Category: Employment

Leonard Batty v BSB Holdings (Cudworth) Ltd: CA 24 May 2002

The employee was former managing director employed as consultant on a fixed term contract. After differences with the new management, he was off work with stress. The company sought to suspend him. He claimed that the company had repudiated the contract.
Held: The power to suspend was part of the disciplinary procedure. He had been suspended. He did not return to work when invited to do so, and appeared not to be interested in doing so. He had been told that his salary would stop. Willingness to return to work is a necessary averment in an action for salary. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Sedley And Lady Justice Hale

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 648

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council HL 1987
The claimant was a superintendent registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages. His union instructed him not to conduct weddings on Saturdays. He had been told that if he failed to perform his full range of duties on a Saturday (including marriages), he . .
See Also – Batty v BSB Holdings (Cudworth) Ltd CA 5-Nov-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.171340

Solomon v University of Hertfordshire and Another: EAT 29 Oct 2019

Sex Discrimination — Burden of Proof
The liability judgment
The ET did not err in law in dismissing the Claimant’s complaints of unlawful discrimination, victimisation and harassment. In one respect – relating to the ET’s reasoning concerning the burden of proof – the EAT’s decision is by a majority, Mr Hunter dissenting – see paragraphs 61-76.
The costs judgment
The ET erred in law in its approach to the question of costs. In determining whether the Claimant’s conduct (for example in proceeding with the litigation rather than accepting offers) was unreasonable it should not have substituted its own view but should rather have asked whether her conduct was within or outside the range of reasonable responses in the circumstances.
‘We wish to say a word about the offer of pounds 500 to the Claimant to obtain legal advice. We think it clear that the advice which the Claimant could expect to receive for this sum (or any sum remotely like it) would only relate to the terms and effect of the proposed settlement and its effect on her ability to pursue her rights thereafter (see section 203(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996). Any advice as to the merits of the Claimant’s claim and the likely award of compensation would require reading and consideration on a quite different scale. So even if the Claimant had sought advice, she would still have had to make her own lay assessment as to the merits of her claim and the likely award of compensation. The ET said, in paragraph 10 of its reasons, that the offer of pounds 500 plus VAT was for a solicitor ‘to advise on the merits of a settlement’. If so, the offer was wholly unrealistic.’

Judges:

David Richardson HHJ

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0258 – 18 – 2910

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 76

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination, Costs

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.643082

Britliff v Birmingham City Council (Disability Discrimination): EAT 16 Aug 2019

The Claimant is pursuing claims of disability discrimination in the Employment Tribunal, which are defended. It is common ground between the parties that for the purposes of an Equality Act 2010 claim the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has indirect effect. At a Preliminary Hearing the Employment Tribunal correctly held that it does not have direct effect.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0291 – 18 – 1608

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.642757

Affinity Workforce Solutions Ltd v McCann and Others: ChD 24 Oct 2019

Application by the Claimant (‘Affinity’) for an injunction to restrain the First to Fifth Defendants (the ‘Employees’) from taking any part in the business of the Sixth Defendant (‘Tradewind’) until after the expiry of certain covenants which are alleged to have been included in their contracts of employment with Affinity, and which restrict their ability to engage in competition with Affinity for six months after termination of their employment.

Judges:

Snowden J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2829 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.642773

Northumberland Tyne and Wear NhHS Foundation Trust v Ward: EAT 18 Oct 2019

Disability Discrimination – Reasonable Adjustments
The Claimant suffers from ME/chronic fatigue syndrome (‘CFS’). This makes it more likely that she will have higher absences than other employees. In 2011, the Respondent made an adjustment to its sickness absence management policy (‘SAMP’) whereby the Claimant could have up to 5 absences in a 12-month period before triggering the policy instead of the standard 3 absences. That adjustment seemed to operate successfully for a period of almost 4 years. However, the adjustment was abruptly removed in 2015. Whilst the Respondent made other adjustments, such as a reduction in working hours, the Claimant was unable to meet the attendance requirements under the SAMP and was subjected to the various stages of the absence management process leading eventually to her dismissal. Her complaints of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of her disability and for failure to make reasonable adjustments (under ss.15 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010 (‘the 2010 Act’) respectively) were upheld by the Employment Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) as was her claim of unfair dismissal, albeit that it was held that there was a 50% chance that she would have been dismissed within 4 months in any event. The Respondent appealed on the grounds that: (a) the decision on the s.20 claim was inadequately reasoned, (b) the Tribunal erred in its approach to justification; (c) the decision on unfair dismissal, which was based on the findings on justification, was similarly flawed; and (d) the decision on the Polkey reduction was inadequately reasoned. As to the Tribunal’s subsequent judgment on Remedy, the Respondent appealed on the ground that the Tribunal erred in its analysis of causation.
Held: Dismissing the Liability Appeal, that: (a) the Tribunal had not erred in its approach to the claim for reasonable adjustments and gave adequate reasons for its decision; (b) the Tribunal was entitled to deal with justification in the way that it did, particularly given that this was a case where an adjustment that had worked well for years was abruptly removed without cause; (c) as there had been no error in the justification decision, the challenge to the unfair dismissal claim fell away ; and (d) the Polkey decision was adequately reasoned.
The Remedy Appeal was also dismissed as there was no inconsistency between the finding that the Claimant would be able to return to some form of work within 12 months and the award of 2 years 9 months’ future loss of earnings.

Judges:

Choudhury J P

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0249 – 18 – 1810

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.643081

Parnaby v Leicester City Council (Disability Discrimination): EAT 19 Jul 2019

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – disability – disabled person – section 6 Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
In finding that the Claimant, who suffered work related stress, was not a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (‘the EqA’), the Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) accepted that he suffered an impairment that had a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities but held this was not long-term. In reaching that conclusion, the ET noted the Claimant had suffered work related stress from January to June 2017, but that had not continued after his dismissal; the effect had not been long-term for the purposes of paragraph 2 Schedule 1 EqA. The Claimant appealed.
Held: allowing the appeal
The ET’s finding, that the effect of the Claimant’s impairment was not likely to last at least 12 months or to recur, was informed by the fact that the Claimant had been dismissed, which had removed the cause of the impairment – the work-related stress. The decision to dismiss was, however, one of the matters of which the Claimant complained as an act of disability discrimination. The ET had needed to consider the question of likelihood – whether it could well happen that the effect would last at least 12 months or recur – at the time at which the relevant decisions were being taken, which was prior to the implementation of the decision to dismiss. This error of approach meant the ET’s conclusion could not stand and the question whether the Claimant’s impairment was ‘long-term’ for the purposes of Schedule 1 of the EqA would be remitted to differently constituted ET for re-hearing.

Judges:

Eady QC HHJ

Citations:

[2019 UKEAT 0025 – 19 – 1907

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.642753

Town and Country Glasgow Ltd v Munro (Maternity Rights and Parental Leave — Sex Discrimination): EAT 23 Jul 2019

Sex discrimination – pregnancy and discrimination; Contract Workers; Jurisdiction
Contract of employment
Maternity Rights and Parental leave – sex discrimination
In this case the Employment Appeal Tribunal heard an appeal against the Employment Tribunal’s decision under s 83(2)(a) of the Equality Act 2010. The EAT allowed the appeal and concluded on the facts found proved the work provided by the Claimant was not under ‘a contract personally to do work’. The EAT considered that the ability of the Claimant to provide a substitute to do the work of receptionist in the business in question deprived the contract of its personal character. The EAT discussed the degree of latitude the Claimant enjoyed in the provision of a substitute and concluded that the main interest of the Respondents was the provision of a suitably qualified worker and that the identity of the worker was not a significant factor.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0035 – 18 – 2307

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.642754

British Midland Airways Ltd v Hamed: EAT 3 Nov 2010

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments
This appeal was a challenge on the facts to an alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments. The Employment Tribunal carefully considered the alternative employment offered but decided that as the employer had not considered that the employee was disabled it had not considered what reasonable adjustments needed to be made to the alternative employment available.
Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0292 – 10 – 0311

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.428052

Quadrant Catering Ltd v Smith: EAT 10 Dec 2010

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
Conduct dismissal – Employment Tribunal substituted own view as to nature of disciplinary offence for that of employer. Appeal against finding of unfairness (and remedy) allowed. Case remitted to fresh Employment Tribunal for rehearing.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0362 – 10 – 1012

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.428059

Cooperative Centrale Raiffeisen Boerenleenbank Ba v Docker: EAT 19 Jan 2011

EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Direct
Proper application of the Igen 2-stage test to the facts permissibly found by Employment Tribunal leading to conclusion that the claim of direct racial discrimination was well-founded. Appeal by employer dismissed.

Citations:

[2011] UKEAT 0088 – 10 – 1901

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.428051

Kier Islington Ltd v Pelzman: EAT 15 Dec 2010

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
Conduct dismissal – Employment Tribunal substituted its view of disparity of treatment compared with an earlier disciplinary offence and relied on employer’s failure to issue a specific written warning of the risk of dismissal when the offence in question was covered by the examples of gross misconduct in its disciplinary procedures, leading to summary dismissal.
Finding of unfair dismissal (subject to 75 per cent contribution) and consequent compensation order set aside and finding of fair dismissal substituted on appeal.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0266 – 10 – 1512

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.428057

Wojnarowicz v Moto Hospitality Ltd: EAT 1 Dec 2010

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
It was conceded at the appeal that the Claimant had not submitted a grievance on sexual harassment. But he sought to argue that his reason for not doing so was a threat contrary to Regulation 11(3). The EAT refused him permission to raise this new point: CELTEC applied. Even if it were allowed, the point had no prospect of success in the light of the Claimant having raised matters said to constitute the ‘threat’.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0315 – 10 – 0112

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.428060

University of Warwick v Gray: EAT 8 Nov 2010

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Reasonableness of dismissal
The Employment Tribunal erred in holding that a reasonable employer would not have dismissed the Claimant when it found his case was on all fours with three other employees who were given a final written warning for misconduct. The Claimant was two months into a warning indicating further misconduct might lead to dismissal, and he alone had been aggressive to a security guard. The Employment Tribunal failed to apply LAS v Small and look at the material available to the management. The Employment Tribunal’s criticisms of the investigation were not borne out.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0508 – 09 – 0811

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.428056

Dundee City Council v McDermott and Others: EAT 3 Nov 2010

EAT EQUAL PAY ACT – Equal value
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
Equal Pay. Statutory grievance procedure (standard procedure). Where comparators in ET1 were materially different from comparators specified in earlier grievances and Employment Tribunal had not carried out a qualitative exercise to assess correlation of complaints, it had erred in law in holding that the requirements of section 32 of the Employment Act 2002 had been satisfied: Cannop and others v Highland Council sub nom Highland Council v TGWU and others [2008] IRLR 634. Comparators having been specified in the Claimants’ grievances, the fact that grievances and subsequent complaints to the Employment Tribunal both involved equal pay claims was not sufficient.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0027 – 10 – 0311

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.428053

Meares v Medway Primary Care Trust: EAT 7 Dec 2010

EAT VICTIM DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosure
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Mitigation
An Employment Tribunal held that when the Claimant wrote a letter complaining amongst several other matters in a tirade of vehement comment that staff had been bullied and harassed she had not been making a protected disclosure: because the letter had been written to undermine her line manager, out of feelings of antagonism toward her, it was for an ulterior purpose. The two grounds of appeal against this were dismissed: the first was that the Tribunal should have considered what the relative strengths of the motivations were which caused the Claimant to write the letter. It was held unnecessary that a Tribunal should do more than determine whether a disclosure was made ‘in good faith’ as that phrase had been interpreted in Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers Centre. The second was that an allegation of bad faith should have been put specifically to the Claimant not only at the hearing but sufficiently in advance of it so that she was not surprised by it when giving evidence. This was held unnecessary for a fair hearing, where the substance of the allegation was put in circumstances where the Claimant had a proper opportunity to rebut or explain it.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0065 – 10 – 0712

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.428058

Johnson v Rollerworld: EAT 30 Nov 2010

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Compensation
Employment Tribunal decided that the employment of the Claimant would have come to an end within 9 months, and thus limited compensation to that period for a dismissal on the ground of conduct, yet where contributory fault was only 20 per cent. As examples of the possible conduct which might precipitate the anticipated dismissal the Tribunal had relied predominantly on behaviour which the employee was entitled to adopt. Its decision was insufficiently reasoned and in the light of the legitimate behaviour apparently relied on as potentially leading to a justified dismissal might be wrong: the Appeal Tribunal remitted the case.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0237 – 10 – 3011

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.428055

Howe v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham: EAT 26 Nov 2010

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
The Employment Tribunal correctly addressed and applied s 98(4) in finding Hammersmith did not unfairly dismiss the Claimant for fraudulently claiming sick pay from Hammersmith while drawing pay from Brent, after being reasonably instructed to give up one or other job.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0528 – 10 – 2611

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.428054

Hewage v Grampian Health Board: SCS 14 Jan 2011

The claimant had succeeded in her claim for constructive unfair dismissal, and of sex and race discrimation at the tribunal. The EAT reversed the discrimination findings saying that the claimant had not set them out in her ET1, and the Tribunal had wrongly extended them, giving the respondents no fair notice. She now appealed against the reversal of those claims.
Held: Her appeal was allowed and the EAT’s decision quashed. The case was remitted to the same employment tribunal to decide whether, if it had had regard to the only issues which the court considered to be relevant to the claims of discrimination, it would have come to the same or a different conclusion.
Lord Justice Clerk, giving the opinion of the court, said that ET’s approach was correct. It had decided that a conclusion was available to it that the Board had treated the claimant differently from the two comparators and to her detriment. In the light of its handling of the appellant’s complaints, that difference of treatment supported an inference of discrimination which it was then for the Board to rebut. When considering the inferences to be drawn from the primary facts, the employment tribunal had to assume that there was no adequate explanation for them. It was sufficient for it to decide whether, on the primary facts, it could conclude in the absence of an adequate explanation that the Board had committed an act of discrimination. If it so decided, the burden of proof shifted to the Board. As to comparators, the EAT had simply substituted its own judgment on the point on a consideration of the findings of fact. Unless the employment tribunal’s judgment on a question of that kind was absurd or perverse, it was not for the EAT to impose its own judgment on the point. It was entitled to conclude that Professor Forrester and Mr Larmour were appropriate comparators.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Bonomy, Lord Nimmo Smith

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSIH – 4, 2011 SLT 319, 2011 GWD 4-127

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination (Indirect Discrimination and Burden of Proof) Regulations 2001, Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Race Relations Act 1976, Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004

Citing:

Appeal from – Grampian Health Board v Hewage EAT 4-Feb-2009
EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION: Burden of proof
RACE DISCRIMINATION: Inferring discrimination
Tribunal found Claimant to have suffered both sex and race discrimination in course of her employment as a . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Hewage v Grampian Health Board SC 25-Jul-2012
The claimant had been employed as a consultant orthodontist. She resigned claiming constructive dismissal and sex and race discrimination. The EAT reversed the findings on discrimination saying that they had not been sufficiently pleaded. The Court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.428020

Cordant Group Plc, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Another: Admn 30 Dec 2010

The claimant challenged the amendments brought in by the 2010 Regulations.

