By Daniel Gorry on 30/04/2008 08:54
Unfair Dismissal - Reasonableness of dismissal The claimants were employed by the respondents as cleaners. They worked at a “Zara” store and were dismissed when that client required that they no longer work in their premises. They had been offered alternative employment at another store. They claimed that they had been unfairly dismissed. An Employment Tribunal upheld their claims, holding that the dismissals had been procedurally fair but that a reasonable employ ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 30/04/2008 08:53
Practice and Procedure - Delay in ET judgment This is an appeal regarding the issue of delay. Over three years elapsed between the last date of the hearing (which had taken place over 2½ years) and the issuing of the judgment by the Tribunal. The question to consider was whether there was a real risk that the claimant had, as a result, been denied his Article 6 right to a fair trial. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that such a risk did exist.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 30/04/2008 08:51
Statutory Discipline and Grievance Procedures - Whether applicable Was the modified or standard grievance procedure applicable? The Employment Tribunal found the former, and held that the grievance did not identify the basis of the claims which were subsequently lodged with the Tribunal. Therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the equal pay claims advanced. The EAT held that the tribunal had properly applied the law and the appeal failed.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 29/04/2008 08:59
Race Discrimination - Burden of proof This appeal discussed the Igen test in respect of the Respondent's burden of proof. The EAT found that the Tribunal had misdirected itself by suggesting that the Respondent's burden was to prove that the treatment was "not significantly influenced by race". The correct test was for the Respondents to show that, on the balance of probabilities, the treatment was "in no sense whatsoever on grounds of race". The matter was remitted to the Tribunal.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 29/04/2008 08:58
Disability Discrimination - Post Employment Claimant ex-employee in disability discrimination proceedings allegedly subjected by Respondent to abuse and intimidation calculated to deter him from proceeding in the corridor of the Tribunal following a hearing. Claim summarily dismissed by Chairman on basis that alleged conduct attracted the “judicial proceedings immunity”. Held (1) that if the conduct were proved it would arise out of and be closely connected with the employ ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 29/04/2008 08:52
Jurisdictional Points - Worker, employee or neither The Employment Tribunal held a pre-hearing review in which it found that the claimant for unfair dismissal was an employee and that time should be extended to allow his claim to be considered. The EAT held that the Tribunal was entitled to reach the former conclusion, but that the issue of extending time had not been identified as one of the issues to be determined at the pre-hearing review, and was not satisfactorily dealt with. That issue w ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 25/04/2008 10:33
Unfair Dismissal - Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal This is a case relating to the dismissal of two employees. The Employment Tribunal held that there had not been an adequate inquiry to establish guilt. The EAT held that the Tribunal had substituted its own view instead of using the band of reasonable responses test. The appeal was allowed and the case remitted for a re-hearing.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 24/04/2008 10:35
Jurisdictional Points - Working outside the jurisdiction This case concerned the issue of extra-territorial jurisdiction and Teachers working abroad. Breach of contract claim within ET jurisdiction. Whether Claimants can rely on provisions of FTER 2002, implementing F-T Working Directive (99/70/EC) in light of Elias P reasoning in Bleuse v MBT Transport (UKEAT/0339/07 21 December 2007). The unfair dismissal appeal of Mr Kelly in the EAT is dismissed. The breach of contract app ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 24/04/2008 10:31
Practice and Procedure - Costs Wasted costs order made against appellant firm of solicitors. Employment Tribunal applied the wrong principles and relied upon the wrong authorities. Had the right principles been adopted, the only possible conclusion was that no such order could be made. Appeal upheld.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 23/04/2008 10:38
Practice and Procedure - Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity Substantive appeal on fact only and the EAT saw no basis upon which to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision. An appeal against a Costs Order against the Claimant was allowed on the basis that the ET had failed to properly consider the two stage approach of (a) was the costs threshold triggered and if so, (b) should the Judge exercise his discretion in favour of the Respondents by making such an order?
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |