By Daniel Gorry on 31/01/2008 14:30
Practice and Procedure - Perversity The Respondent was dismissed from her post as a night hostel worker after abusing a resident. She claimed, inter alia, race discrimination and the Tribunal upheld the claim. Held that the decision was not Meek compliant and was perverse.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 31/01/2008 14:28
Practice and Procedure - Restricted Reporting Order Freelance journalist sought revocation of a restricted reporting order where Claimant withdrew claim in the course of hearing. The Tribunal found that she had a locus to be heard, that they had jurisdiction to entertain the application notwithstanding the withdrawal of the claim and that it was appropriate to revoke the order. On appeal, the Employment Tribunal quashed the Tribunal’s decision. The journalist had no right to ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 31/01/2008 14:26
Unfair Dismissal - Compensation An Employment Tribunal found that the Claimant, who had been dismissed from local authority employment, had failed to mitigate his loss by seeking employment with four neighbouring local authorities. They limited compensation for loss of earnings to the period between the date of dismissal and the date of the remedies hearing, which was almost four years. The Employment Appeal Tribunal were satisfied that they had erred in doing so and remitted back ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 31/01/2008 14:23
Unfair Dismissal - Reasonableness of dismissal Claimant dismissed for misconduct, having admittedly assaulted a fellow employee who had provoked him. Dismissal found by Tribunal to have been unfair as having not been within the band of reasonable responses because of “superficiality in the appeals process” and a failure to provide an explanation for a difference in treatment between the two employees. Appeal upheld, Tribunal’s conclusions apparently conflicting with their findings i ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 30/01/2008 14:38
Transfer of Undertakings - Consultation and other information An Employment Tribunal correctly found that the transfer of functions from the Adult Learning Inspectorate to New Ofsted was a transfer of administrative functions between public administrative authorities and so was not a relevant transfer under TUPE 2006 and there was no obligation to consult the Claimant as an employee representative. There was no appeal. The Tribunal erred in holding that the Claimant did have consul ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 30/01/2008 14:36
Unfair Dismissal Tribunal holds that the dismissal was unfair because the employer failed to arrange an oral hearing of an appeal against dismissal and determined it on the papers. Appeal to EAT allowed. Determination of this employee’s appeal on the papers was within the range of reasonable responses open to an employer. Further grounds of appeal allowed in relation to the Tribunal’s approach to compensation and costs.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 30/01/2008 14:34
Time Limits - Reasonable practicability & 2002 Act Requirements The practitioner’s rule of thumb, that the time for presentation of a claim is three months less a day after the relevant event, means that when an extension of time is given pursuant to the 2004 Regulations, the time is six months less a day.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 29/01/2008 14:32
Unlawful Deduction from Wages An appeal regarding whether contested deductions from a bonus payment take the claim out of the ambit of Part II ERA. Coors v Adcock et al considered. The EAT held it did not and that Part II ERA did apply.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 29/01/2008 14:21
Redundancy - Fairness Tribunal found that a dismissal for redundancy was in the circumstances unfair due to the procedure for selection was not one a reasonable employer could properly have adopted. The employers appealed and the appeal was upheld. The Tribunal had failed to consider whether a reasonable employer would have approached the matter as the employer did, and in effect substituted its own view for that of the employer. Case remitted to a fresh Tribunal for reconsideration ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 29/01/2008 14:19
Contract of Employment - Damages for breach of contract The Tribunal awarded damages against an employee for what the employer alleged was a breach of the duty of trust and confidence. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award compensation for breaches of the “obligation of confidence”. The Claimant appealed alleging that this exclusion applied to claims for breach of the duty of trust and confidence, the two being synonymous. The EAT disagreed; although the obligation of con ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |