By Daniel Gorry on 30/03/2007 00:00
ET findings that a decision to suspend a teaching assistant for refusing an instruction not to wear her veil when in class with pupils assisting a male teacher: was not direct discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief; and, though it was indirectly discriminatory on that ground, was lawful, being proportionate in support of a legitimate aim, upheld by the EAT.
|
By Euan Dow on 30/03/2007 00:00
Appeal under section 37(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996
The appellant was a part-time employee of the respondents. He claimed that he was suffering detriment in the manner in which the respondents applied the provisions of his contract of employment relating to the incidence of public holidays. He applied to the Employment Tribunal under the provisions of the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (S.I.2000/1551). By a judgment dated 4 August 2005 the Employment Tribunal refused the application. The appellant app ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 29/03/2007 00:00
In determining that the Claimant’s claim was in time by reason of her having been in a stable employment relationship with no fundamental changes, the Employment Tribunal Chairman correctly applied Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Health Care NHS Trust and Others [1998] IRLR 197 (HL) [2000] IRLR 506 (ECJ) and [2004] IRLR 96 (EAT), Thatcher v Middlesex University (EAT/0134/05) and Secretary of State v Rance and Others (UKEAT/0060/06).
|
By Daniel Gorry on 29/03/2007 00:00
The Employment Tribunal Chairman did not err when determining for the purposes of assessing one year's continuous employment the start and end dates of the employment relationship.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 29/03/2007 00:00
Appeal is allowed to the extent of remitting the case back to the same Tribunal to determine solely the issue of whether or not had a fair procedure been conducted, the dismissal would in any event have occurred, or not, as the case may be and in any event to make the probability assessment in percentage terms that we laid down in the California Cookie case.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 29/03/2007 00:00
Triangular relationship – whether implied contract of employment between worker and end-user – strict application of Aramis principle – ET finding of implied contract reversed
|
By Daniel Gorry on 28/03/2007 00:00
Triangular relationship – whether employment agency acted as agent for end-user in entering into a contract of service between worker and end-user. Held that it did not.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 28/03/2007 00:00
Whether employed immediately before transfer – inadequate reading by ET – whether administration ‘stage-managed’. Case remitted for rehearing by fresh ET.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 28/03/2007 00:00
Whether employed immediately before transfer – inadequate reading by ET – whether administration ‘stage-managed’. Case remitted for rehearing by fresh ET.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 28/03/2007 00:00
Frustration of contract by illness. Employee had recovered at time ET found frustration occurred. Decision reversed
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |