

Links: Home \| swarblaw - law discussions		swarb.co.uk - law index These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases. Â
		Employment - From: 1992 To: 1992 This page lists 347 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018. Â Â Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Ex parte NALGO; CA 1992 - (1992) 5 Admin LR 785; [1993] ALR 785 Â Â Barber v Thames Television plc; CA 1992 - [1992] ICR 661 Â P v Nottinghamshire County Council [1992] IRLR 362 1992 Employment 1 Citers Â PSM International PLC v Whitehouse [1992] IRLR 279 1992 CA Lloyd LJ Employment The question of what constituted a trade secret or similar is a question of degree. 1 Citers Â Sartor v P and O European Ferries (Felixstowe) Ltd [1992] IRLR 271 1992 CA Purchas LJ, Ralph Gibson LJ Employment When considering whether an employer had acted reasonably in a disciplinary hearing, all that section 57 required was (Purchas LJ) "that the employer should have a reason falling within the provisions and that, in reaching that reason, he acted reasonably". Ralph Gibson LJ said: "The appeal was by rehearing and there was on that occasion no significant defect in the proceedings. Any defects in what had gone before were cured by the opportunity to appeal." The fact that a particular manager has been involved at an earlier stage does not necessarily prevent him sitting on a disciplinary hearing. The question of the fairness of the procedures and the hearings at either stage of the disciplinary hearing or the appeal process, were fair or fundamentally flawed, is a question of fact for the Industrial Tribunal. 1 Citers Â In Re Hartlebury Printers Ltd [1992] ICR 559; [1993] BCLC 902 1992 Morritt J Insolvency, Employment, European Insolvency, at least per se, does not amount to a special circumstance exempting an employer from consulting employees on redundancy. Morritt J noted the distinction in the Directive between contemplated and projected redundancies and section 99 to an employer "proposing to dismiss" and said: "The Union contends that both those sections should be construed to give effect to the Directive so that the duty under section 99 arises when an employer has redundancies in contemplation. That it is the duty of the Court, if possible, to construe United Kingdom legislation so as to comply with the United Kingdom's obligations under an EEC Directive is not in doubt. But that must be achieved, if at all, by proper processes of construction, not so far as the Court is concerned by the equivalent of legislation. Dealing first with the Directive, it seems to me that the word "projected" in Article 3 is used in the sense of "then intended" after the processes of consultation with the Union had been completed." . . Thus the contemplation referred to in Article 2(1) is something less than intention. Nevertheless, the range of mental states included within the word is wide. It would extend from merely "thinking about" to "having in view or expecting". In the latter sense, but not the former, the word would equate with the verb to propose . . Approaching that problem from the wording of section 99 I think it is clear, not least from subsection (5) that the phrase "an employer proposing to dismiss as redundant" cannot include one who is merely thinking about the possibilities of redundancies. Thus I cannot construe the word "proposing" to embrace the full range of the possible meaning of the word "contemplating" but I can construe "contemplating" in a sense equivalent to "proposing". Article 2 (1) of the Directive has not, so far as I know, been construed by the European Court of Justice. Thus I assume, because it is for the Court of Justice and not for me to decide, that section 99 does comply with the United Kingdom's obligations." Employment Protection Act 1975 99 1 Citers Â Lefebvre v HOJ Industries Ltd [1992] 1 SCR 831 1992 Employment All contracts of employment are, as a matter of law, subject to an implied term that they are terminable on reasonable notice, and such a term can be displaced only by clear words. 1 Citers Â Regina v Hull University Visitor, ex parte Page [1992] ICR 67 1992 CA Employment The employee's terms included two provisions, one in his letter of appointment which provided for either party to terminate on three months' notice in writing, and one in the university's statutes empowering the university to dismiss him for good cause. Held: He could be dismissed on either basis. Good cause was not required if three month's notice was given. The right to terminate on notice was not to be cut down by the "good cause" term. The court made clear, that this was a question of construction of the particular contractual documents and terms involved and no general principle of law was established that notice clauses in such contracts are to prevail over other express terms concerned with termination. 1 Citers Â Â Parker Foundry Ltd v Slack; CA 1992 - [1992] ICR 302; [1992] IRLR 11 Â GMB v Rankin and Harrison [1992] IRLR 514 1992 EAT Employment The proper approach when setting a protective award for non-consultation was to start with the maximum period and to make allowance according to any mitigation found. 1 Citers Â Red Bank Manufacturing Co Ltd v Meadows [1992] ICR 204; [1991] UKEAT 125_90_1411; [1991] UKEAT 567_90_1411; [1992] IRLR 209 1992 EAT Tucker J Employment A party wishing to complain about a member of the employment tribunal should make his complaint to that tribunal rather than at the EAT. The Polkey principle must be considered by the Tribunal in assessing compensation for unfair dismissal even though it was not raised by the parties before them. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Piggott Brothers and Co Ltd v Jackson [1992] ICR 85 1992 CA Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR Employment The court asked under what circumstances an appellate court could interfere with the decision of a lower court in employment cases: ´What matters is whether the decision under appeal was a permissible option. To answer that question in the negative in the context of employment law, the appeal tribunal will almost always have to be able to identify a finding of fact which was unsupported by any evidence or a clear self-misdirection in law by the industrial tribunal. If it cannot do this, it should re-examine with the greatest care its preliminary conclusion that the decision under appeal was not a permissible option and has to be characterised as "perverse".' 1 Citers Â Financial Times Ltd v Byrne and others [1992] UKEAT 701_91_0701 7 Jan 1992 EAT Employment 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gardener v Haydn Davies Catering Equipment and Another (1988) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 8_90_0901 9 Jan 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Wilton v Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority [1992] UKEAT 324_90_1401 14 Jan 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â BOC Ltd v McConnon [1992] UKEAT 613_89_1401 14 Jan 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Institute of Motor Industry v Harvey [1992] UKEAT 132_91_1401 14 Jan 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â C James and Sons v Puglia [1992] UKEAT 96_90_1501 15 Jan 1992 EAT Wood J P Employment The claimant had been made redundant after many years. He had worked for a farming partnership, and there had been recent changes in the partnership constitution. Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Rowe v Union and Western Hotels Ltd [1992] UKEAT 95_90_1601 16 Jan 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Gilbert v Data Express [1992] UKEAT 185_92_1901 19 Jan 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â City Electrical Factors Ltd v Cousens [1992] UKEAT 522_91_2001 20 Jan 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Oliphant and Another (T/A Windward Nursing Home) v Cater [1992] UKEAT 593_92_2001 20 Jan 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Shakir v London Borough of Wandsworth and Another [1992] UKEAT 84_92_2201 22 Jan 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Nationwide Anglia Estate Agents v Hooper [1992] UKEAT 360_91_2301 23 Jan 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Robinson v E G Phillips Son and Partners [1992] UKEAT 50_91_2701 27 Jan 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Hood Sailmakers Ltd v Axford and Another [1992] UKEAT 684_91_2801 28 Jan 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Second City (Sw) Ltd v White [1992] UKEAT 31_90_2901 29 Jan 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Solanke v British Telecom Plc [1992] UKEAT 340_91_2901 29 Jan 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Starr v British Railways Board [1992] UKEAT 613_91_2901 29 Jan 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Thomas Cook Group Ltd v Morris [1992] UKEAT 19_90_0302 3 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Aris v Wagstaff Bros Ltd [1992] UKEAT 192_92_0402 4 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Mabey Hire Co Ltd v Richens [1992] UKEAT 207_90_0402 4 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd v Lineham Gazette, 05 February 1992; [1991] UKEAT 250_91_2410; [1992] ICR 183; [1992] IRLR 156 5 Feb 1992 EAT Wood J Employment The applicant claimed unfair dismissal. The employer replied that the employee had resigned. Held: The employer's appeal was dismissed. The resignation had taken place in a heated moment, and it was not conclusive. An employer may not be able to rely upon a resignation made by an employee which had obviously been made in the heat of the moment. Constructive dismissal might still be a possibility. However (Wood J) "As we have said the industrial members take the view that the way in which this industrial tribunal have expressed themselves puts too high a burden upon employers. If words of resignation are unambiguous then prima facie an employer is entitled to treat them as such, but in the field of employment personalities constitute an important consideration. Words may be spoken or actions expressed in temper or in the heat of the moment or under extreme pressure ("being jostled into a decision") and indeed the intellectual make-up of an employee may be relevant: (and he gives a citation). These we refer to as `special circumstances'. Where `special circumstances' arise it may be unreasonable for an employer to assume a resignation and to accept it forthwith. A reasonable period of time should be allowed to lapse and if circumstances arise during that period which put the employer on notice that that further inquiry is desirable to see whether the resignation was really intended and can properly be assumed, then such inquiry is ignored at the employer's risk. He runs the risk that ultimately evidence may be forthcoming which indicates that in the `special circumstances' the intention to resign was not the correct interpretation when the facts are judged objectively". 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Bowers v Harris Office Supplies Ltd [1992] UKEAT 567_91_0602 6 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Luke v Navy Army and Airforce Institutes [1992] UKEAT 223_90_0602 6 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Burkett and others v Pendletons (Sweets) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 167_90_0702 7 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Cardiff Women's Aid v Hartup [1992] UKEAT 761_93_0802 8 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Humber Workforce Contractors Ltd v Langley and others [1992] UKEAT 369_91_1002 10 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Cold Drawn Tubes Ltd v Middleton [1992] UKEAT 26_91_1202 12 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Pitman v Drake and Scull Engineering Ltd [1992] UKEAT 103_90_1302 13 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Solman v Balbes [1992] UKEAT 395_90_1402 14 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Collins v Noble (T/A Rafters) and Another [1992] UKEAT 270_90_1402 14 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Bright v Walters and others [1992] UKEAT 241_92_1502 15 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Provincial Insurance Plc v Loxley [1992] UKEAT 161_90_1702 17 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Surelock Mcgill Ltd v Masih [1992] UKEAT 616_92_1702 17 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â M Aslam v Yorkshire Rider Ltd [1992] UKEAT 452_89_1702 17 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Iredale v Holland and Barrett Ltd [1992] UKEAT 148_91_1802 18 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Dixon v T D Bridger Ltd [1992] UKEAT 664_91_1802 18 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â E I Rogoff Ltd v De Vries [1992] UKEAT 718_91_1802 18 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Doyle and Others v Northumbria Probation Committee Gazette, 19 February 1992 19 Feb 1992 QBD Employment The right to seek a private law remedy after withdrawal of the right to claim some expenses on financial grounds was not lost despite there also being a public remedy because of public law elements in the decision. The matter was essentially one of contract between the parties. Â Dawson v B P Shipping Ltd [1992] UKEAT 100_90_1902 19 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Dabell v Nofotec Co Ltd [1992] UKEAT 149_90_2002 20 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Naidu v West Lambeth Health Authority [1992] UKEAT 17_92_2102 21 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Rogers v Northumbria Leisure Ltd (T/A Border Travel) [1992] UKEAT 321_90_2602 26 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Josiah Parkes and Sons Ltd v Smith [1992] UKEAT 259_90_2702 27 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Smith v Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd [1992] UKEAT 526_91_2702 27 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Rafter v Lucas Yuasa Batteries Ltd [1992] UKEAT 506_90_2802 28 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Ransomes Sims and Jefferies Ltd v Tatterton [1992] UKEAT 148_902_2802 28 Feb 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Norton v Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 102_91_1003 10 Mar 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Westwood Tools Ltd v Cawte [1992] UKEAT 31_92_1003 10 Mar 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Pitman v David Hill and Co [1992] UKEAT 518_91_1003 10 Mar 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Khars v High Table Ltd [1992] UKEAT 311_90_1103 11 Mar 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Pickup v Sension Ltd [1992] UKEAT 169_91_1603 16 Mar 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â B J Doyle v London Borough of Hackney [1992] UKEAT 458_88_1603 16 Mar 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Bingham v Hobourn Engineering Ltd [1992] UKEAT 444_90_1703 17 Mar 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â O'Connor v Brian Smith Catering Services [1992] UKEAT 5_91_1803 18 Mar 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Bukhari v Custom and Excise [1992] UKEAT 271_90_1903 19 Mar 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Hosny v General Medical Council [1992] UKEAT 275_90_2003 20 Mar 1992 EAT Employment 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Springboard Sunderland Trust v Robson [1992] UKEAT 17_90_2303 23 Mar 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Doncaster Education Authority v Gill [1992] UKEAT 568_89_2403 24 Mar 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Byrne v BOC Ltd [1992] UKEAT 231_90_2503 25 Mar 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Nairn and Another v Bht (Scotland) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 358_90_2603 26 Mar 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Indrayen v John Delaney- Access Hotels (London) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 399_91_2603 26 Mar 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Associated Newspapers Ltd v Wilson [1992] UKEAT 612_90_2603 26 Mar 1992 EAT Employment 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Leeds Private Hospital Ltd v Parkin [1992] UKEAT 519_89_3003 30 Mar 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Sister Rose Ltd v Garratt [1992] UKEAT 101_90_3003 30 Mar 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Hellyer Bros Ltd v Atkinson and Another [1992] UKEAT 630_90_3103 31 Mar 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Friday Ad Print Ltd v Hunter [1992] UKEAT 225_92_0304 3 Apr 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Camara [1992] UKEAT 85_90_0604 6 Apr 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Wright v Sharjah Research [1992] UKEAT 163_92_0704 7 Apr 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â St John of God (Care Services) Ltd v Brooks and others [1992] UKEAT 152_90_0804; [1992] ICR 715 8 Apr 1992 EAT Knox J Employment The appellant had suffered a reduction in its income. It made an offer to staff, on the point of dismissing for refusal to sign, of less favourable terms, including reduced pay and holiday entitlement and the abolition of overtime rates for weekend and bank holiday work. The Tribunal held that no reasonable employer should have expected the Applicants to accept the new contracts, and the dismissals were unfair. Held. The employer's appeal succeeded. There was a danger in promoting the nature of the employer's offer of new terms and conditions of employment to the status of the sole or crucial test, because that involved a departure from the wording of the then equivalent of section 98(4), which required the Tribunal to consider the question of fairness at the time of the dismissal rather than at the earlier stage of the offer, and "if there is a sound good business reason for the particular reorganisation the unreasonableness or reasonableness of the employer's conduct has to be looked at in the context of that reorganisation". Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act, 1978 57(1) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Post Office v O'Driscoll [1992] UKEAT 138_90_0904 9 Apr 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Stowe v Ub (Ross Youngs) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 252_90_1004 10 Apr 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Warnes and Another v Trustees of the Cheriton Oddfellows Social Club [1992] UKEAT 7_90_1304 13 Apr 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Post Office v Hogan [1992] UKEAT 117_92_1304 13 Apr 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Damerel v Devon County Council [1992] UKEAT 56_90_1404 14 Apr 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â British Telecommunications Plc v Ticehurst and Another Gazette, 15 April 1992 15 Apr 1992 CA Employment A manager has a duty to serve faithfully. The employer may suspend until an undertaking was given to do so. Â Â Delaney v Staples; HL 15-Apr-1992 - Gazette, 15 April 1992; [1992] 2 WLR 451; [1992] 1 AC 687; [1992] ICR 483 Â National Car Parks Ltd v Amankwa-Dei [1992] UKEAT 162_90_1504 15 Apr 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â West v Secretary of State for Scotland [1992] ScotCS CSIH_3; 1992 SCLR 504; 1992 SLT 636; 1992 SC 385 23 Apr 1992 SCS Lord Weir Scotland, Employment The petitioner complained that on being moved from his employment at one prison to another, he had been told that his moving expenses would be paid, but that they were not. The respondent said that the terms of his employment were that he was to be mobile, and that as a Crown employee his terms of employment were variable at the instance of the crown. Held: Wherever there is an excess or abuse of the power or jurisdiction which has been conferred on a decision-maker, the Court of Session has the power to correct it. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Oxford Polytechnic v Halpin [1992] UKEAT 148_92_0505 5 May 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Callus v Butler Pharmaceuticals [1992] UKEAT 105_91_0605 6 May 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Vega Space Systems Engineering Ltd v Weston [1992] UKEAT 183_90_0705 7 May 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Â Port of London Authority v Payne and Others; EAT 7-May-1992 - Gazette, 02 September 1992; [1992] UKEAT 511_91_0705 Â Pickrose Co Ltd (T/A Long Airdox (Cardox) Ltd) v Jones and others [1992] UKEAT 300_91_0805 8 May 1992 EAT Employment 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Forster v Bsa Foundries Ltd [1992] UKEAT 312_91_1105 11 May 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Currie Trucks Ltd v Nelhams [1992] UKEAT 441_91_1105 11 May 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Mclachlan v Saddlers (A Firm) [1992] UKEAT 250_90_1205 12 May 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â NRG Victory Reinsurance Ltd v Alexander [1992] UKEAT 35_92_1205 12 May 1992 EAT Employment 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â BPCC Purnell Ltd v Webb [1992] UKEAT 129_90_1305 13 May 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Harrison v Institute of Energy [1992] UKEAT 231_92_1405 14 May 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Pannell Kerr Forster v Wild [1992] UKEAT 301_91_1405 14 May 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Senthilnathan v British Airways Plc [1992] UKEAT 615_91_1405 14 May 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Peet v Nottinghamshire County Council [1992] EWCA Civ 1; [1992] IRLR 362; [1992] ICR 706 15 May 1992 CA Lord Donaldson MR, Balcombe LJ, Sir John Megaw Employment [ Bailii ] Â Â Cambridge and District Co-Operative Society Ltd v Ruse; EAT 15-May-1992 - [1992] UKEAT 266_90_1505; [1993] IRLR 156 Â Frames Snooker Centre v Boyce [1992] UKEAT 265_90_1805 18 May 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Stewart v Neotronics Ltd [1992] UKEAT 83_92_1905 19 May 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Cavaciuti v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham [1992] UKEAT 246_91_1905 19 May 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Redmond Stichting v Bartol and others (Judgment) C-29/91; [1992] ECR I-3189; [1992] EUECJ C-29/91 19 May 1992 ECJ European, Employment Europa Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/187 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses is to be interpreted as meaning that the expression "legal transfer" covers a situation in which a public authority decides to terminate the subsidy paid to one legal person, as a result of which the activities of that legal person are fully and definitively terminated, and to transfer it to another legal person with a similar aim. The expression "transfer of an undertaking, business or part of a business" contained in Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187 refers to the case in which the entity in question has retained its identity. In order to ascertain whether or not there has been such a transfer, it is necessary to determine, having regard to all the factual circumstances characterizing the operation in question, whether the functions performed are in fact carried out or resumed by the new legal person with the same or similar activities, it being understood that activities of a special nature which constitute independent functions may, where appropriate, be equated with a business or part of a business within the meaning of the directive. Directive 77/187 1(1) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Green v Roberts [1992] UKEAT 508_91_2005 20 May 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Kenwood Ltd v Austin [1992] UKEAT 388_90_2105 21 May 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Sykes v Bmp Ddb Needham Worldwide Ltd [1992] UKEAT 382_90_2105 21 May 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Noble Raredon Plc v Heaton [1992] UKEAT 278_92_2205 22 May 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Mchugh v Hempsall Bulk Transport Ltd [1992] UKEAT 410_90_0106 1 Jun 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Mitchell v Sherburn Stone Co Ltd [1992] UKEAT 598_90_0206 2 Jun 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â BAA Plc v Quinton [1992] UKEAT 498_91_0406 4 Jun 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â South Manchester Health Authority v O'Mahoney [1992] UKEAT 418_90_0506 5 Jun 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Hobbs v Channel Group Plc [1992] UKEAT 234_91_0806 8 Jun 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Payer v British Telecommunications Plc [1992] UKEAT 239_92_0806 8 Jun 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Trefoil Steel Co Ltd v Watson [1992] UKEAT 187_91_0806 8 Jun 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Denness v Joseph Bentley Ltd [1992] UKEAT 266_91_0906 9 Jun 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Rushton v Harcros Timber and Building Supplies Ltd [1992] UKEAT 402_90_0906 9 Jun 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Ministry of Defence v Irvine [1992] UKEAT 432_90_1106 11 Jun 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Select Appointments Plc v Vandenberghe [1992] UKEAT 587_91_1206 12 Jun 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â East Berkshire Health Authority v Matadeen Gazette, 29 July 1992; [1992] UKEAT 599_89_1606 16 Jun 1992 EAT Employment A perverse IT finding was reversible by the EAT. This was a dismissal for nuisance calls made at work. [ Bailii ] Â Cannon v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council [1992] UKEAT 406_90_1706 17 Jun 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Save and Prosper Group Ltd v Saffin [1992] UKEAT 399_92_1806 18 Jun 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Sheppard v Post Office [1992] UKEAT 373_90_1806 18 Jun 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Burglarm Security Ltd v Ferguson [1992] UKEAT 533_91_1906 19 Jun 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Ramsden v Micro Plastics International Ltd [1992] UKEAT 72_91_2206 22 Jun 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Brown v Ministry of Defence [1992] UKEAT 52_91_2306 23 Jun 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Preston v J Smith and Sons (Clerkenwell) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 381_90_2306 23 Jun 1992 EAT Employment 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and Another v Halliday [1992] UKEAT 179_92_2406 24 Jun 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Comber v Harmony Inns [1992] UKEAT 420_92_2406 24 Jun 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Ahmed v Tower Hamlets Law Centre [1992] UKEAT 388_92_2506 25 Jun 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Alexander v Treasury Solicitor [1992] UKEAT 587_90_2506 25 Jun 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Independent Research Services Ltd v Catterall [1992] UKEAT 279_92_2606; [1993] ICR 1 26 Jun 1992 EAT Knox J Employment, Litigation Practice The claimant was a director of the employer's company. He claimed that the relationship of trust and confidence with the company had been undermined so far as to be a repudiatory breach of the contract. Before his complaint of unfair dismissal, he wrote without prejudice to the employers offering to stay a full time employee with a payment for ceasing to act as a director. At an interlocutory hearing the Chairman refused to admit the letter in evidence. The employers appealed saying that the "without prejudice" letter was inconsistent with the his assertion that the relationship of trust and confidence had been undermined and that it should be admitted as an exception to the general principle of exclusion. Held: The employee's appeal failed. The principles for excluding "without prejudice" correspondence in a Court applied equally to proceedings in Industrial Tribunals. The letter would only be admissible if it came within a recognised exception to the general principle, namely that there would be an abuse of the rule if it was applied to exclude the "without prejudice" correspondence. The appropriate test was whether, if the "without prejudice" material were suppressed, something amounting to a dishonest case would be prosecuted, and that since there was no such dishonesty in the present case, the privilege should remain. Knox J said: "As often happens in difficult cases two well established and valuable legal principles collide. One is that it is desirable that courts and tribunals should have all the available material before them with which to arrive at a just conclusion in accordance with law. The other is that it is desirable that parties should be in a position freely to negotiate a compromise of their disputes without having what they say in the course of those negotiations revealed subsequently and used against them in litigation or proceedings before a tribunal. There is inevitably going to be a contradiction or conflict where an admission, or a statement of present intention, is made which conflicts with the parties' pleaded case and we quite see that in the present circumstances there is going to be a difficult conflict between the proposition that the applicant's trust and confidence was destroyed in late April 1991 and remained destroyed to 13 May and on the other hand his willingness to continue as an employee if certain financial inducements were forthcoming. But the existence of the conflict is not of itself, in our view, sufficient to warrant our giving priority to the first of the two principles, namely, that the courts should have all available material before them, over the other, namely, protection for "without prejudice" correspondence. It seems to us, particularly having regard to the authorities that are collected in Mr. Foskett's book, that the yardstick that should be applied in this category of cases is whether the "without prejudice" material involves, if it is suppressed, something amounting to a dishonest case being prosecuted if the pleaded case continues. The nearest example amongst the quoted cases in Mr. Foskett's book, to which we were referred, is a decision of Mr. Anthony May Q.C., Hawick Jersey international Ltd. v. Caplan, The Times, 11 March 1988, and the account given of it is this: "P claimed a repayment of a loan to D of £10,000 made by means of a cheque. D denied the transaction was a loan because he had supplied £10,000 cash. D secretly tape recorded a "without prejudice" meeting at which (a) P did not dispute and indeed accepted D's repeated assertions that the transaction was not a loan but one involving an exchange for £10,000 in cash and (b) P expressly or impliedly said that the proceedings were brought to persuade D to reach a fairer settlement or to settle other differences." and Mr. May, sitting as a deputy judge of the Queen's Bench Division, held that P was threatening to persist with dishonest proceedings and accordingly that "without prejudice" privilege did not apply to the discussion. Other more extreme examples are given of threats in the nature of blackmail and other wholly undesirable and, indeed, criminal activities which cannot be indulged in cloaked under the privilege of "without prejudice". We have therefore looked to see whether we are of the view that the exclusion of the "without prejudice" material and persistence in the applicant's case as pleaded in his originating application involves something in the nature of dishonest conduct on his part. Tested by that test we conclude that the material should remain hidden from the industrial tribunal because we do not think that there is dishonesty involved in such an attitude." Industrial Tribunals (Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1985 (SI 1985 NO 16) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Kataorha v Butlers Warehousing and Distribution Ltd [1992] UKEAT 354_90_2906 29 Jun 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Gosling v the Ford Motor Co Ltd [1992] UKEAT 221_90_2906 29 Jun 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â C S E Aviation Ltd v Hickling [1992] UKEAT 564_91_0107 1 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Hilton v Layley [1992] UKEAT 358_92_0107 1 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Wheeler v Marshall Plastics Ltd [1992] UKEAT 364_91_0107 1 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Korea Exchange Bank v Merkel [1992] UKEAT 436_90_0207 2 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Thomas v Gelpack Excelsior Ltd [1992] UKEAT 619_90_0607 6 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames v Buckle [1992] UKEAT 591_90_0707 7 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â The National Grid Company Plc v Virdee [1992] UKEAT 301_92_0707 7 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Trask v Strayfield International Ltd [1992] UKEAT 614_91_0707 7 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Wright v David Davis Associates and Another [1992] UKEAT 101_92_0707 7 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Crown Leisure Ltd v Shaw [1992] UKEAT 618_90_0807 8 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Yeung v Tower Hamlets Association for Racial Equality [1992] UKEAT 277_90_0807 8 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Peacocks Stores Ltd v Penticost [1992] UKEAT 410_91_0907 9 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Willetts v Quicks Group Plc [1992] UKEAT 305_90_0907 9 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Moore v Marconi Communication Systems Ltd [1992] UKEAT 288_91_1007 10 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Vauxhall Motors Ltd v Ghafoor [1992] UKEAT 367_90_1007 10 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â British Railways Board v Powell [1992] UKEAT 416_91_1307 13 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Chapman and Another v Simon [1992] UKEAT 286_90_1307 13 Jul 1992 EAT Employment 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Bullock v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis [1992] UKEAT 472_91_1407 14 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Vega Space Systems Engineering Ltd v Weston [1992] UKEAT 469_90_1407 14 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â G B M Services Ltd v Oyeghe [1992] UKEAT 402_92_1507 15 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Guarda Security Ltd v Roberts [1992] UKEAT 394_91_1507 15 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council v Mills and others [1992] UKEAT 31_92_1607 16 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â W J Coleridge and Son v Ryland [1992] UKEAT 55_92_1707 17 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Morgan v Civil Service Commission and Another [1992] UKEAT 312_90_2007 20 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Mediclean v Searle and Another [1992] UKEAT 711_91_2007 20 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Wilson v Glenrose (Fishmerchants) Ltd and others [1992] UKEAT 444_91_2107 21 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Glenrose (Fish Merchants) Ltd v Chapman and others [1992] UKEAT 467_91_2107 21 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Wells v London School of Economics and Political Science [1992] UKEAT 317_90_2207 22 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Knight v Avonrun Automotive Ltd [1992] UKEAT 278_91_2207 22 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Demeshghi v Bank Melli Iran [1992] UKEAT 228_92_2207 22 Jul 1992 EAT Employment 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Associated British Ports v Palmer and Others; Associated Newspapers Ltd v Wilson; EAT 23-Jul-1992 - Gazette, 18 November 1992; Gazette, 16 September 1992; [1992] UKEAT 99_92_2307; [1992] ICR 681 Â Read v Vnu Business Publications [1992] UKEAT 452_92_2707 27 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Fairfield Ltd v Skinner Gazette, 23 September 1992; [1992] UKEAT 390_90_2707 27 Jul 1992 EAT Employment An Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to enquire as to the circumstances in which deductions were made from wages. Wages Act 1986 1(1)(a) [ Bailii ] Â Anderson Marriott and Co v Eastwood [1992] UKEAT 178_92_2707 27 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Roy v Fullemploy Group Ltd [1992] UKEAT 289_92_2707 27 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Curling and others v Securicor Ltd [1992] IRLR 549; [1992] UKEAT 40_90_2807 28 Jul 1992 EAT Employment The employer wanted to invoke a mobility clause raher than, as it originally set out to do, to consult on redundancies. The change of course was first raised at the hearing in the industrial tribunal. Held: The principle that the employer cannot "dodge between the two" (i.e. mobility and redundancy) applied to the right of the Trade Unions to be consulted on proposed redundancies or possible redundancy. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Freeman v Salford Health Authority [1992] UKEAT 492_90_2807 28 Jul 1992 EAT Employment 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Post Office v Handley [1992] UKEAT 4_92_2807 28 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Express Foods Group (International) Ltd v Putnam [1992] UKEAT 189_91_2907 29 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â St John of God (Care Services) Ltd v Brook and Others Gazette, 29 July 1992 29 Jul 1992 EAT Employment The Industrial Tribunal erred in relying on words in Harvey as to an employer's offer of new terms on dismissal. Â Sahato v Redbridge Health Authority [1992] UKEAT 224_90_2907 29 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Davies v Rhm Computing Ltd [1992] UKEAT 59_92_3007 30 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Siebe Plc v Baker [1992] UKEAT 505_92_3007 30 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Blockleys Plc v D Miller Gazette, 23 September 1992; [1992] UKEAT 644_88_3007 30 Jul 1992 EAT Employment Granting review after appeal to EAT had failed would be abuse of process. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Lloyds Bank Plc v M Fox and others [1992] UKEAT 556_89_3007 30 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Secretary of State for Employment v Parfitt [1992] UKEAT 435_90_3007 30 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Oxford and Swindon Co-Op Society Ltd v Chambers [1992] UKEAT 502_92_3107 31 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Dillistone v London Borough of Lambeth [1992] UKEAT 219_90_3107 31 Jul 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Â London Ambulance Service v Charlton and others; EAT 1-Sep-1992 - [1992] UKEAT 618_91_0109 Â Drew v G U Manufacturing Co Ltd [1992] UKEAT 121_90_0209 2 Sep 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Myers v British Railways Board [1992] UKEAT 309_91_0309 3 Sep 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Edale Ltd v Tucker and Another [1992] UKEAT 147_92_0409 4 Sep 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Business Post Ltd v Ballard [1992] UKEAT 263_90_0809 8 Sep 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Havill v Noden [1992] UKEAT 536_90_0909 9 Sep 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â City of Oxford Motor Services Ltd v Nazar [1992] UKEAT 535_91_1009 10 Sep 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Â Pickwell and Another v Lincolnshire County Council; EAT 11-Sep-1992 - Gazette, 11 November 1992; [1992] UKEAT 123_92_1109 Â Ithia v Secretary of State for Employment and others [1992] UKEAT 391_91_1409 14 Sep 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Gcsf v Certification Officer [1992] UKEAT 58_90_1609 16 Sep 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Herde