EAT Unfair dismissal – Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal
Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke
Race discrimination – Direct / Burden of proof / Victimisation
It being common ground that the Employment Tribunal directed itself correctly on the law, its application to the facts was not perverse. The Employment Tribunal approached the burden of proof correctly, except for holding contrary to the new case of Oyarce that s.54A Race Relations Act 1976 applies to victimisation. However, the judgment was unarguably correct on King v GBC-C principles, as the Respondent had failed to give an acceptable explanation for its actions. The EAT refused permission to raise two new points on appeal SoS v Rance applied.
Citations:
[2007] UKEAT 0208 – 07 – 2410
Links:
Statutes:
Citing:
Cited – RSPCA v Cruden EAT 1986
The dismissal of an employee of the RSPCA was unfair simply because of a delay with no good reason of some 7 months in initiating proceedings. This was even though the employee had suffered no prejudice as a result of the delay.
If a . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Health v Rance EAT 4-May-2007
EAT Equal Pay Act – Part time pensions
Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke
The EAT exercised its discretion to allow a point conceded at the Employment Tribunal to be . .
Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261537
