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

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 . .

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 . .

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Reasonableness of dismissal
S.98A(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
The new Employment Tribunal on remission from the EAT correctly found the Claimants were unfairly dismissed for . .

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

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

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

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
SEX DISCRIMINATION – Comparison
Unfair dismissal – misconduct. Claimant assaulted girlfriend (also RBS employee) in circumstances where he alleged he had been provoked by her having . .

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 . .

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 . .

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 . .