The process of the company making the claimant redundant had been declared a sham. The company appealed against a decision that even had the correct procedures been followed, the decision would have been the same. The tribunal said that insufficient evidence had been brought to support such an assertion. Held: The appeal was dismissed. The … Continue reading Strand Transport Services Ltd v Whitworth: CA 6 Aug 2009
Lord Johnston considered the approach to be taken under section 98A: ‘In seeking to resolve this matter, it is necessary to make two observations of a general nature. In the first place, when an industrial tribunal is addressing the question in the context of remedy, against a background of procedural unfairness, whether a fair procedure … Continue reading Fisher v California Cake and Cookie Co: 1997
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALReasonableness of dismissalS.98A(2) Employment Rights Act 1996The new Employment Tribunal on remission from the EAT correctly found the Claimants were unfairly dismissed for redundancy. It correctly construed s 98A(2) as not applicable where the Respondent failed to complete Step 2 of the SDDP: Davies applied. Judges: McMullen QC J Citations: [2011] UKEAT 0407 … Continue reading Peninsula Business Services Ltd v Rees and Others: EAT 21 Apr 2011
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALS.98A(2) ERAPolkey deductionContributory faultThe Employment Tribunal erred when if found procedural defects in the investigation by the Respondent of the allegations of the Claimant’s misconduct. In any event it ought to have allowed evidence and considered Employment Rights Act 1996 s 98A(2).It wrongly awarded compensation beyond the 6 weeks it found it would … Continue reading Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v Roldan: EAT 2 Sep 2009
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissalS.98A(2) ERA Polkey deduction The employee was told at a meeting that he or his post would be made redundant at a meeting; but he was not then made redundant; further meetings followed before he was given notice of dismissal. The Employment Tribunal found (1) that the dismissal was … Continue reading Smith Knight Fay Ltd v McCoy: EAT 5 Mar 2009
EAT The employee was the practice manager at a general medical practice. She was dismissed for dishonesty, taking unauthorised pay for overtime hours. She alleged that she had been told by the former practice manager that she should do so, but the Tribunal found that she did not raise this with any of the doctors.The … Continue reading Kelly-Madden v Manor Surgery: EAT 19 Oct 2006
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALReasonableness of dismissalProcedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissalThe Employment Tribunal failed to consider the effect of S98A(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Had it done so it would have been bound to find that had the Respondent followed a fair dismissal procedure the Claimant would have been dismissed in any event. Judges: Serota QC … Continue reading Punch Pub Company Ltd v O’Neill: EAT 23 Jul 2010
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – S. 98A (2) Employment Rights Act DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability related discrimination DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Compensation Claimant goes off sick following incident of alleged offensive behaviour by manager – Existing mental health difficulties exacerbated – Employers fail, despite recommendation from occupational health department, to carry out … Continue reading Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Mylott: EAT 11 Mar 2011
EAT Four employees successfully established before the Employment Tribunal that they had been unfairly dismissed for redundancy. The Tribunal found that there had been procedural defects. In particular the assessments in the redundancy exercise had been inadequate and subjective. The Tribunal considered whether the dismissals were fair under section 98A(2) of the Employment Rights Act … Continue reading Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews etc: EAT 17 Jan 2007
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALSEX DISCRIMINATION – ComparisonUnfair dismissal – misconduct. Claimant assaulted girlfriend (also RBS employee) in circumstances where he alleged he had been provoked by her having slapped him. Sex discrimination. Circumstances in which Employment Tribunal were held to have erred in requiring misconduct, for the purposes of s.98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, … Continue reading Royal Bank of Scotland v Donaghay: EAT 11 Nov 2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke An Employment Tribunal decision must comply in both form and substance with 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 SI No. 1861 and failure to do so will amount to an error of law; Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd v Wilcox [2006] EWCA … Continue reading Greenwood v NWF Retail Ltd: EAT 18 Feb 2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke An Employment Tribunal decision must comply in both form and substance with 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 SI No. 1861 and failure to do so will amount to an error of law; Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd v Wilcox [2006] EWCA … Continue reading Norman and Another v NWF Retail Ltd: EAT 18 Feb 2011
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL Reasonableness of dismissal S.98A(2) ERA Claimant dismissed for gross misconduct. Employment Tribunal found unfair dismissal but (a) placed the burden of proof on the Respondent instead of applying a neutral burden of proof. It also misunderstood s.98A(2) ERA 1996; failed to make a Polkey finding; failed to make a finding on contributory … Continue reading Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Marks: EAT 23 Nov 2010
The appellant had employed the three claimants in his medical surgery, but they claimed automatic unfair dismissal when the practice closed on his suspension from practice and the statutory procedures were followed but not to the procedural standard, alleging unreasonable delay in the appeals. Held: The employer’s appeal succeeded. The employees’ appeals failed. There was … Continue reading Selvarajan v Wilmot and others: CA 23 Jul 2008
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissalPractice and Procedure – 2002 Act and pre-action requirementsThe Respondent dismissed the Claimant for three reasons. On appeal, two of the most serious fell away but the reason for dismissal remained the same. At the Employment Tribunal it was held that the procedure was unfair, but was rescued by … Continue reading McCall v Northern Rail Ltd: EAT 25 Jan 2007
EAT Unfair Dismissal: Procedural Fairness/Automatically Unfair Dismissal; Compensation The reversal of Polkey . . 1987) IRLR 503 effected by Employment Rights Act 1996 s98A(2) applies to dismissals occurring on or after 1 October 2004. It applies to a failure to follow a procedure or policy covering dismissal, whether in writing or existing by custom and … Continue reading Mason v Ward End Primary School: EAT 12 Apr 2006
EAT Unfair Dismissal: Procedural Fairness/Automatically Unfair Dismissal The failure to disclose new witness statements obtained during the adjournment of an internal appeal against dismissal was a breach of the employer’s written procedure, and fell outside the band of reasonable responses. Strouthos v London Underground Ltd [2004] IRLR 636 CA applied. The Employment Tribunal Judgment was … Continue reading Pudney v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd: EAT 22 Mar 2006
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal The summary of the approach to compensation at paragraph 54 of the Judgment of a division of this Tribunal presided over by Elias J in Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews [2007] ICR 825, whilst impeccable at the time, now needs to be treated with some caution, at least in … Continue reading George v London Borough of Brent (Unfair Dismissal: Reasonableness of Dismissal): EAT 8 Jan 2016
EAT S.98A(2) ERA – Unfair dismissal. The Appellant appealed against a finding that it had unfairly dismissed the Respondent. The Employment Tribunal had found that the dismissal was unfair but that in light of section 118, 119, 122 123 of ERA 1996 the Respondent was not entitled to any monetary award, basic or compensatory. The … Continue reading HCL Safety Ltd v Flaherty: EAT 11 Jul 2013
The company made selections for redundancy, but failed to give the appellants information about how the scoring system had resulted in the figures allocated. The calculations left their representative unable to challenge them on appeal. The procedure adopted did not follow the statutory rules, but the tribunal had found the dismissals to be fair. The … Continue reading Alexander and Hatherley v Bridgen Enterprises Ltd: EAT 12 Apr 2006
roberts_acumedEAT10 EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason Reasonableness of dismissal Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal The Claimant area sales manager was remunerated on a different basis from the other four area managers. His commission was based on total sales whereas theirs was based on annual increase in sales. On reviewing remuneration the … Continue reading Roberts v Acumed Ltd: EAT 25 Nov 2010