EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Appellate Jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke
REDUNDANCY
UNFAIR DISMISSAL
RACE DISCRIMINATION
The employer was found not to have acted by reason of race when selecting one of two possible candidates for a post without giving the other any interview, but by ‘slotting in’. ‘Slotting in’ in these circumstances was, however, held to be unfair so as to found a finding of unfair dismissal. The reasons given by the Tribunal showed it had not clearly identified the requirements of the new post or the jobs actually being done by the Claimant and her comparator, without which the finding made (that the reason was not race, but mistake) appeared illogical. Appeal allowed with remission to a fresh tribunal.
Judges:
Langstaff QC J
Citations:
[2010] UKEAT 0296 – 09 – 2601
Links:
Cited by:
Appeal from – Arhin v Enfield Primary Care Trust CA 20-Dec-2010
The claimant doctor appealed against the refusal of compensatory damages awarded on a finding that she had been unfairly selected for redundancy. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401958