Judges:

Kenneth Parker J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3442 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2010

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427944

Arriva London South Ltd v Nicolaou: EAT 22 Nov 2010

EAT WORKING TIME REGULATIONS
S.45A detriment
The Claimant refused to forgo his protection against working more than 48 hours under WTR and so was denied every opportunity to work on rest days for overtime. The Employment Tribunal judgment was set aside and remitted to the same Judge to determine the relationship between the Respondent’s absolute duty to allow the Claimant protection and its qualified duty to take reasonable steps to ensure it did not breach the duty, when considering s45A.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0280 – 10 – 2211

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427751

Zaman and Others v Kozee Sleep Products Ltd (T/A Dorlux Beds UK): EAT 19 Nov 2010

EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Consultation and other information
The cap on ‘a week’s pay’ under s.227 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 does not apply to awards for compensation under reg. 15 (8) of TUPE for breach of the information and consultation obligations.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0312 – 10 – 1911

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427754

Cafagna v ISS Mediclean and Others: EAT 18 Nov 2010

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
The Employment Judge did not err in striking out the Claimant’s claim under the DDA. See
UKEATPA/0414/09 and UKEATPA/0731/09 and UKEATPA/0033/09 (BAILII: [2010] UKEAT 0414 – 09 – 1803). Permission to appeal was refused by the Court of Appeal. Nor did he err in taking a similar approach to the slightly different facts in the PIDA claim.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0308 – 10 – 1811

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427752

Jurys Inn Group v Tatarova: EAT 23 Nov 2010

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Polkey deduction
Having found the Respondent’s dismissal of the Claimant was automatically unfair, the Employment Tribunal erred by not considering the submission that the award should be affected by Polkey principles. Remitted to the same Employment Tribunal for that point to be decided.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0295 – 10 – 2311

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427753

Copple and Others v Littlewoods Plc and Others: EAT 23 Dec 2010

EAT EQUAL PAY ACT – Part time pensions
The Claimant women were unlawfully excluded from an occupational pension scheme as part-timers, but they would never have joined it if it had been open to them. There is no basis for ordering a declaration that the Respondents breached the implied equality term during the period when the pension scheme was closed to them without there being a corresponding loss. Those who would not have opted to join the scheme are not entitled to the declaration of admission to the scheme. For those who succeeded, the declarations endure only for the closed period. The purely discretionary remedy of a declaration is not inconsistent with EU law.
Appeals dismissed.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0116 – 10 – 2312

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427755

Gavieiro Gavieiro: ECJ 22 Dec 2010

ECJ Social Policy – Directive 1999/70/EC – Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Principle of non-discrimination – Application of the framework agreement to the interim staff of an Autonomous Community – National rules establishing different treatment in respect of the award of a length-of-service increment on the basis of the temporary nature of the employment relationship – Obligation to recognise, with retrospective effect, the right to the length-of-service increment.

Citations:

C-444/09, [2010] EUECJ C-444/09

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427698

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.

Judges:

Maurice Kay VP CA, Smith, Leveson LLJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1481

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Meek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987
Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an . .
Appeal from – Arhin v Enfield Primary Care Trust EAT 26-Jan-2010
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 . .
Cited – Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd and Another v Wilcox and others CA 20-Jul-2006
Rule 30(6) of the 2004 Rules, which requires sufficient reasons, is intended to be a guide and not a straitjacket so that if it can be reasonably spelled out from a determination that what the rule requires has been provided by the Tribunal, then no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Damages

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427363

South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority v Beever and Others: EAT 17 Dec 2010

EAT UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Construction of term
On its true construction the criterion of ‘commitment to achieving high levels of attendance’ as part of the criteria for receiving a payment under the Fire Services Continual Professional Development Scheme could not be measured solely by reference to meeting target maximum absence levels (even taking into account ‘disregarded absences’).

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0533 – 09 – 1712

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427310

Commission v Strack: ECFI 9 Dec 2010

ECFI (Staff Regulations) Appeal – Cross-appeal – Civil service – Officials – Recruitment – Vacancy – Rejection of candidature – Appointment to the post of Head of Unit – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action for damages – Non-pecuniary damage.

Citations:

T-526/08, [2010] EUECJ T-526/08

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427316

ISS Mediclean Ltd v Elkiyari: EAT 14 Oct 2010

EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION:
Inferring Discrimination and the Burden of Proof
Although the stated belief of the employer may amount to the reason for dismissal in terms of section 98 of the Employment Rights Act, a combination of the different statutory wording in terms of direct race discrimination (here section 1 of the Race Relations Act) and the application of the reverse burden of proof may lead in some cases, the instant case being possibly an example, to a finding that the reason for dismissal, e.g. misconduct was also less favourable treatment for the purposes of anti-discrimination legislation; Chamberlain v Emokpae [2005] ICR 931 distinguished.
Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
But the ET appeared to have relied only on the difference of nationality and the difference of treatment to reverse the burden of proof and did not deal at all with a subsequent case of dismissal of an Italian national in similar circumstances. Accordingly, it being too late for the Burns Barke procedure, case remitted for further consideration as to whether the factual material, apart from the difference of nationality and the fact that others had not been dismissed, led to a reversal of the burden of proof and where the later dismissal fitted into that analysis.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0205 – 10 – 1410

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427298

Kuncharalingam v Word By Word Translations Ltd: EAT 22 Oct 2010

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither
Costs
Employment Judge held that Claimant was neither an employee nor a limb (b) worker giving the Employment Tribunal jurisdiction to entertain his various claims. Decision upheld on appeal. This was not a contract for personal service; there was an unfettered right to send a substitute to complete translation jobs assigned to Claimant. No error by Employment Judge in his approach to costs ordered against Claimant.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0269 – 10 – 2210

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427299

University of Manchester v Faulkner: EAT 21 Oct 2010

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
The Employment Tribunal set out the arguments and evidence advanced on behalf of the Claimant but failed to set out the arguments and material evidence advanced on behalf of the Respondent. The Tribunal did not set out a proper evidential basis for the conclusions reached. The judgment was not Meek compliant.
Appeal allowed. Claim remitted to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal for rehearing.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0081 – 10 – 2110

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427302

Blitz v Vectone Group Holdings Ltd: EAT 10 Nov 2010

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
Time for appealing
It was not just to debar the Respondent for failing to lodge a skeleton for the Registrar’s appeal, or lodging its Answer one day late. Expedition of the Claimant’s appeal so as to give him preference in a winding-up petition due to be heard would be refused.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0253 – 10 – 1011

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427303

KRD Property Maintenance Ltd v O’ Donnell: EAT 2 Nov 2010

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Reasonableness of dismissal
Polkey deduction
Unfair dismissal on grounds of misconduct. Tribunal’s conclusion that Respondent had no genuine belief in the Claimant’s misconduct not supportable on its findings in fact. Nor was it supportable on the Tribunal’s reasoning. Perversity appeal allowed and case remitted to a freshly constituted Employment Tribunal.

Judges:

Lady Smith

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0016 – 10 – 0211

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427305

Gavin v Commission for Racial Equality, Now The Equality and Human Rights Commission and Others: EAT 12 May 2010

The EAT was asked whether or not claims had been presented out of time, whether they had been compromised by a compromise agreement and whether there should be some form of estoppel preventing the Claimant re-litigating. The Respondent’s applications in respect of all those matters were upheld by the Judge. The Claimant appealed.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 1385 – 09 – 1205

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427296

National Centre for Young People With Epilepsy v Boateng: EAT 27 Oct 2010

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Case management
Admissibility of evidence
Application for witness order in respect of opposing party’s former solicitor. Waiver of legal privilege. Relevant to question as to whether a compromise agreement is valid and effective. ET refusal to order solicitor’s attendance as a witness reversed. Appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0440 – 10 – 2710

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427300

Page and Another v Lakeside Collection Ltd (T/A Lavender Hotels) and Another: EAT 19 Nov 2010

EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Transfer
Whether relevant transfer from company in administration to new company and whether Claimant directors/employees transferred to the new company or whether they were dismissed (unfairly) by the administrators. Employment Tribunal finding that Claimants’ employment was not transferred permissible conclusion on the facts as found.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0296 – 10 – 1911

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427306

Southern Cross Healthcare Co Ltd v Perkins and Others: CA 16 Dec 2010

The court was asked whether the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to construe contractual terms and conditions contained or referred to in a written statement or particulars.

Judges:

Maurice Kay VP, Stanley Burnton, Jackson LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1442, [2011] IRLR 247, [2011] ICR 285

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427271

Roberts v Carlin: EAT 17 Dec 2010

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
Perversity
Appearance of bias – relevance of statutory DDP non-compliance to a SDA pregnancy complaint – Meek compliance – perversity. Appeal allowed on Meek ground only and remitted to fresh Employment Tribunal for re-hearing.

Judges:

Peter Clark J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0183 – 09 – 1712

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427309

Davidson-Hogg v Davis Gregory Solicitors and Another: EAT 15 Nov 2010

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Compensation
Polkey deduction
The Claimant was unfairly dismissed on 8 November 2006. The Employment Tribunal found she would have been fairly dismissed or resigned on 16 January 2007 and awarded compensation for economic loss up to then but not thereafter. The EAT upheld this award for even if the manner of the dismissal made the Claimant ill and made it more difficult to seek work, the hypothesis of the limitation of loss, under Polkey, is that but for the dismissal with its attendant unfairness, the employment would have ended anyway.
The case was remitted to the same Employment Tribunal to determine whether loss after 16 January occurred, on the footing that by then the Claimant would have been admitted as a solicitor with access to higher paid work.
Having awarded compensation and aggravated damages for non-economic loss in respect of three wrongful acts, the Employment Tribunal was bound to earmark the amount awarded for each, as one carried with it an entitlement to seek interest.

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0512 – 09 – 1511

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427304

United States of America v Nolan: CA 24 Nov 2010

Judges:

Laws, Hooper, Rimer LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1416

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At EAT – United States of America v Nolan EAT 15-May-2009
EAT REDUNDANCY: Collective consultation and information / Protective award
An Employment Tribunal held that the USA was in breach of Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act . .
See Also – United States of America v Nolan CA 9-Nov-2010
The claimant had sought a protective award under the 1992. She had been a civilian employee at a base operated by the appellant which it closed. She sought to sue as an employee representative, saying that the appellant had failed to consult its . .
At ECJ – United States of America v Nolan ECJ 18-Oct-2012
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 98/59/EC – Protection of workers – Collective redundancies – Scope – Closure of an American military base – Information and consultation of workers – Time at which the consultation obligation arises – . .

Cited by:

At CA – The United States of America v Nolan SC 21-Oct-2015
Mrs Nolan had been employed at a US airbase. When it closed, and she was made redundant, she complained that the appellant had not consulted properly on the redundancies. The US denied that it had responsibility to consult, and now appealed.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, European, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.427206

Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Bruno, Pettini (Social Policy): ECJ 10 Jun 2010

Europa Directive 97/81/EC – Framework Agreement on part-time work – Equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers – Calculation of the period of service required to obtain a retirement pension – Periods not worked disregarded – Discrimination.
The question arose whether service prior to the entry into force of the directive counted towards the service required to qualify for a retirement pension. The Court cited the principle that ‘new rules apply, unless otherwise specifically provided, immediately to the future effects of a situation which arose under the old rule’
Held: Advocate General (Sharpston) said: ‘The prohibition on discrimination in Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement is a particular expression of the general principle of equality. It must therefore be interpreted in accordance with that principle. Any national implementing measures must likewise respect the general principles of Community law, including the principle of equal treatment.’
‘Accordingly, the calculation of the period of service required to qualify for a retirement pension such as the pensions at issue in the main proceedings is governed by Directive 97/81, including periods of employment before the directive entered into force.’

Judges:

Advocate General (Sharpston)

Citations:

C-395/08, [2010] EUECJ C-395/08

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 97/81/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – O’Brien v Ministry of Justice SC 28-Jul-2010
The appellant had worked as a part time judge. He now said that he should be entitled to a judicial pension on retirement by means of the Framework Directive. The Regulations disapplied the provisions protecting part time workers for judicial office . .
Cited – O’Brien v Ministry of Justice SC 12-Jul-2017
The claimant challenged e pension arrangements made for part time judges.
Held: ‘The majority of the court are inclined to think that the effect of Directive 97/81 is that it is unlawful to discriminate against part-time workers when a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.420173

Watts (T/A Ten Gables Nursing Home) v Parkes: EAT 1 Sep 2005

EAT Contract of Employment: Definition of Employee -and – Working Time Regulations: Worker
Tribunal correct in holding that the respondent was an employee of the appellant using correct tests: control and mutuality of obligation.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Ansell

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0262 – 05 – 0109

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.235051

Crofts and others v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd and others: CA 19 May 2005

The claimants were airline pilots employed by the respondent company with headquarters in Hong Kong. The court was asked whether an English Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear their complaints of unfair dismissal.
Held: The pilots were employed in England so as to allow a claim for unfair dismissal here.

Judges:

Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr, Lord Justice Waller And Lord Justice Maurice Kay

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 599, Times 02-Jun-2005, [2005] ICR 1436, [2005] IRLR 624

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 94(1), Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 a3, Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 10(h)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – G A Croft and others v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd Veta Ltd USA Basing Ltd (Dickie v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd) EAT 2004
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Exclusions including worker . .
Cited – Serco Ltd v Lawson and Foreign and Commonwealth Office CA 23-Jan-2004
The applicant had been employed to provide services to RAF in the Ascension Islands. He alleged constructive dismissal. There was an issue as to whether somebody working in the Ascension Islands was protected by the 1996 Act. The restriction on . .
Cited – Todd v British Midland Airways CA 2-Jan-1978
The court discussed the test to be applied to an employment to see whether a British court had jurisdiction over it: ‘But in other cases there is more difficulty. I refer particularly to the type of case we have here of the airline pilot. He is . .
Cited – Nothman v Barnet London Borough County Council HL 1978
The normal retiring age for an employee is to be found by looking exclusively at the conditions of employment applicable to the group of employees holding his position.
Lord Salmon said: ‘If a woman’s conditions of employment provide that her . .
Cited – Carver (Nee Mascarenhas) v Saudi Arabian Airlines CA 17-Mar-1999
The applicant was recruited in Saudi Arabia in 1986 as a flight attendant under a contract expressed to be subject to Saudi Arabian law. After being trained in Jeddah, and then employed in India for four years, she was transferred to be based in . .
Cited – Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada HL 1986
Forum Non Conveniens Restated
The House reviewed the authorities on the principle of forum non conveniens and restated how to apply the principle where the defendant seeks a stay of proceedings on the ground that there is another more appropriate forum.
Held: ‘In the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Serco Ltd v Lawson; Botham v Ministry of Defence; Crofts and others v Veta Limited HL 26-Jan-2006
Mr Lawson was employed by Serco as a security supervisor at the British RAF base on Ascension Island, which is a dependency of the British Overseas Territory of St Helena. Mr Botham was employed as a youth worker at various Ministry of Defence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.225003

Lardier v British Gas Research and Technology Plc: EAT 20 Nov 1998

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 247 – 98 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Lardier v British Gas Research and Technology Plc EAT 3-Feb-1997
. .

Cited by:

See Also – B G Lardier v British Gas Research and Technology Plc EAT 11-Oct-1999
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Procedural Fairness
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal. . .
See also – Lardier v British Gas Research and Technology Plc EAT 5-Mar-2001
. .
See Also – Lardier v British Gas Research and Technology Plc CA 14-Jun-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.206909

Weigel and Another v Brown: EAT 10 Dec 1998

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 211 – 98 – 1012

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.207066

Bhatoolaul v Leyton Sixth Form College: EAT 1 Nov 1998

The appellant challenged rejection of his claim for unfair dismissal and discrimination and breach of contract. He had been summarily dismissed from his position as teacher with the defendant school. He had gone to a teacher’s Xmas drink in a pub instead of teaching his class. At a disciplinary hearing he had produced evidence which led to a warning, but the school then discovered that the evidence was false. At a further hearing into whether he had had procured the false evidence, the school declined to compel the witness to attend to give evidence, and the charge was found to be true and he was summarily dismissed. There had also been issues as to his capacity.
Held: The appeal failed. In view of the concession that the witness even if called could not have supported the appellant’s case, the tribunal’s decision could not be attacked as wrong in law or for perversity. The tribunal had been correct to dismiss the complaint of discrimination since the appellant had failed to bring any evidence of a comparator.

Judges:

Byrt QC J

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 959 – 98 – 0111

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.206866

Jedla v Procter and Gamble (Health and Beauty Care): EAT 1 Nov 1998

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 838 – 98 – 0111

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Jedla v Proctor and Gamble (Health and Beauty Care) EAT 1-May-1999
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Jedla v Proctor and Gamble (Health and Beauty Care) EAT 1-May-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.206903

Woodhall v Greggs Plc (T/A the Bakers Oven): EAT 1 Oct 1998

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 717 – 98 – 0110

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rigby v Ferodo Ltd HL 1988
The House considered a claim for constructive dismissal where the employer had changed the terms of the employment contract by unilaterally imposing a pay cut.
Held: It was possible for an employee to continue to work under protest as to the . .
Cited – Hogg v Dover College EAT 1990
The claimant asserted unfair dismissal after his contract was changed to provide that his post as head of the history department would be part time. He had been ill, and the head teacher reduced his teaching periods. He accepted the change in . .

Cited by:

See Also – Woodhall v Greggs Plc (T/A the Bakers Oven) EAT 13-Apr-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.206857

Cook v Clarke: EAT 2 May 2003

EAT Practice and Procedure – Appearance/Response.
Employment Tribunal procedure in allowing or disallowing an amendment to introduce an additional claim.

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0070 – 03 – 0205, [2003] UKEAT 0070 – 03 – 0205, EAT/70/03 and EAT/71/03

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.191562

Bebb Travel plc v Inland Revenue of England and Wales: CA 16 Apr 2003

The revenue issued a notice requiring the respondent to make good low wages paid to their employees. The EAT had held that such a notice could only apply to current employees. The Revenue appealed.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The first part of the regulation stated the preconditions for service of a notice, and talked of workers qualifying in the present tense. The distinction was deliberate A valid enforcement notice could only relate to current workers.

Judges:

Ward, Arden May LJJ

Citations:

Times 25-Apr-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 563

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Minimum Wages Act 1998 19(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Bebb Travel plc v Inland Revenue of England and Wales EAT 16-Aug-2002
The respondent issued a notice requiring the applicant to comply with the Act. They appealed an order which refused to provide for payments to former workers.
Held: A notice under the Act must relate to present and future workers. For such . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Bebb Travel plc v Inland Revenue of England and Wales EAT 16-Aug-2002
The respondent issued a notice requiring the applicant to comply with the Act. They appealed an order which refused to provide for payments to former workers.
Held: A notice under the Act must relate to present and future workers. For such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.181852

Prosser v Wallace Mcdowall Ltd: EAT 5 Sep 2000

The employee was taken on as a senior employee, on the basis of his achievement of budgets set by him before becoming employed. The tribunal found he had been fairly dismissed for a performance reason, in failing to achieve the target. He appealed. The EAT held that the tribunal had mixed up two questions, the reason for the dismissal, and its fairness. The finding of fairness could not be supported, but there was insufficient evidence for the EAT to substitute its own finding, and the case was remitted to a different tribunal.
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Procedural Fairness
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal.

Judges:

The Honourable Lord Johnston

Citations:

EAT/383/01

Links:

EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.171481

Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College: EAT 29 Mar 2000

EAT Sex Discrimination – Indirect – European Material – Article 19.
EAT European Material – Article 19
EAT Equal Pay Act – (no sub-topic).

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President)

Citations:

EAT/1080/98, EAT/1300/97, [2000] UKEAT 1300 – 97 – 2903

Links:

EAT, EAT, Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Treatment Directive (Council Directive 76/207/EEC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Flint v Eastern Electricity Board EAT 1975
The employee had failed to mention at the hearing of his claim for a redundancy payment a fact which was arguably highly material to the issue of whether his refusal of alternative employment was reasonable; and his claim had been dismissed. He . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College and others CA 23-Mar-2001
The college failed to renew contracts for lecturers on one year fixed term contracts. A greater proportion of women were subject to such contracts, and the dismissal fell entirely on part time and hourly paid workforce. The condition which the . .
At EAT – Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College for Education and Employment ECJ 13-Jan-2004
ECJ Principle of equal pay for men and women – Direct effect – Meaning of worker – Self-employed female lecturer undertaking work presumed to be of equal value to that which is undertaken in the same college by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment, European

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.171789

Callagan v Glasgow City Council: EAT 28 Aug 2001

EAT The claimant appealed against the dismissal of his application both in respect of allegations of disability discrimination in terms of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and unfair dismissal.

Judges:

Lord Johnston

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 43 – 01 – 2808, [2002] Emp LR 24, [2001] IRLR 724

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.442039

Sutherland v Network Appliance Ltd and Another: EAT 15 May 2000

EAT Lindsay P J said: ‘We have before us the appeal of Mr John Sutherland in the matter Sutherland v. two respondents, Network Appliance Ltd and Network Appliance Inc. Ms McManus appears for the appellant and Mr Napier for both respondents. Although Ms McManus has a secondary and alternative argument, the appeal chiefly raises this question: where, in existing proceedings for both statutory and contractual claims, there is a compromise not complying with section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 but nonetheless expressed as being in full and final settlement of any claim the appellant may have, (without there having been any reference to severability and without, also, the compromise being in any conveniently severable form), does section 203 make void the whole compromise or does it avoid only so much of the overall compromise as would offend section 203?’

Judges:

Lindsay P J

Citations:

[2001] IRLR 12, [2000] UKEAT 1391 – 99 – 1505

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.451301

South Manchester Abbeyfield Society Ltd v Hopkins and Another: EAT 30 Nov 2010

EAT NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE
The Appellant employed the Respondents as respectively deputy housekeeper and housekeeper at the Appellant’s sheltered accommodation. The housekeeper worked 37.5 hours per week (08.30 to 14.00 and 16.00 to 18.00 Monday to Thursday) but she was required to be on call in the flat provided to her from 21.00 to 08.00 each day she worked. The deputy housekeeper worked 08.30 to 14.00 and 16.00 to 18.00 on Friday and Saturday but was required to be on (with a room provided for her) from 21.00 Thursday to 08.30 Friday and 21.00 Friday to 08.30 Saturday. They claimed that the hours they were on call were hours during which they were ‘at work’ and so they were entitled to be paid for those on call hours at least at the rate of the national minimum wage. The ET so held. Its award to the Second respondent was ‘andpound;25,000 net.’ On appeal it was held that by virtue of Reg 15(1A) of the National Minimum Wage Regulations they were only entitled to be paid for those on call hours when they were awake for the purpose of working. In any event the ET did not have jurisdiction to make an award of ‘andpound;25,000 net’ ie andpound;25,000 plus tax and NI contributions. Its total jurisdiction was limited to andpound;25,000.

Judges:

Reid QC J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0079 – 10 – 3011

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426921

Mehta v Child Support Agency: EAT 5 Nov 2010

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Procedural irregularity
Tribunal entitled to take Claimant’s witness statement as read, notwithstanding that two of the Respondent’s witnesses had been permitted to read their statements out loud, in circumstances where the Judge had explained that course to the Claimant and obtained her consent.
Observations on when witnesses statements need and need not be read aloud.

Judges:

Underhill P J

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0127 – 10 – 0511, [2011] ICR D7, [2011] IRLR 305

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426919

Parmar v East Leicester Medical Practice: EAT 5 Nov 2010

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
Whether the statutory grievance procedure applies to a claim of post-termination victimisation. It does.
A claim alleging victimisation in consequence of evidence contained in witness statements served in proceedings in the employment tribunal failed for immunity.

Judges:

Peter Clark HHJ

Citations:

[2010] UKEAT 0022 – 10 – 0511, [2011] IRLR 641, [2011] ICR D1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Act 2002 32, Race Relations Act 1976

Cited by:

Cited – Singh v Moorlands Primary School and Another CA 25-Jul-2013
The claimant was a non-white head teacher, alleging that her school governors and local authority had undermined and had ‘deliberately endorsed a targeted campaign of discrimination, bullying, harassment and victimisation’ against her as an Asian . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426920