By Daniel Gorry on 30/11/2007 17:55
Contract of Employment - Implied Term/Variation/Construction of Term This part time worker’s pension case was dismissed as to sex discrimination and equal pay by the Employment Tribunal. But a Scally contract claim, that the Respondent should have told the Claimant about a discretionary scheme for buying lost years in the Teachers’ Pension Scheme, is remitted to the same Employment Tribunal Chairman to determine.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 30/11/2007 17:37
Disability Discrimination - Less favourable treatment 1. The Tribunal applied wrong tests in respect of disability related discrimination. On the application of the right tests, based on the Tribunal’s findings of fact, its conclusions were clearly correct in respect of two claims, but three claims were remitted to the same Tribunal for fresh consideration of unresolved issues, primarily of detriment and justification. The three stage test explained (paragraphs 32 to 35). 2. In regar ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 28/11/2007 18:00
Unfair Dismissal - Contributory fault The Claimant was found to be unfairly dismissed. The Tribunal found that the employer had not acted reasonably under section 98(4) and made no Polkey and/or contribution deduction. The EAT found the Employment Tribunal did not deal adequately with Polkey and/or contributory fault issues.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 28/11/2007 17:31
Unfair Dismissal - Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason Employment Tribunal failed to find (a) the principal reason for the dismissal and (b) whether it was fair. Appeal allowed by consent and remitted for a rehearing before a fresh Employment Tribunal. Note this was a case where an earlier Barke remission only highlighted the failure of the Employment Tribunal to address the correct questions.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 27/11/2007 17:36
Public Interest Disclosure Section 43C Employment Rights Act 1996 – disclosure to ex-director. For the purpose of section 43C(1)(b)(ii) a worker must reasonably believe that the person has legal responsibility for the matter at the time of disclosure. It is not enough that the worker reasonably believes that the person once had legal responsibility for the matter.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 26/11/2007 17:49
Unfair Dismissal - Exclusions including worker/jurisdiction Teachers employed by DfES working wholly abroad in European schools. Whether Employment Tribunal has jurisdiction over unfair dismissal and fixed-term employment claims. Serco principles applied in each case.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 26/11/2007 17:46
Time Limits - Reasonable practicability The Claimant had been waiting for the result of his internal appeal before commencing proceedings for unfair dismissal. He learned the result just 5 hours before the expiry of the 3 month period. The Tribunal did not err in law in holding that it was not reasonably practicable for him to commence proceedings within the 3 month time limit.Reg 15(1) and (2) of the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 considered. Royal ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 22/11/2007 17:59
Practice and Procedure - Postponement or stay No error of law was made by an Employment Tribunal Chairman who refused to postpone a remedy hearing due to be heard six years after the relevant liability Judgment. He correctly struck out a victimisation claim. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire v Khan [2001] ICR 1065 HL applied. Three appeals dismissed under R 3(10).
|
By Daniel Gorry on 22/11/2007 17:54
Unfair Dismissal - Compensation Unfair dismissal on account of selection for redundancy without application of any criteria. Tribunal refused to deduct the extent to which the claimant’s redundancy payment exceeded the basic award that would have been payable had the claimant not been made redundant. On appeal, Employment Appeal Tribunal held that Tribunal had erred. It had no choice; it had to make the deduction: s.123(7) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 22/11/2007 17:47
Practice and Procedure - Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke It being common ground that the Employment Tribunal directed itself correctly on the law, its application to the facts was not perverse. The Employment Tribunal approached the burden of proof correctly, except for holding contrary to the new case of Oyarce that s.54A Race Relations Act 1976 applies to victimisation. However, the judgment was unarguably correct on King v GBC-C principles, as the Respondent had faile ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |