The appeal was refused for the following reasons:
1) A collectively agreed term regarding the advertisement of permanent vacancies, though incorporated into an individual contract of employment, was truly collective in nature and did not give rise to enforceable individual rights on the part of the employee.
2) On the facts found by the Tribunal in this case, advertisement of such a vacancy did not amount to a breach of the Malik implied duty of trust and confidence.
3) There was no obligation on a Tribunal to consider an extension of the primary time limit under section 123 of the Equality Act, 2010 where no evidence or argument in support of the exercise by the tribunal of that discretion was presented by the claimant. In any event, the Tribunal found that the alleged acts of victimisation and harassment to which the time bar would have applied had not been proved.
4) Where parties had produced to the Tribunal an agreed schedule of loss including agreed figures for compensation for hurt feelings, it was neither necessary nor appropriate for the Tribunal further to uprate such figures for inflation.
5) In awarding compensation for hurt feelings, the Tribunal had correctly addressed its mind to the question of causation and had properly considered the extent to which the Appellant’s feelings were hurt by the proven act(s) of discrimination.
[2021] UKEAT 0006 – 20 – 2403
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 04 June 2021; Ref: scu.661948 br>