By Daniel Gorry on 21/12/2006 00:00
Novation of contract of employment. The effect of statutory statement of terms and conditions of employment.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 21/12/2006 00:00
Contract of Employment - Definition of employee
The Appellant was supplied by an agency to carry out work for Greenwich Council. She had no express contract with the Council but she contended that there was an implied contract, given in particular that she had worked for the Council for a period of some five years and had been treated in all respects like other permanent employees. The Tribunal considered whether there was an implied contract, following the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd [2004] I ...
|
By Euan Dow on 20/12/2006 00:00
Race Discrimination - Discrimination by other bodies
The Employment Tribunal correctly held it had no jurisdiction to hear Claimant’s case brought under the Race Relations Act 1976 s12 against the General Medical Council as a qualifying body. If it did, and if it were necessary to decide the point, the claim would be excluded by s54 as there is an alternative “appeal” mechanism. The Claimant was permitted to amend his claim to add a claim of harassment if he could provide particulars. He did so in a form which satisfied a regional Chairman. Ther ...
|
By Euan Dow on 20/12/2006 00:00
Disability Discrimination;
Disability Associative disability discrimination – whether covered by Framework Directive – whether DDA is capable of being read in conformity with Directive: if it is – whether reference to ECJ by ET was wrong in law.;The Claimant is not herself disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). Her complaint of unlawful disability discrimination is advanced on the grounds that she is the carer of a disabled person, her son (A) born in 2002. It is accepted that A is disable ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 19/12/2006 00:00
Employee disabled by kidney-related pain; dismissed for bad attendance record which, in last four years before dismissal, had nothing to do with his disability. Argument that ET had misunderstood the evidence and should have determined it as he wished rejected. Argument that he should have had ill-health retirement rather than dismissal for non-attendance also rejected.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 15/12/2006 00:00
Practice and Procedure - Time for appealing
The Employment Tribunal, instead of issuing a correction in respect of one error in its Judgment, withdrew the Reasons in their entirety and reissued them. Time ran in those circumstances from the fresh promulgation, or at least the Appellant (otherwise one day out of time) was entitled so to conclude. Urgent recommendation to ET Chairman, when making a correction, not to reissue the whole Judgment but to issue the relevant page(s) corrected, sensibly making clear that the original promulgation ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 15/12/2006 00:00
Transfer of Undertakings - Pensions and other terms
The Claimant started to work for the transferor in 1999 where there was no severance pay scheme. She transferred to the Appellant in 2004 where there is a dual scheme providing different benefits to those who “joined” before and after 2002, each increasing with length of service. In 2005 it was incorporated into her contract. When she was made redundant in 2005 she was treated as having length of service back to 1999, but it was the post-2002 joiner scheme which was applied to her. It was held t ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 15/12/2006 00:00
Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments
The EAT would follow the judgment of the EAT most recently upholding the British Gas line of authorities set out in Tarbuck. A Tribunal is under a duty to decide whether reasonable adjustments have been made irrespective of whether they were actually considered by an employer. The trigger point for a duty to arise is when the employee who is absent indicates that she will be returning to work. The Home Office v Collins applied. If adjustments will have no practical effect in mitigating the subst ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 14/12/2006 00:00
The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that the Claimant reasonably believed a statutory procedure was under way and his Employment Tribunal claim was thus in time.
|
By Euan Dow on 14/12/2006 00:00
Unfair Dismissal - Exclusions including worker/jur
Three cases were stayed pending the judgment of the House of Lords in Lawson v Serco [2006] ICR 250. The appeal in the British Council case was dismissed on withdrawal after the hearing and before the judgment. In ADT, the Employment Tribunal correctly held that the Claimant was employed by the Respondent, albeit that he had not had his contract of employment transferred to it by operation of TUPE. He had worked continuously abroad for seven and a half years. Now applying Serco, his case d ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |