Category: Employment

Ali v Christian Salvesen Food Services Ltd: EAT 19 Dec 1994

Citations:

[1994] UKEAT 36 – 94 – 1912

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Ali v Christian Salvesen Food Services Ltd EAT 9-Jun-1995
. .
See also – Ali v Christian Salvesen Food Services Limited CA 18-Oct-1996
A collective agreement freely and exhaustively negotiated with a Union was not to have an extra term implied. Waite LJ warned that such agreements should be concise and clear, so as to be readily understood by all who are concerned to operate it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.210321

Hannigan v A B Stratos Ltd: EAT 11 Feb 1993

Claim by defendant that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction, saying that it had been filed out of time.

Judges:

Hargrove OBE QC HHJ

Citations:

[1993] UKEAT 367 – 92 – 1102

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Adams v GKN Sankey Ltd EAT 1980
The employee had been given twelve weeks notice of redundancy dismissal, and was not required to attend work during the notice period, but then worked additional days. A letter was written in November stating ‘you are given 12 weeks’ notice of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.210452

North Yorkshire County Council v Ratcliffe and others: EAT 21 Jan 1993

School catering assistants claimed equal pay under the Act. Their work had been valued as equal to that of men, but following a contracting out procedure, they earned less than men.
Held: The Council had failed to show that the difference was due to a material factor other than the difference in sex.

Citations:

[1993] UKEAT 501 – 92 – 2101

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970

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 . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – British Coal Corporation and Others, North Yorkshire County Council v Ratcliffe and Others CA 11-May-1994
School catering assistants did work which had been valued equally with that of men, but their jobs had been contracted out to direct service companies who paid them less.
Held: Market pressure which required the payment of lower wages to women . .
At EAT – Ratcliffe and Others v North Yorkshire County Council HL 7-Jul-1995
Three school dinner ladies had been employed by the Council at National Rates of pay and conditions. Their work which was almost exclusively carried out by females had been rated as of equal value to that of men employed by the council at various . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.210417

TNT Express UK Ltd v McConnell: EAT 25 Nov 1994

Citations:

[1994] UKEAT 612 – 94 – 2511

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Linfood Cash and Carry v Thomson EAT 1989
One employee had informed his employer that a fellow employee had stolen two books of credit notes. He refused to allow his identity to be disclosed for fear of reprisals. The Tribunal had held that the dismissal was unfair because although the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.210311

Taymech Ltd v Ryan: EAT 15 Nov 1994

Judges:

Mummery P J

Citations:

[1994] UKEAT 663 – 94 – 1511

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Capita Hartshead Ltd v Byard EAT 20-Feb-2012
EAT Unfair Dismissal : Reasonableness of Dismissal – Redundancy- selection of pool from which person to be selected for dismissal.
Does the statement of Mummery J in the case of Taymech v Ryan [1994] . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.210309

Garage Equipment Maintenance Co Ltd v Holloway: EAT 10 Nov 1994

The former employer appealed after having dismissed its former managing director, who had taken up other employment found that his current employers had further reduced the salary paid to the former employee thus increasing the damages claimed.

Judges:

Hull QC HHJ

Citations:

[1994] UKEAT 582 – 94 – 1011

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 74(1)

Employment

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.210248

McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment and Another: EAT 23 Nov 1994

The applicant was a temporary worker on the books of an employment agency, which went into insolvent liquidation. He claimed that he had a contract of service with the agency. That formed the basis of his application to the Secretary of State under the relevant employment protection legislation for payment of money owing to him in respect of his last engagement. The Secretary of State disputed his entitlement on the ground that he was not an employee of the agency and was self employed.

Citations:

[1994] UKEAT 1006 – 93 – 2311

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment CA 11-Dec-1996
The respondent as a temporary worker was entitled to be treated as an employee of an agency within the contract governing the particular engagement where money was due when the agency went into liquidation. He was therefore able to claim against the . .
Cited – Drake v Ipsos Mori UK Ltd EAT 25-Jul-2012
drake_ipsosEAT2012
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither
The Claimant worked for the Respondent as a market researcher under a succession of individual assignments. The Employment Judge erred in law in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.210270

Trollope and Colls Construction Ltd v Sharp: EAT 22 Jun 1994

Citations:

[1994] UKEAT 812 – 92 – 2206

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Mentioned – Arthur Guinness Son and Co (GB) Ltd v Green EAT 1989
The employee claimed unfair dismissal. On the tribunal indicating support, the employers asked for the period after which he could fairly have been dismissed so that that could calculate how much might be due. The tribunal indicated orally six . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.210019

Automotive amd Financial Group Ltd v Bark: EAT 10 Oct 1994

Citations:

[1994] UKEAT 398 – 94 – 1010

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.210137

United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar and others: EAT 29 Jul 1994

At a preliminary hearing, when the respondent failed to appear, the tribunal decided that it had jurisdiction to hear a case brought by the claimant against the respondent despite the 1978 Act. The respondent sought to appeal out of time.
Held: The Appeal Tribunal should pay regard also decisions on the procedure and practice of the Supreme Court on similar points. ‘The Appeal Tribunal and the law which it applies are not sealed in separate compartments impervious to the influence of general principles laid down from time-to-time by other courts in relevant areas of substantive law and procedure.’ Here, there was a real possibility of the decision being in error, and the Court had a duty to determine that issue correctly in any event. Leave was given.
The court gave guidance on the EAT accepting applications for leave to appeal out of time. There were three questions for the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the parties and their representatives: (1) What is the explanation for the default? (2) Does it provide a good excuse for the default? (3) Are there circumstances which justify the Tribunal taking the exceptional step of granting an extension of time? ‘The merits of the appeal may be relevant, but are usually of little weight. It is not appropriate on an application for leave to extend time for the appeal tribunal to be asked to investigate in detail the strength of the appeal. Otherwise there is a danger that an application for leave will be turned into a mini-hearing of the substantive appeal.’ Many explanations for delay do not in fact operate as excuses for delay. An appeal from the Registrar under rule 21(1) of the 1993 Rules is a re-hearing of the Registrar’s decision.

Judges:

Mummery P

Citations:

[1994] UKEAT 1025 – 93 – 2907, [1995] IRLR 243, [1995] ICR 65

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

State Immunity Act 1978 1 4, Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 37(1)

Citing:

Cited – Marshall v Harland and Wolff Ltd NIRC 1972
The doctrine of frustration can apply to contracts of employment. The Court looked at the situations in which it should extend time for an appeal to be filed: ‘Was the employee’s incapacity, looked at before the purported dismissal, of such a . .
Cited – Martin v British Railways Board EAT 1989
Use of discretion to allow appeals out of time. . .
Cited – Duke v Prospect Training Services Ltd EAT 1988
Use of tribunal’s discretion to extend time for appeal. . .
Cited – Regalbourne Ltd v East Lindsey District Council CA 16-Mar-1993
When applying to for an extension of time in which to appeal against an order made by a public policy statutory tribunal’s decision, it was incorrect to seek to apply in parallel, principles which applied to a striking out. . .
Cited – Costellow v Somerset County Council CA 1993
The court asked whether it was appropriate to allow an extension of time to file an appeal: ‘Save in special cases or exceptional circumstances it can rarely be appropriate on an overall assessment of what justice requires to deny the plaintiff an . .
Cited – Sengupta v Republic of India 1983
India did not appear at court to take a point on jurisdiction under the 1978 Act. The Court asked for the appointment of an amicus to assist it.
Held: The court has a duty under statute to give the effect to the immunity conferred, even though . .

Cited by:

Cited – Moroak T/A Blake Envelopes v Cromie EAT 19-Apr-2005
moroak_cromieEAT2005
EAT Response lodged at the Employment Tribunal 44 minutes late and the Employment Tribunal ordered that the Respondent could take no part in the proceedings and refused to review that order on the basis it had no . .
Cited – N Barrosso, M Mayou, A Gray, D Young v C Fahy EAT 31-Jan-2007
EAT Sex Discrimination – Vicarious liability. . .
Cited – Asda Stores Ltd v Thompson, Pullan, and Caller EAT 16-Jun-2003
The appellants had been dismissed after investigations satisfied the employer that the employees had been using illegal drugs. Cross appeals were made in the following misconduct unfair dismissal claim. The employees complained of the use of . .
See Also – United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar and Another EAT 10-Jul-1995
The appellant challenged a decision by the tribunal made in its absence that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear against it a claim for unfair dismissal.
Held: The tribunal had erred. Though Sengupta had been decided under common law, it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.210083

Shortall (T/A Auction Centres) v Carey: EAT 26 May 1994

Citations:

[1994] UKEAT 351 – 93 – 2605

Links:

Bailii

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.209934

Boal and Another v Gullick Dobson Ltd: EAT 7 Jun 1994

100 redundancies became inevitable. Pools of employees from which the selection would be made were created on an area basis. Workers in each pool were assessed for productivity, skill, quality of work, attendance, punctuality and sickness records by the worker’s manager, and the assessment rechecked. The board had set the weightings for each criterion overall. The applicant was selected and given an opportunity to discuss his selection with management. He asked for details of the assessments of other employees from his pool who had not been selected, but whom he regarded as more obvious candidates than himself for redundancy. That disclosure was refused, his dismissal went ahead, and he complained to an Industrial Tribunal that the refusal had made his dismissal unfair. He appealed to the EAT.
Held: the appeal failed. A practice of allowing employees selected for redundancy to see the assessments of those employees who had not been so selected would involve, especially in cases where the numbers were large, an impossibly protracted exercise, offensive to commonsense and practicality and threatening to stultify the intended fairness of the whole selection process.

Citations:

[1994] UKEAT 515 – 92 – 0706

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – British Aerospace plc v Green and Others CA 18-Apr-1995
The employer was to make 530 members of its staff redundant. Each staff member was assessed and scored. The claimants said that the method of selection was unfair, and sought disclosure of the scores of all employees.
Held: It was wrong to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.209961

Meikle v Nottingham City Council: EAT 14 Apr 1994

The appellant challenged dismissal of her claim for indirect racial discrimination based on two grounds. First, that the Tribunal’s decision was perverse; in other words that it was a decision which, on the evidence before it, no reasonable tribunal could have reached. Secondly, that the Tribunal failed to interpret the law relating to indirect discrimination correctly.

Judges:

Mummery P J

Citations:

[1994] UKEAT 249 – 92 – 1404

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 1(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp CA 1978
To succeed in a claim for constructive dismissal the plaintiff must establish a breach of contract by the defendant, that the breach was sufficiently serious to have justified the claimant resigning, or at least be the last in a series of events . .
Cited – Perera v Civil Service Commission (No 2) EAT 1982
The tribunal considered the method of selection of the pool on a claim for indirect discrimination. In this case the claimant alleged that an age test applied on his application would effectively limit the proportion of coloured who would meet the . .
Cited – Bliss v South East Thames Regional Health Authority CA 1985
General damages cannot be awarded for frustration, mental distress or injured feelings arising from an employer’s breach of the implied term of confidence and trust. Dillon LJ said that damages for mental distress in contract are limited to certain . .
Cited – Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd CA 1985
The court considered the circumstances under which an employee might resign and successfully claim constructive dismissal.
Glidewell LJ said: ‘This breach of this implied obligation of trust and confidence may consist of a series of action on . .
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 . .
Cited – Meikle v Nottingham City Council EAT 14-Apr-1994
The appellant challenged dismissal of her claim for indirect racial discrimination based on two grounds. First, that the Tribunal’s decision was perverse; in other words that it was a decision which, on the evidence before it, no reasonable tribunal . .
Cited – Meer v London Borough of Tower Hamlets CA 26-May-1988
The Court discussed the nature of ‘a requirement or condition’ for the purposes of the 1976 Act.
Held: Dillon LJ said: ‘The case of Perera decided that there can only be a requirement or condition within s.1(1)(b) of the Race Relations Act . .

Cited by:

See Also – Meikle v Nottinghamshire County Council EAT 19-Aug-2003
EAT Disability Discrimination – Less favourable treatment. The appellant brought proceedings against the Respondents alleging that they had failed to make adjustments to her workplace and conditions so as to . .
See Also – Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle CA 8-Jul-2004
The claimant was a teacher who had come to suffer a sight disability. She complained that her employers had failed to make reasonable accomodation for her disability, and subsequently she resigned claiming constructive dismissal and damages for . .
Cited – Meikle v Nottingham City Council EAT 14-Apr-1994
The appellant challenged dismissal of her claim for indirect racial discrimination based on two grounds. First, that the Tribunal’s decision was perverse; in other words that it was a decision which, on the evidence before it, no reasonable tribunal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.209846

James v Bank of England: EAT 13 Apr 1994

Citations:

[1994] UKEAT 226 – 94 – 1304

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mallalieu v Drummond HL 27-Jul-1983
The taxpayer was a barrister. To comply with Bar guidance on court dress, she wore, in court and in and to and from chambers black dresses, suits and shoes and white blouses. The clothing were perfectly ordinary articles suitable for everyday wear. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.209838