and Another v Mahabirsingh Gazette, 16 September 1992 16 Sep 1992 PC Employment, Commonwealth Payment of worker's severance pay did not take precedence over crystallised secured charge. Â London Borough of Hackney and others v Anyanwu [1992] UKEAT 371_92_1709 17 Sep 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Gallagher v Screenbase Ltd [1992] UKEAT 494_92_1709 17 Sep 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Canvas Covers International v Johnson [1992] UKEAT 273_92_1709 17 Sep 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Russell Berman (T/A Russell Bernard Hair Group) v Jelley [1992] UKEAT 455_91_1809 18 Sep 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Makinde v London Borough of Hackney [1992] UKEAT 652_91_1809 18 Sep 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Beloit Walmsley Ltd v Cross [1992] UKEAT 449_90_2109 21 Sep 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Bell v Wharfe Valley Sectional Buildings Ltd [1992] UKEAT 484_90_2109 21 Sep 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Harrison v Post Office [1992] UKEAT 460_90_2209 22 Sep 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Mckenna v London Borough of Lambeth [1992] UKEAT 350_91_2209 22 Sep 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Mallinson v Bournemouth Polytechnic [1992] UKEAT 549_92_2409 24 Sep 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â George Turton Platts and Co Ltd v Dilaurenzio and Another [1992] UKEAT 524_92_3009 30 Sep 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Richmond v RAC Insurance Brokers Ltd [1992] UKEAT 47_91_3009 30 Sep 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Collins v Banham Patent Locks Ltd [1992] UKEAT 539_92_0110 1 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Racal Milgo Ltd v Ross [1992] UKEAT 450_92_0510 5 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Onuh v London Borough of Enfield and others [1992] UKEAT 431_91_0510 5 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Ingrams v London Borough of Lewisham [1992] UKEAT 442_91_0510 5 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Eccles v Ribble Motor Services Ltd [1992] UKEAT 609_90_0510 5 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Knibb and Plumpton v Liverpool C C [1992] UKEAT 701_92_0610 6 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Gething v Cornwall County Council [1992] UKEAT 30_91_0610 6 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Crugau Colliery Co Ltd v Davies [1992] UKEAT 454_91_1211 6 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Crosville Wales Ltd v Tracey and others [1992] UKEAT 635_91_0610 6 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Plant Movements Ltd v Long [1992] UKEAT 607_91_0710 7 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Seeboard Plc v Fletcher [1992] UKEAT 471_90_0710 7 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Cooper and Another v Weatherwise (Roofing and Walling) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 562_92_0710 7 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Wright v West Cumberland Health Authority [1992] UKEAT 169_90_0810 8 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Anderson v Safety Kleen UK Ltd [1992] UKEAT 306_90_0810 8 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Kelsey v Kent County Council [1992] UKEAT 340_91_0810; [1992] UKEAT 340_91_0810 8 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kelco Ltd v Casey [1992] UKEAT 525_90_0810 8 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â McBride v Hertfordshire County Council [1992] UKEAT 500_92_0910 9 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Avery Label Systems Ltd v Bannister and others [1992] UKEAT 396_92_1210 12 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Johnson v Entertainment (Uk) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 568_90_1210 12 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â James Haworth Ltd v Winter [1992] UKEAT 410_92_1210 12 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Lazaro v Leeds City Council [1992] UKEAT 621_90_1310 13 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Avdel Systems Ltd v Fortune and others [1992] UKEAT 387_92_1310 13 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Burgess Hill Angling Centre v Barnett [1992] UKEAT 626_91_1310 13 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Williams v Evans [1992] UKEAT 556_91_1410 14 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Uzoma v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [1992] UKEAT 619_91_1410 14 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Harris v National Association of Young People In Care and Another [1992] UKEAT 160_90_1410 14 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Haycock v Post Office [1992] UKEAT 43_91_1510 15 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Symphony Group Plc v Hussey [1992] UKEAT 79_91_1510 15 Oct 1992 EAT Employment 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Malik v Post Office Counters Ltd [1992] UKEAT 282_91_1610 16 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Atkinson v Thorn Lighting Ltd [1992] UKEAT 532_90_1910 19 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Button and others v Cartwright Brice Co Ltd and Another [1992] UKEAT 347_92_1910 19 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Watson v Gateshead Branch of Royal Airforce Association No 803 and Another [1992] UKEAT 64_91_2010 20 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Payne v Penwood Country Chicken [1992] UKEAT 35_92_2010 20 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Bass Brewers Ltd v Parkes and others [1992] UKEAT 308_90_2010 20 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Babbar v John Lewis Plc [1992] UKEAT 728_91_2010 20 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Tambling v Collmain Customer Services Ltd [1992] UKEAT 485_92_2110 21 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â B R J Working Mens Club v Morrison [1992] UKEAT 630_91_2110 21 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Music Hire Group Ltd v Bathgate and Another [1992] UKEAT 558_90_2210 22 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Carter v Parkside Health Authority [1992] UKEAT 690_91_2310 23 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Sahil v Kores Nordic (Gb) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 379_90_2610 26 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Banor Ltd v Howarth [1992] UKEAT 463_91_2610 26 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Blockleys Plc v D D Miller [1992] UKEAT 644_88_2610 26 Oct 1992 EAT Employment 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Birdi v Slough Borough Council [1992] UKEAT 506_91_2610 26 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Edgestop Ltd (In Receivership) v McGorry and Another [1992] UKEAT 215_92_2710 27 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Ferodo Caernarfon Ltd v Owen [1992] UKEAT 589_92_2710 27 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Hill v J and G Holdsworth [1992] UKEAT 248_90_2710 27 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Pillay v Lewisham and North Southwark Health Authority [1992] UKEAT 459_90_2710 27 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Yannedis and Co Ltd v Griggs [1992] UKEAT 177_92_2810 28 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Walker v Capital Business Machines Ltd [1992] UKEAT 736_92_2910 29 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Mabry v Bath Association of Mind [1992] UKEAT 469_91_3010 30 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Copps v S Wreford and Co [1992] UKEAT 528_91_3010 30 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Washbrook v Quigley [1992] UKEAT 485_91_3010 30 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Â Clarke v Trimoco Motor Group Ltd and Another; EAT 30-Oct-1992 - [1992] UKEAT 584_90_3010; [1993] IRLR 148 Â Williams v Austin Taylor Comms Ltd [1992] UKEAT 527_91_3010 30 Oct 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Hopkins and Another v Monkton House Educational Trust [1992] UKEAT 9_91_0211 2 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Bais v Planned Maintenance Engineering Ltd [1992] UKEAT 643_92_0211 2 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Fairbrother v Sayers (Confectioners) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 475_91_0211 2 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Valeo Distribution (Uk) Ltd v Barber [1992] UKEAT 352_92_0311 3 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Baker and others v Rochdale Health Authority [1992] UKEAT 295_91_0311 3 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Littlewoods Organisation Plc v Hill [1992] UKEAT 135_91_0311 3 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Charles v Vandervell Ltd [1992] UKEAT 697_91_0311 3 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Eu v Rusty Casual Wear [1992] UKEAT 633_91_0311 3 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Robert Mcbride Detergents Ltd v Reavey [1992] UKEAT 144_91_0411 4 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â D'Souza v London Borough of Lambeth [1992] UKEAT 759_92_0411 4 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Castle Cement Ltd v Jones and others [1992] UKEAT 343_92_0411 4 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Gilroy v Ken Bell (International) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 78_91_0511 5 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Melhuish v John Owen-Ward Partnership [1992] UKEAT 598_91_0911 9 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Nagarajan v Bell and Another [1992] UKEAT 305_91_0911 9 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Scott and others v Metel [1992] UKEAT 447_91_1011 10 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Lincoln Co-Operative Society Ltd v Greenwood [1992] UKEAT 679_92_1011 10 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Corkhill v North Sea Ferries [1992] UKEAT 275_91_1011 10 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â H D Plastics Ltd v Payne [1992] UKEAT 247_91_1111 11 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Szasz v London Borough of Enfield [1992] UKEAT 297_91_1111 11 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Ann Watson Rask and Christensen v ISS Kantineservice A/S C-209/91; [1992] EUECJ C-209/91; [1992] ECR I-5755 12 Nov 1992 ECJ European, Employment Europa Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses is to be interpreted as meaning that the directive may apply in a situation in which one businessman, by a contract, assigns to another businessman responsibility for running a facility for staff, which was formerly managed directly, in return for a fee and various advantages, details of which are laid down by the agreement between them. Article 3 of Directive 77/187 is to be interpreted as meaning that that upon a transfer the terms and conditions of the contract of employment or employment relationship relating to wages, in particular those relating to the date of payment and the composition of wages, cannot be altered even if the total amount of the wages remains the same. The directive does not, however, preclude an alteration of the employment relationship with the new employer in so far as the applicable national law allows such an alteration to be made in situations other than the transfer of an undertaking. Furthermore, the transferee is also bound to continue to observe the terms and conditions of employment agreed in any collective agreement on the same terms applicable to the transferor under that agreement, until the date of termination or expiry of the collective agreement or the entry into force or application of another collective agreement. Directive 77/187 1(1) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Somasundaram v Contract Cleaning and Maintenance Services Ltd [1992] UKEAT 41_91_1311 13 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Russell v G E C Marconi Ltd [1992] UKEAT 407_91_1611 16 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Pembrokeshire Health Authority v Fogden [1992] UKEAT 576_90_1611 16 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Mcgarry v British Railways Board [1992] UKEAT 63_91_1611 16 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Dootson v Stoves Ltd [1992] UKEAT 486_90_1711 17 Nov 1992 EAT Wood P Employment [ Bailii ] Â Reid v Durabella Ltd (Fomerly Phoenix Floors Ltd) [1992] UKEAT 457_90_1711 17 Nov 1992 EAT Employment 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Fannon v Mfi Furniture Centres Ltd [1992] UKEAT 657_92_1711 17 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Shannon and others v Tyzack Transmission Components Ltd [1992] UKEAT 194_92_1711 17 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Rahman v Mayers [1992] UKEAT 508_92_1811 18 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Forster and Hales v Anderson [1992] UKEAT 544_90_1811 18 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Littlewoods Organisation Plc v Traynor [1992] UKEAT 658_90_1811 18 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Byles v Xtra Vision (Uk) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 704_91_1811 18 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â SAS Service Partners v Whalley [1992] UKEAT 561_91_1911 19 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Department of Health v Bruce and Another [1992] UKEAT 14_92_1911 19 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Moloney v Parkside Health Authority [1992] UKEAT 623_91_2011 20 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Ship-Link (Uk) Ltd v Burns [1992] UKEAT 183_92_2011 20 Nov 1992 EAT Employment 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Barrett v Boxfoldia Ltd [1992] UKEAT 88_91_2011 20 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â BPCC Western Bindery Ltd v Matthews [1992] UKEAT 551_92_2311 23 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Salmon v Ribble Motor Services Ltd [1992] UKEAT 51_91_2311 23 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Deane v London Borough of Ealing and Another [1992] UKEAT 33_91_2411 24 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Sun v East Sussex County Council [1992] UKEAT 470_90_2511 25 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â British Coal Corporation v Smith and others [1992] UKEAT 29_91_2611 26 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Lilian Middleton Antique Dolls Ltd v Whitehead [1992] UKEAT 732_92_3011 30 Nov 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Sharma v Viva Video Club [1992] UKEAT 697_92_3011 30 Nov 1992 EAT Employment 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Snowflake Insulations Ltd v Kennedy and others [1992] UKEAT 32_91_0112 1 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Jeffery v Kitchens of Sara Lee (UK) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 42_92_0112 1 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Barking, Havering and Brentwood Health Authority v Yearwood-Grazette [1992] UKEAT 429_90_0112 1 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Wallington v Fairview New Homes Plc [1992] UKEAT 633_92_0112 1 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Connor v Thurrock Borough Council [1992] UKEAT 313_91_0212 2 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina v Hull University Visitor, Ex parte Page; Regina v Lord President of the Privy Council ex Parte Page; HL 3-Dec-1992 - Gazette, 10 March 1993; [1993] 3 WLR 1112; [1993] AC 682; [1992] UKHL 12 Â Barclays Bank Plc v Kapur and others [1992] UKEAT 248_92_0312 3 Dec 1992 EAT Employment 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Shearn v ICI Chemicals and Polymers Ltd [1992] UKEAT 111_92_0412 4 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Sturton