable employer. The case was remitted to a freshly constituted tribunal to consider whether or not those dismissals for some other substantial reason were fair or not. Circumstances in which the tribunal ChairmanÆs failure to answer a relevant question in response to a Burns/Barke order on the sift weighed with ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 15/08/2006 00:00
The claimant had been successful in establishing that he was discriminated against on grounds of disability. He had appealed successfully against the tribunal's award of compensation and the Inner House of the Court of Session had pronounced an order remi
|
By Daniel Gorry on 11/08/2006 00:00
The claimant, a university lecturer, claimed that he had been unfairly constructively dismissed. The tribunal held that the university had acted reasonably throughout the period of his employment, that they had not breached his contract in any respect and
|
By Daniel Gorry on 11/08/2006 00:00
SolicitorÆs letter before action sent on behalf of a Union demanding costs and undertaking was not a ôdeterminationö under Section 64 Trade Union and Labour Relations Act.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 |