The applicant was employed by the respondent and sought leave to work for the CAB for a year, requesting a sabbatical. Leave was refused. He applied to the employment tribunal, but objected that the chairman had, in a previous case, indicated his strong dislike of the applicant. The chairman refused to recuse himself.
Held: The proposed appeal was not on a question of law, and the EAT did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. ‘The claim based on the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 and the Directive 97/81 EC seems to me to have been entirely misconceived. Those provisions were designed to protect part-time workers from being discriminated against when compared with full-time workers. They do not give a right to an employee who wants to go and work for somebody else to insist that his original employer continues to employ him part-time. ‘
Citations:
[2003] EAT 1285 – 02 – 0703, [2003] UKEAT 1285 – 02 – 0703
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Tribunals Act 1996 21(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Lodwick v London Borough of Southwark CA 18-Mar-2004
The claimant alleged bias on the part of the employment appeal tribunal chairman hearing his appeal. The chairman refused to stand down, saying that he was only one of three tribunal members with an equal vote. The chairman had four year’s . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Lodwick v London Borough of Southwark CA 18-Mar-2004
The claimant alleged bias on the part of the employment appeal tribunal chairman hearing his appeal. The chairman refused to stand down, saying that he was only one of three tribunal members with an equal vote. The chairman had four year’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.189318