v Lord Chancellor's Department [1992] UKEAT 126_92_0412 4 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â British Coal Corporation v Pearce [1992] UKEAT 659_91_0412 4 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Jones and others v Sealink UK Ltd [1992] UKEAT 89_92_0412 4 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Heeley v Trell Contractors (Watton) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 93_92_0412 4 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Troll v London Borough of Hounslow [1992] UKEAT 97_92_0412 4 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Wadham Kenning Motor Group Ltd (T/A Wadham Kenning) v Stroud [1992] UKEAT 128_92_0412 4 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Chard v Hartlepool Borough Council [1992] UKEAT 202_91_0412 4 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â British Railways Board v Jackson [1992] UKEAT 146_92_0712 7 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â St Matthias Church of England School v Crizzle [1992] UKEAT 409_90_0712 7 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Barrow-In-Furness Borough Council v McMurray [1992] UKEAT 430_92_0812 8 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Wood v Fylde Transport Ltd [1992] UKEAT 13_92_0812 8 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Taylor and others v Secretary of State for Employment [1992] UKEAT 165_91_0812 8 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Pang v Glaxo Holdings Plc [1992] UKEAT 295_90_0912 9 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Smith v Association of British Credit Unions Ltd [1992] UKEAT 273_91_0912 9 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Howe v J M A Holdings Ltd [1992] UKEAT 429_91_1012 10 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Government Communications Staff Federation v Certification Officer and Another [1992] UKEAT 58_90_1012 10 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Mitchell v Spar Stores and Another [1992] UKEAT 640_90_1012 10 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Beevor v Haberdashers Aske's School for Girls [1992] UKEAT 19_92_1112 11 Dec 1992 EAT Employment 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â SGB Plc v Fletcher [1992] UKEAT 642_90_1412 14 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Cooper Macdonald Ltd v Brown and Another [1992] UKEAT 100_92_1512 15 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Abbey National Plc v Holmes [1992] UKEAT 406_91_1512 15 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Kazim Kus v Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden C-237/91; [1992] EUECJ C-237/91 16 Dec 1992 ECJ European, Immigration, Employment 1. The third indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Council of Association must be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish worker does not fulfil the requirement, laid down in that provision, of having been engaged in legal employment for at least four years, where he was employed on the basis of a right of residence conferred on him only by the operation of national legislation permitting residence in the host country pending completion of the procedure for the grant of a residence permit, even though his right of residence has been upheld by a judgment of a court at first instance against which an appeal is pending. 2. The first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Council of Association must be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish national who obtained a permit to reside on the territory of a Member State in order to marry there a national of that Member State and has worked there for more than one year for the same employer under a valid work permit is entitled under that provision to renewal of his work permit even if at the time of determination of his application his marriage has been dissolved. 3. A Turkish worker who fulfils the requirements of the first or third indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Council of Association may rely directly on those provisions in order to obtain the renewal not only of his work permit but also of his residence permit, since the right of residence is indispensable to access to and engagement in paid employment. That conclusion cannot be invalidated by the consideration that, pursuant to Article 6(3) of Decision No 1/80, the procedures for applying paragraph (1) are to be established under national rules. Article 6(3) merely clarifies the obligation incumbent on Member States to take such administrative measures as may be necessary for the implementation of that provision, without empowering them to make conditional or restrict the application of the precise and unconditional right which it grants to Turkish workers. [ Bailii ] Â Katsikas and others v Konstantinidis and others C-132/91; [1992] EUECJ C-132/91; [1992] ECR I - 6577; [1993] IRLR 179; C-138/91; C-139/91 16 Dec 1992 ECJ European, Employment ECJ Article 3(1) of Directive 77/187 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings is to be interpreted as not precluding an employee of the transferor on the date of the transfer of the undertaking, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the directive, from objecting to the transfer of his contract of employment or employment relationship to the transferee. The directive does not, however, require Member States to provide that, in the event of the employee deciding of his own accord not to continue with the contract of employment or employment relationship with the transferee, the contract or relationship should be maintained with the transferor. Neither does the directive preclude this. In such a case, it is for the Member States to determine what the fate of the contract of employment or employment relationship with the transferor should be. The expression "laws, regulations or administrative provisions" within the meaning of Article 7 of Council Directive 77/187 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings must be understood as meaning the laws, regulations or administrative provisions of a Member State as they are interpreted by the courts of that State. The claimant employees objected to becoming employees of the transferee, an attitude which the transferor (who then dismissed them) argued was not open to them in the light of the Directive. Held: The Directive did not have the purpose or effect of compulsorily transferring an employee's employment contract or relationship against his or her will, but that, in such a case, it was for the law of the relevant Member State to determine whether the contract or relationship was to be regarded as terminated by the transferor or transferee or to be maintained with the transferor. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Darr and Another v LRC Products Ltd [1992] UKEAT 442_90_1612 16 Dec 1992 EAT Employment 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Port of London Authority v Payne and others [1992] UKEAT 277_92_1712 17 Dec 1992 EAT Employment 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Bestway Cash and Carry Ltd v Sehgal [1992] UKEAT 393_91_1712 17 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Weston v Metzeler (Uk) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 303_91_1712 17 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Silk v Egerton (Grp) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 389_91_1812 18 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â James Halstead Ltd v Curtis [1992] UKEAT 152_91_1812 18 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â Singh v Robertson Tooling Ltd [1992] UKEAT 41_92_2112 21 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â KPG Computer Support Services Ltd v Abayomi [1992] UKEAT 303_92_2112 21 Dec 1992 EAT Employment [ Bailii ] Â
		Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.

swarb.co.uk - law index

Employment - From: 1992 To: 1992