An airline pilot complained that he had been unfairly dismissed and the Industrial Tribunal, without considering whether or not they had jurisdiction to hear the complaint on the ground that the employee might ordinarily work abroad, found that the dismissal was unfair. The case had been listed before the Industrial Tribunal upon the jurisdictional question but in the event nobody adverted to it. Paragraph 9(2) provided that paragraph 4 of the Schedule did not apply to any employment where under the contract of employment the employee ordinarily worked outside Britain. Paragraph 4(1) provided that: ‘in every employment to which this paragraph applies every employee shall have the right not to be unfairly dismissed by his employer and the remedy of an employee so dismissed for breach of that right shall be by way of complaint to an Industrial Tribunal under part three of this Schedule and not otherwise’.
Held: Phillips J stated:- ‘This being a question as to jurisdiction, the Industrial Tribunal should have taken the point themselves even if the parties did not; and they cannot merely by silence confer upon themselves a jurisdiction which they do not have’.
‘It seems to us that in a case like this where, as the law then was, a mistake may have been made and the matter has come to light, it is desirable for the Industrial Tribunal, if there is an application for review, to correct the matter even if it involves overturning the original decision of the Industrial Tribunal. From time to time we have appeals sometimes in relation to small matters of compensation, sometimes in relation to matters where there has been a slip or an error of law of some sort or another and the mistakes have come to light quite soon after the hearing of the Industrial Tribunal. It seems to us that the convenient course is for such mistakes, when they occur and are recognised, to be corrected by review rather than by appeal because the appeal takes much longer and is much more expensive.’
Judges:
Phillips J
Citations:
[1978] ICR 782
Statutes:
Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 1 Sch 1
Cited by:
Cited – Leicester University Students Union v Mahomed EAT 6-Dec-1994
The Union appealed a finding of unfair dismissal and discrimination. It denied that she had sufficient continuous service, saying that the peirod suggested involved working for two employers. It also said that since the objection went as to . .
Cited – Trimble v Supertravel Ltd EAT 1982
The Industrial Tribunal had held that the appellant’s dismissal was unfair but then decided that she had failed to mitigate her loss. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal announced its decision and stated that she was to get no . .
Cited – Williams v Ferrosan Ltd EAT 5-Mar-2004
Acting on guidance, the parties representatives and the tribunal had assumed that part of the award relating to loss of future earnings would not be taxable. The question now was whether the tribunal had power of its own motion to review its . .
Cited – Council of The City of Newcastle Upon Tyne v Marsden (Rev 1) EAT 23-Jan-2010
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review
Claim under Disability Discrimination Act 1995 dismissed at PHR because Claimant not available to give evidence as to long-term effect of injury – Judge willing to offer . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.270358
