By Daniel Gorry on 28/09/2007 11:12
Procedural Issues – Nature of Discrimination Claim EAT substituted judgement of ET with regards to jurisdiction and time bar issues in a discrimination case. Held that it was a matter not of discretion as to whether to allow the matter to proceed in relation to allegations preceding 1st April; it was a matter which lent itself only to the conclusion that the allegations were allegations of continuing discrimination. Matter remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 27/09/2007 11:59
Practice and Procedure - Time for appealing; Appeal against Registrar’s refusal to extend time – Appellant submits that “Abdelghafar approach” requires modification in the light of the introduction of rule 2A (over-riding objective) – Submission rejected.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 27/09/2007 11:58
Practice and Procedure - 2002 Act and pre-action requirementsThe Employee submitted a claim of discriminatory dismissal. The Employer argued that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction because the statutory grievance procedure was not invoked. Tribunal ruled that there was jurisdiction as the case falls within reg. 6(5) of the 2002 Act which states that the grievance procedures do not apply where the grievance is that the employer has dismissed or is contemplating dismissing the employee. Decision uph ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 27/09/2007 11:56
Unfair Dismissal - Constructive dismissalThe Claimant was dismissed for misconduct, namely pretending that he was unfit to return to work when video footage showed that he was not so unfit. The Employment Tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair. The Respondent’s appeal was allowed and the case remitted for rehearing by a fresh Tribunal. The Employment Tribunal had erred in law in:(i) omitting to refer to the full investigatory meeting before suspension and concluding that the Re ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 27/09/2007 11:00
Redundancy – Trial PeriodContract of Employment - Sick pay and holiday pay Claimant accepted (with reservations) an offer of alternative employment within s138(1) of the 1996 Act and failed (notwithstanding having legal advisers) to give notice within the 28-day period in accordance with s138(2)/(3). The Employment Tribunal found that there was a “common law” trial period which nevertheless enabled her, after the expiry of the 28-day period, to accept a repudiatory breach by the Appellant ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 13/09/2007 08:00
Sex Discrimination – IndirectThe Employment Tribunal found that the failure by the union to support certain female members in their claims for equal pay against their employer, and the union’s subsequent treatment of these members once it became known that they were pursuing such claims through the employment tribunal, constituted both indirect sex discrimination and victimisation discrimination. The union appealed against both findings and the EAT upheld the appeals and substituted ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 13/09/2007 07:59
Time Limits - Effective date of terminationThe Tribunal found that the employee had demonstrated that it was not reasonably practicable for him to present his claim for unfair dismissal in the three month period because his appeal was still proceeding and there were ongoing negotiations about a consensual ‘resignation’; but these processes ended on 7 October and the period elapsed on 10 October. Held that the Tribunal erred in not considering separately the period from 7 October to 1 ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 13/09/2007 07:57
Unfair Dismissal - Exclusions including worker/jurisdiction The Appellant was one of three employees dismissed for allowing an ambulance to be used for an improper purpose. She claimed that she had been unfairly dismissed but the Employment Tribunal rejected her case. She alleged that the Tribunal had made various errors of law, particularly in concluding that dismissal was a fair sanction. The EAT held that no such errors had been made.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 13/09/2007 07:50
Disability Discrimination - Less favourable treatmentThe Claimant was disabled by dyslexia. He was a train conductor. He turned up late for work on a number of occasions, finally within three weeks of a final warning; he was dismissed. The Tribunal dismissed his disability discrimination claims and found the dismissal to have been fair.Held on appeal: (1) Assuming that issue estoppel could be raised as between a preliminary decision that the Claimant was disabled and the subsequent s ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 13/09/2007 07:41
Time Limits - Effective date of terminationThe Tribunal found that the employee had demonstrated that it was not reasonably practicable for him to present his claim for unfair dismissal in the three month period because his appeal was still proceeding and there were ongoing negotiations about a consensual ‘resignation’; but these processes ended on 7 October and the period elapsed on 10 October. Held that the Tribunal erred in not considering separately the period from 7 October to 1 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |