Category: Employment

Opare-Addo v Wandsworth: EAT 5 Dec 2002

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 0740 – 01 – 0512

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 . .
See Also – Opare-Addo v Wandsworth Borough Council EAT 12-Dec-2001
. .
Cited – Opare-Addo v Wandsworth Borough Council EAT 11-Jul-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203329

Santamera v Express Cargo Forwarding (T/A IEC Ltd): EAT 26 Nov 2002

The claimant appealed against a decision that she had not been unfairly dismissed. She had been dismissed after complaints by a colleague, but had not been given the opportunity to examine him during the process.
Held: An employer was not duty bound to allow an employee subject to a disciplinary hearing to cross examine those who have made statements on which the employer wishes to rely: ‘in the workplace investigation of misconduct, cross-examination of complainants by the employee whose conduct is in question (or even confrontations between them) are very much the exception’ because ‘Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the cases decided under it and its predecessors do not, of course, require the dismissing employer to be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the employee whose conduct is in question has actually done what he or she is alleged to have done. . In a dismissal based on conduct, it is sufficient for the employer to have a genuine belief that the employee has behaved in the manner alleged, to have reasonable grounds for that belief, and to have conducted an investigation which is fair and proportionate to the employer’s capacity and resources. The employer has to act fairly, but fairness does not require a forensic or quasi-judicial investigation, for which the employer is unlikely in any event to be qualified, and for which he, she or it may lack the means.’

Citations:

EAT/780/01, [2002] UKEAT 780 – 01 – 2611, [2003] IRLR 273

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 96

Citing:

Cited – Ulsterbus v Henderson CANI 1989
O’Donnell LJ said: ‘It is quite clear in this case that a careful investigation was carried out by Mr Campbell, an appeal was heard by Mr Wilson, and a most meticulous review of all the evidence was carried out as evidenced by Mr Heubeck’s letter of . .
Cited – British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell EAT 1978
B had been dismissed for allegedly being involved with a number of other employees in acts of dishonesty relating to staff purchases. She had denied the abuse. The tribunal had found the dismissal unfair in the methods used to decide to dismiss her. . .
Cited – Khanum v Mid Glamorgan Area Health Authority EAT 1979
In a domestic tribunal such as that a disciplinary hearing, all that is required is that the three basic requirements of natural justice be fulfilled; namely (1) that the person should know the nature of the accusation against him or her; (2) that . .
Cited – British Leyland v Swift CA 1981
The court upheld the dismissal by employers of a long-serving employee who had stolen and subsequently altered a road fund licence belonging to his employers and had persistently lied about the incident.
Held: When considering the decision of . .
Cited – Neale v Hereford and Worcester County Council CA 1986
May LJ said that the decision of an employer’s disciplinary hearing: ‘neither the EAT nor this Court could disturb their decision unless one could say in effect ‘My goodness, that is certainly wrong’.’ He discussed the test for an apellate court . .
Approved – Ulsterbus v Henderson CANI 1989
O’Donnell LJ said: ‘It is quite clear in this case that a careful investigation was carried out by Mr Campbell, an appeal was heard by Mr Wilson, and a most meticulous review of all the evidence was carried out as evidenced by Mr Heubeck’s letter of . .
Cited – ADT Auctions Ltd v Nayar EAT 7-Apr-1998
The EAT considered a complaint by the dismissed employee that he had not been given the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses who had provided statements against him. . .
Cited – Southdown Housing Association v Barnard EAT 27-Jun-1997
Judge Hull said: ‘although an employer when conducting a disciplinary enquiry is undoubtedly required to behave fairly, he is not required to conduct a forensic hearing, a court-style hearing, in which witnesses are produced for cross-examination. . .
Cited – Regina v Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, Ex parte St Germain (No 2) CA 1979
Proper Limits on Imprisonment
The court discussed the proper limits of imprisonment: ‘despite the deprivation of his general liberty, a prisoner remains invested with residuary rights appertaining to the nature and conduct of his incarceration . . An essential characteristic of . .
See Also – Santamera v Express Cargo Forwarding (T/A Iec Ltd) EAT 1-Nov-2001
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Kennedy v Ashfield In2Focus Ltd NIIT 19-Mar-2008
. .
Cited – Abbey National Plc v Morgan EAT 11-Nov-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203258

Dime v Brent, Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Mental Health NHS Trust: EAT 6 Nov 2002

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 0806 – 02 – 0611

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, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203207

Ellis v Currencies Direct Ltd: EAT 12 Nov 2002

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Jurisdiction.

Judges:

His Hon Judge J Burke QC

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 0223 – 02 – 1211, EAT/223/02

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Citing:

See Also – Currencies Direct Limited v Ellis CA 31-May-2002
The claimant company appealed against an order declining to order repayment of sums they claimed to be due from the defendant, a former director of the company. They said the payments were repayable loans, and he said that they had been been . .
See Also – Currencies Direct Ltd v Ellis QBD 19-Oct-2001
The fact that a loan to a director was unlawful did not prevent a company seeking to recover or enforce the loan. A transaction made in contravention of section 330 was voidable at the instance of the company. The implication of section 341 was that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203214

Catherall v Michelin Tyre Plc: EAT 21 Oct 2002

EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability.

Judges:

Nelson J

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 915 – 01 – 2110, EAT/915/01, [2003] IRLR 61

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 4

Citing:

See Also – Catherall v Michelin Tyres Plc EAT 21-Nov-2001
. .

Cited by:

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

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203118

Boyle v Eurostar (UK) Ltd and Another: EAT 14 Oct 2002

The Applicant complained to the Employment Tribunal of unfair constructive dismissal, unlawful racial discrimination against the Respondents, Eurostar (UK) Ltd and Mrs Sully, and breach of contract, the first and last complaints being against her former employer Eurostar only. The claimant now appealed against rejection of her complaints and associated costs order.

Judges:

Peter Clark J

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 1487 – 01 – 1410

Links:

Bailii

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203113

Bewry v Cumbria County Council: EAT 10 Apr 2002

Appeal against rejection of complaint of unfair dismissal.
Held: The appeal failed raising no arguable point of law.

Judges:

Peter Clark HHJ

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 1122 – 01 – 1004

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Bewry v Cumbria County Council EAT 10-Dec-1997
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Bewry v Cumbria County Council CA 8-Oct-2002
Renewed application for leave to appeal against decisions rejecting the claimants claims for unfair dismissal.
Held: Leave was refused. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.202695

BLP UK Ltd v Marsh: EAT 10 Apr 2002

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Other

Judges:

Mr Recorder Langstaff QC

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 187 – 01 – 1004, EAT/187/01

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – BLP UK Ltd v Marsh EAT 12-Jun-2001
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – BLP UK Ltd v Marsh CA 16-Jan-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.202698

Gilbert and others v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council: EAT 12 Apr 2002

EAT Mr Gilbert was paid for 44 weeks a year, of which 38 weeks were those in which he was required to work. The issue was whether, as the ET had held, ‘a week’s pay’ fell to be calculated by dividing the annual salary payable monthly to the employees by 52; or whether it fell to be divided by 44.
Held: The EAT allowed the employees’ appeal. The applicable denominator was the number of weeks for which the employee is paid, including weeks of paid holiday entitlement.
Wall J said: ‘Although the contracts of employment in this case are agreed to be annual contracts, we cannot lose sight of the reality, which seems to us to be at the heart of each of these contracts, namely that the Appellants were paid to work for a total of 43 or 44 weeks a year (including holiday periods) and that none of the Appellants was required to work, did work, or were paid to work in the remaining 8/9 weeks of the year. Mr Gilbert’s contract of employment says in terms that he is ’employed in a term-time only capacity for 37 hours a week’. The contract goes on to make it clear that he was paid for 44 weeks a year, and that the actual working year is 38 weeks and 2 days, with the balance of 5 weeks and 3 days being a pro rata payment of annual and public holidays applicable to full time staff. In this context, it is difficult to regard the manner of payment ‘in twelve equal instalments’ as being other than an administrative convenience, and we cannot give it the weight which Mr Cavanagh’s submissions require it to be given.’

Judges:

Wall J

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 674 – 00 – 1204, EAT/674/00

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Citing:

See Also – Gilbert and others v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council EAT 18-Jan-2001
The parties sought to appeal the method of calculation of the notice period in redundancy calculations affecting part time workers in educational establishments: ‘ The employers contended that since the employees were paid by 12 equal monthly . .

Cited by:

Cited – Agard v Westminster Kingsway College CA 20-Oct-2011
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.202719

Fyffes Group Ltd v Bazley: EAT 22 Mar 2002

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 1043 – 01 – 2203

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See also – Fyffes Group Ltd v Bazley EAT 15-Oct-2002
EAT Jurisdiction – Whether the Tribunal had given sufficient reasons for their finding that the claimant had been disabled. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.202609

Buckwell v Ashfield District Council: EAT 14 Mar 2002

The appellant had been a housing officer employed by the respondent and was an official of his Union. He attended (while off work through sickness) a meeting of local tenants opposed to the Council’s policies. He was suspended pending a discilplinary process on condition that he not meet other employees, but was alleged to have continued to lobby other staff members about housing. The Council said that his involvement in the campaign was not part of his activities as a Union official. He appealed against rejection of his sebtion 146 claim.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘if what the Respondents have done serves to prevent Mr Buckwell from carrying out trade union activities, then it must consider the reason, that is, the purpose with which it did that act so as to determine whether that purpose was prohibited by section 146.’ and ‘we are quite satisfied that the use of the ‘but for’ test did not reflect an error of law.’

Judges:

Holland J

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 51 – 01 – 1403

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992 146(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – F W Farnsworth Limited v McCoid CA 31-Mar-1999
A company which refused to recognise a union shop steward as such, because of the way in which he behaved, was treating him less favourably to restrict those activities, despite the fact that he had not been treated worse as an employee.
In . .
Cited – Associated Newspapers Ltd v Wilson; Associated British Ports v Palmer HL 31-Mar-1995
The Daily Mail had recognised the Union to which their journalists belonged. They wanted to end this arrangement, and offered a better rate of pay to non-members. The union said this was an unlawful action taken because of union membership. Similar . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.202590

Andreou v Lord Chancellor’s Department: EAT 4 Mar 2002

EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal

Judges:

Mr Commissioner Howell QC

Citations:

EAT/0037/01, EAT/0036/01, [2002] UKEAT 36 – 01 – 0403

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Cited by:

Appeal from – Andreou v Lord Chancellor’s Department CA 22-Jul-2002
The Claimant had requested a postponement of the tribunal hearing on the basis of a medical certificate which stated that she was unfit to attend work. It therefore adjourned the proceedings for one week with directions that a medical report be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.202580

Warman International Ltd v Wilson: EAT 7 Mar 2002

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 1383 – 00 – 0703

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Warman International Ltd v Gwilson EAT 7-Jan-2002
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract. . .
See Also – Warman International Ltd v Wilson EAT 25-Jan-2002
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.202679

Oderinde v Datapact Ltd: EAT 14 Jan 2002

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation

Judges:

His Hon Judge J R Reid QC

Citations:

EAT/611/00, [2002] UKEAT 0611 – 00 – 1401

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Oderinde v Datapack Ltd EAT 15-Nov-2000
. .
Cited – Charles Letts and Co v Howard EAT 1976
Abusive language between employer and employee may be repudiatory of the contract. However, an apology may lead to the conclusion that the conduct is not repudiatory but this is likely to be only the position where the words were spoken in heat and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.202460